City Council - Regular Meeting

Call to order the regular meeting September 1st, 2026. City Clerk, roll call, please.

Council Members Wright and Booker.

Here.

Alford.

Here.

Morawit. Here. Vice Mayor Lackey. Here. Mayor Singh.

Here. That will go ahead and move on to invocation and flag salute. We have Father Banca from St. Anthony's Catholic Church.

and many blessings upon the council members and also upon the city of Menteca. Father in heaven, we ask you to bless and give your wisdom to all the members of the Menteca City Council. Give your guidance to all who serve our community. give our council integrity, compassion, and courage to make decisions that promote peace, unity, and bring many blessings to the people to be joyful and be happy. Bless all the people of Menteca, families, children, business, so that our people can be joyfully loving one another to build a stronger and loving community. Let your Holy Spirit come upon all of us. Being guided by your Spirit, we'll learn to love one another and be able to strengthen the bonding of the community here in Manteca. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

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

Mayor and council, we have the following supplemental reports. Public comment received from the public, communications received from the public for item C6, communication received from the public for item D1, and an added attachment to a PowerPoint presentation from staff. We also have communication received from the public for item D3, adding attachment 15, which is a PowerPoint presentation by the applicant. 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 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, 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. Mayor and Council, that's all I have for you tonight.

All right, thank you, City Clerk. With that, we'll go ahead and move on to disclosure of ex parte communications. OK, seeing none, if the Council can join me for our one long presentation.

Presentation A1, proclamation proclaiming September 2026 as senior center month. If we can have the recreation staff members and the senior advisory committee to accept the proclamation.

Whereas National Senior Center Month originated as National Senior Center Week in May of 1979, was proclaimed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, and was extended to the full month of September in 2007, and...

Whereas the Manteca Senior Center serves as a focal point for the provision and coordination of the broad spectrum of services and activities for older adults throughout the city of Manteca, and...

Whereas through the array of services, programs, activities, the Senior Center empowers older citizens to contribute to their own health and well-being and...

Whereas the Manteca Senior Center affirms the dignity, self-worth, and independence of older persons by facilitating their decisions and actions, tapping their experiences, skills, and knowledge, and enabling their continued contributions to the community and...

Now, therefore, I, Gary Singh, Mayor of the City of Manteca, on behalf of City Council, do recognize the month of September as Senior Center Month and urge all citizens to join in and celebrate the special contributions of the Senior Center participants and the special efforts of the staff and volunteers who work every day to enhance the well-being of the older citizens of our community. All right, Mr. Light, do you want to say something?

I didn't want to, but you'll make me. You'll be second.

Hi, everyone. My name is Tyler. I am the Recreation Supervisor. I oversee the Senior Center, and these are all of our lovely volunteers that work at the Senior Center. I want to, first of all, thank Mayor and Council for recognizing National Senior Center Month for September. Thank you. As I said, I'm honored to be here recognizing the National Senior Center Month and also to have all of these lovely people up here that have put in so much time and dedication to the Senior Center and all the programs and services that we run. I put a little list here together so I could make sure I remember everything. But from senior volunteers in the kitchen to Bingo to Brown Bag to our instructors who teach all of our classes to the leisure programs and the leads that run them, to our special events coordinators who help us with Native Pride, Black History Month celebration, Pink Party, to our senior advisory committee who are members. We have some of them up here today. And all of them for putting in their time and dedication to make sure that the things that we are able to offer, we can because of what they do and all their time. And one of the things that people don't know is that we also have a trips and tours volunteer group. And they're over here to my left. They plan day trips, international trips year round. And so it's not just for seniors. If you're interested in taking a trip, hop on down to the senior center and you can get in touch with them. But yeah, so with that being said, I'm gonna pass it down to Ron, who is our chair of the Senior Advisory Committee. Thank you so much.

Thanks, Tyler. If you're 60 and over, 50 and over, There are numerous things that can be done at the Senior Center. We served over 14,000 congregate meals this year, last year. We have 27 local trips with the trips and tour, plus our trips and tour unit earned the number one spot for the best trip planning, what do you call it? travel agency this year. We have Friday night bingo, and we have spaghetti bingo the third Monday of every month. And those are getting where they're filled up. The monies from that helps offset people that want to go on trips and may have a little bit of a financial problem. So if you want to play bingo, pots are $175. The 50-50 has been running over $200, and we're pretty much sold out every first Friday and every bingo, every spaghetti bingo night. So it's very interesting that. We have all kinds of things from Zumba to yoga, chair yoga, for those that would want to do that, and line dancing, pool, rec. Tai Chi, yeah, just about anything you'd want. And our numbers are up about where we were before COVID and we're getting quite big. Fortunately that in the long range plan, we're looking at a new senior center as well as a community center. And we're going to be working our way that direction at the rate we're going. So I invite you all to find your niche. We even have a charcuterie. Yeah, thank you. We have classes for that. So there's just about anything you'd like at the Senior Center. So come on down.

Thank you for the time.

Real quickly, I'm going to be putting this down on the table over there. This is our flyer for National Senior Center Month. We're celebrating National Senior Center Month by having activities, games, food. So if you want to participate, those activities start at 1230 p.m. every Wednesday of September. So we'll be starting that tomorrow. So, yeah, come on by. There's plenty to do. Thank you.

Right.

All right, congratulations to the senior centers and our seniors. With that, we will go ahead and move on to public comments.

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

OK, let's start with Zoom.

I have no hands raised for public comment for items not listed on the agenda via Zoom.

Okay, comment cards.

I do have a few comment cards. The first card I have is Brad.

Brad.

Hello, good evening. I'm just here as a follow-up from the 18th of August on a meeting regarding ADA violations. I just brought a couple cue cards, you know, with a couple writings. It's not very good. I can't write, but somebody else wrote it for me. So anyways, what the problem is, is the city of Manteca's got an egregious, systematic pattern of violating ADA regulations. Title II under CFR 28, Section 35-105, and Section 35-150, and Section 35-1.51, and California codes, civil codes 51, 54, 54.1, And at my disposal, California Code 55 regarding the issues with the city of Manteca that's been ongoing for decades. It's not systemic for the last or previous AD or SCPT. It's a living document. So it must be updated consistently, constantly. So my municipal golf course has been out of compliance since 1990 because from the lipstick, I'm sorry, I use metaphors a lot. The lipstick from the Union Road to the tennis courts is real nice, but the pig is still in the background, okay? From the tennis courts all the way to the clubhouse, there's no accessibility. The curbs are destroyed. I take pictures back in 2010. I've got a series of pictures with my friend that's with me. and his wheelchair going throughout the entire golf course up to the club to illustrate that. As well, I would encourage the mayor, the council members, and anybody else in the building to look up Brad Peters' Manteca Bulletin or Manteca Bulletin Brad Peters so they could observe and read the documents and the paper articles regarding this. I had a big meeting in 2014 with Jim Stone, Joe Kriscovich, and... Frederick Clark, and the state of California ADA. You had Brad Woodlow, if that's his name correctly, as a CASP person at that time. And right now, I put in a request for DAC track documents I'm still waiting on. As well, I got a couple bullet points here. that I would like to point out. The utility pole on Center Street has been there. In 1989, I have certain city minutes pre-ADA, and from there, the city of Manteca transferred CDBG funds from the Rose and Goodall Is that all the time that I have?

Yes, sir.

Would you like to have an extended minute for me? How many comment cards do we have?

I have seven just for public comment that have turned in public.

Sir, you can just submit your comments. Excuse me? Submit your comments to the city clerk.

I'll be back on the next meeting to follow up. Thank you.

No problem.

The next public comment card I have is Mike.

Good evening. Mike DeAnda, Operating Engineers, Union Local 3 Business Group. I'm here tonight to speak to you about the ongoing labor negotiations. Yes, we have reached impasse. I look forward to our next meeting. In regards to our last negotiation meeting, we had discussions on the amendment of your last, best, and final offer to us. And we appreciate that movement. We really do. Especially with the additional 1% going into the first year. Because that's one of our biggest ask is to front load. So we want to thank you for that. But unfortunately, this still falls short of our ask. Our employees are still struggling to make ends meet on basic items, struggling to pay their bills and feed their families. Some are paying their utility bills on credit cards, and some are needing to visit local food pantries and food banks. At this last negotiation meeting, discussions were had with your team on a path to a deal. So I hope you take that into consideration. And please make the commitment to your employees to do the right thing and pay them at a level that attains stability, independence, and confidence in you as leaders that assures them that they have chosen the right employer to work for. Thank you very much.

The next public comment card I have is Joseph.

Good evening. My name is Joseph Keith. I've worked for Manteca for five years and I've lived here my whole life. Tonight I am speaking on behalf of two bargaining units, Operating Engineers Local 3 and the Technical and Support Services Association. Together we represent 214 of the people who keep the city running every single day. We live here, shop here, raise our families here, and right now, too many of us are struggling to make ends meet in the same city that we serve. Housing, groceries, fuel, and utilities have risen faster than our pay. For a lot of our members, staying in Manteca is no longer a given, it is a stretch. Some of us already commute from farther away because we cannot afford to live where we work. That is why we were asking to be brought up to the median market wage in the first year of the contract and then given cost of living increases that actually keep up with the market and inflation. If 1% a year is not enough for other bargaining units, it should not be enough for us. We are asking to be paid what comparable cities already pay for the same work. Work This council's own compensation study showed is behind the market. From our standpoint, we are not being greedy. It feels like the city is being unreasonable and yet we still show up. We show up proud. We show up even when we feel treated unfairly. We show up because the work matters and because residents need the city to function. That pride should be met with a fair contract, not more delay. Fair contract would do more than put money in our paychecks. It would lift the stress and pressure our members carry into work every day. It would boost morale when people are not worrying about rent, groceries, and whether they can stay in the community they serve, they do better work. They stay, they train the next person, they take care of the city as if it is their own, because it is. That is a direct benefit to the public. Keeping skilled employees means fewer vacancies, more consistent service, and better work for the people who live here. A city that takes care of the workforce that keeps it running is a city that works better for everyone. Give these 214 employees a contract they can live on in Manteca. Bring us to the market median in year one and keep us there with real cost of living increases. Morale will rise, stress will ease, and the public will feel the difference in the work we do. Again, there are 214 employees whose families depend on these careers. This is supposed to be the family city. Well, your decision is going to directly impact 214 families. Thank you for your time.

The next public comment card I have is Sudhakar.

Good evening, council and fellow residents. Thank you for the opportunity. I think being the month of senior month, I think the first speaker would have been allotted a minute. He needs to come back for the next meeting again. Okay, coming to the point, I would like to read few of the Mandika code of ethics. So, Few of them, so the reason I'll comment. Act independently, impartially, and fairly in their judgment and actions. Use public office for public good, not personal gain. Conduct public deliberations and government process openly, except where confidentiality is legally required. maintain an atmosphere of respect and civility, promote public confidence and trust in city government. So these are few and there are many, but I would like to come back on the last meeting on August 18th for the Manteca general plan guidelines. One is, The goal, Land Use 7, provide adequate land for development of public and quasi-public uses, including parks, schools, and community facilities to support existing and new development and the community needs. The goal CF8, coordinate with school districts to provide superior educational opportunities, adequate school sites to serve existing and planned growth, and ensure sufficient land inventory to accommodate the educational facilities needs of Manteca residents. And the goal, community design 4.7. Each neighborhood shall include a distinct center, such as an elementary school, neighborhood parks, and or a mixed-use commercial area with reasonable walking distance of the homes, approximately one-half miles. when I read this community goal 4.7, instead of concentrating on the need for elementary school to be in a walking distance, many of them are reasoning about the grammatical and or condition because the decisions which are needed to be taken are in public interest. Thank you.

The next public comment card I have is Valerie.

Hi. My name is Valerie Ford. And I am just up here. I just want to make a comment. Well, everybody's making a comment, but I want to thank the council for the Senior Center, dedicating that for the month I work there. I teach my Zumba classes there, including my kids' classes, my regular class, and the senior classes. It's a wonderful place, and you only have to be 50, so sadly, I already qualify. But it's a great place, and there's great people there, and it has really... And just being there around the people is just wonderful and just shows you just, you know, how much life you can have, you know, even as you grow older and so much fun. So that being said, I'm here on behalf of the Central Valley Skater Roller Skater Group. And I just want to thank the city for the support that you have given us. We don't have a dedicated place. I know you guys have been getting some complaints from people because we've been using the basketball courts, thanks to the city have let us use the basketball courts on Tuesday nights. And we also have used the tennis courts at times. And we realize the complaints of people. We understand that they're courts, like we totally get it. We don't wanna be the bad guy. Right now we just don't have a place to skate. But we know you guys are working on it. I'm so excited. I know there's a lot of, I appreciate the support because a lot of cities don't support things like this. It's a fun thing. We have had within, this will be the fifth month, September, and we've had over 70 people sign up for roller skating lessons. So it is really just taking off and I'm so excited. and we are literally the cheapest one. We don't even need you to build anything. Just find a parking lot. We'll bring the cones, disco lights, the music, and the skates, and everybody's invited because we welcome everybody, no matter where you're from, even from other cities. We got skaters coming from Stockton, Tracy, and Modesto, all down this way. That being said, I also wanted to just Send a shout out to both the council, the workers, the city workers. I love this city. This is my city. I know a lot of loud voices are out there. A lot of negativity is out there. I'm pretty sure I'm louder than everybody. But I... Use my voice when it matters. I'm not going to just start typing on a keyboard. I need you to know that you've done a lot. You're not perfect, but you listen, and that's a two-edged sword for you guys. So I thank the city for listening, opening it up to the public, actually responding backward. To be honest, I wouldn't have. But I thank you for what you've done. I thank you for your support. I'm excited for the future of this city. And I am blessed to be a Mantecan. And I thank you so much for what you do.

The next comment card I have is Leanne.

Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Leanne Barletta-Larsen, and I'm here to raise a public safety concern regarding the recycled tire mulch at Shasta Park. This past weekend, my husband and I took our three-year-old son to the park, but had to leave after 10 minutes because we acquired headaches from the intense odor that were there. And we were really concerned for our child. So I chatted with other parents, and some parents had the same problems while others did not. From a brief research, I was able to find out that the playground was constructed around 2008, 2009, and that the rubber mulch was made out of roughly 20,000 recycled tires. If that material has never been replaced, it is now approximately 17 years old. The question I'm asking tonight is simple. Has anyone tested it? Research by the EPA has established that recycled tire material contains volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and other chemical constituents. EPA researchers have also studied that tire material at elevated temperatures and found that emissions of some compounds increased under hotter conditions. That matters in Manteca. Our playground surfaces do not stay at an ordinary air temperature during the Central Valley summers. Children play close to the ground where they are breathing that zone can be directly above the material. While I'm not claiming that Shasta Park is toxic and unsafe for our children, I am asking the city to find out if it is. I'm not aware of if the material has been replaced whether there is an expected life of the product or whether the surface has been maintained and tested according to its specifications. Given the intense odor and the headache experienced by others, I am asking the city to conduct air testing during an actual hot summer afternoon when the rubber is heated by the sun, as well as to test the air in a child's breathing zone directly above the surface and compare those results with background air away from the playground. It would also be reassuring to parents to conduct playground impact testing to determine whether this aging material still provides protection from falls that it was designed to provide. When we're talking about playgrounds used by our children, those are reasonable things to ask. I also note that the sidewalk to the playground may not be ADA compliant. Thank you.

The last public comment card I have is Cindy. That's all the public comment cards that I have.

Okay. Anybody else in the public would like to speak on an item that's not on the agenda tonight?

Good evening. I want to bring up again about Pillsbury. I've been trying to keep up with the paper to make sure that This is still an ongoing taking care of the business. And when we had the meeting on July 9th, from what I got, the people came there not to listen to us. They came there with their posters, what they was going to do, how they were going to do it. So I don't know if it's been settled. I don't know if it's been looked at again. Since we had the meeting on July 9th, the next day Mr. Wilson did send an email to And so I did get that. He was thanking everybody for being there. But I spoke to the gentleman who owned the property. He was going around talking to all people. I spoke to him, I asked him, number one, where do you live and what do you do? He was very bold. He told me, he said, oh, I live, I'm sure you guys know where he live, and his business. He told me about his business. He told me where he live and everything. And he let me know that you can't sell and make money. He said, you make money if you got a gas station, if you got stores. He let me know what he wanted to do and what to expect. So I don't know if this is true. I don't know if you've checked into it. But he and I talked a long time. And I was like, hmm, you don't give a crap. So, but he did tell me everything I asked him, he answered it. Oh, I got this, I do this, I live here, I live there. He told me everything I asked him, everything. And then when I was telling some of the people that he had talked to what he said, they was like, well, he didn't say that. I said, well, he told me, he was just bragging about what he, heck with what you people want. So I just would like, to stay intact. I'd be looking in the paper trying to keep up with Pillsbury. So, and I haven't seen anything unless I missed it. I haven't seen anything. So I just want to, I would appreciate if you keep that in mind on whatever. Thank you.

Thank you. Come up, sir.

Good evening. I did turn in a public card, but they didn't call me, but that's okay. I'm here because I've been living in Manteca since 2000. I'm a retired law enforcement officer. I'm also a pastor. I was an ex-chaplain with Manteca PD, and congratulations on breaking new ground. But now I'm here because there's a lot of growth around our neighborhood and now in the D3 area you're thinking about putting a or someone is about putting an apartment complex in that area. Now it's becoming a noise pollution area. A lot of traffic is going through there. We have children with bikes and everything and they're not looking at the safety around that community. They said about noise pollution. There's more pollution now than there ever is with the car washes, with the cars coming in, honking, crashes, and all that. Even though there is stoplights, there's still going on more things that the city needs to look into. And living there for such a long time, I've made this city as a family city, which I've heard quite a few times now. But what I haven't heard is what we're doing to encourage the people to stay here. What it looks like is that whatever you're building is making people go away. And that's not how you keep good people in a city that has volunteered, has given their time. But I can say this, that if you don't go into the community and start asking questions for what is good for them based on the totality of the circumstances, then you're going to lose what is good. Now, in growth, it's great. And it's good for the actual city in making money. But at the end...

I believe this is item D three. We're currently on public comment. Okay, so these are four items not listed on the agenda.

Well, I just wanted to put put my two cents in. But thank you anyway, we'll give you another chance.

Thanks during the item. So again, just a reminder, this is for items that are not listed on the agenda.

So anybody have any public comments on items not on the agenda tonight? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and move on to consent items.

Mayor and Council, I do have a request to have an item pulled from public. Item C6.

I have a C6 from the public. Charlie? Gina? Mike?

None.

Okay, and I want to pull C5. Okay, if I get a motion for all items not pulled. Second. We have a motion from Vice Mayor Lackey, second from Council Member Halford. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. 5-0. Take us to C5.

Adopt a resolution approving updated position control list of positions. Two, new job classifications. Three, salary schedule updates for the Manteca Police Employees Association. part-time at-will positions, Manteca Technical Support and Services Association, unrepresented management, confidential employees unit, and unrepresented executive management. Four, updated unrepresented management, confidential employees unit compensation plan document. Five, updated... executive management compensation plan document, and six, appropriations to the fund of the recommended position changes. Mayor and Council, we have City Manager Tony Lungrente.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and Council. So the item before you tonight is updated position control list for positions, new job classifications, and salary schedule updates. So I'm just going to go give you a brief overview. So we have six new full-time positions, and their funding sources are identified in the staff report. On June 16th, 2026, council approved and adopted our budget, although at that time we were waiting for contract negotiations to close before we moved forward with further positions. Tonight we are moving forward with those recommendations. So there's six full-time positions. We're recommending an overfill due to extended leaves for a police sergeant, which will be funded out of Measure Q. A new, brand new police sergeant position, which will be funded out of CFDs. A police officer that will be a school resource officer, which is partially funded with MUSD, which was a new addition to the joint use agreement. We'll have a new police officer, an additional one, funded out of CFDs. A public safety dispatcher, which we have not added in many, many, many years. And if you have questions specific to any of the areas, I'll leave it to the directors to specifically answer. That will be funded out of CFDs. And then also we have had a few retirements in our IT and Innovation Department in our Parks, Recreation, and Transit. So we are also including tonight in the presentation in the agenda report some new positions or updated positions. So there's going to be an Assistant Director of Parks, Recreation, and Transit. And then also some budget conversions or reclassifications. We're taking a kennel assistant at our animal shelter, and we're recommending that the part-time position be turned into a full-time position. Management analysts and IT, and then an assistant director in IT and technology and innovation, a management analyst in development services, recreation supervisor, which was a former recreation manager, an assistant director of engineering, that's just a title change. We're updating our payroll technician to a payroll supervisor. And we in our homeless and housing division are adding in a project specialist that will be focused on outreach and services full-time. And then some new part-time positions that we're looking to add in are an animal control rescue coordinator. A lot of other animal control agencies have this position. We have never had it. But in preparation for the expansion of the animal shelter, we thought it would be a good position to bring on part-time. A police records clerk, which is another position we have not put in for many years. And the chief can answer questions specifically on that as well. And then a part-time code enforcement officer. And then, Stephanie, if you have anything to add, you can as well. But those are the positions and the funding areas. and the reclassifications that are identified. If you look to the fiscal impact, you can see the appropriations and what funds they're specifically coming out of as well. And I am happy to answer any questions you may have this evening as well as the department heads if they're specific to their department. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd just like to say, you know, I'm glad to see all of these. I'm also glad that we have Measure Q and that we've added on CFDs to allow to fund, which is the bulk of the cost of these positions, especially the public safety side. I guess for the police chief, kind of maybe kind of go through what's the plan with the positions you're getting and where do you think you're going to place them?

So thank you, Stephen Schlitter, Police Chief. What we are going to be doing with the positions, so the part-time records clerk is going to, the part-time records clerk and code enforcement are both the 1,400 hours and not the, what is it, 980 hours? and so they're able to have more hours to spend in records. Records has five full-time with three PFAs, and right now the part-timer will come in. We have had an increase since I wanna say 2009 to records. The code enforcement, will be there to help augment the code enforcement area. And as of right now, code enforcement is more just responsive and not proactive in this. And they have a very large caseload. There's a code enforcement officer, a supervisor, and then an assistant in the office. and this will give them more time to spread out the caseload and get out and do more code enforcement rather than just being responsive. On the sworn side, we will be getting a new FTE position and that position will be staffed with patrol. We have several that are out on different types of injury. Once we get people back from injuries and with this new body, we'll be able to backfill the spots that have not been backfilled in investigations. including general crimes and street crimes. We'll also, once we're healthy, we'll be able to fill back to an additional traffic officer. The full-time sergeant's position is going to be A sergeant who is over our community resource officers and our school resource officers on day shift, including those for the day shift supervisor to supervisor is about 15, including booking and CSO. And your span of control is really optimally seven. And so with four SROs and the two CROs, that's six. This will give more guidance and supervision to those specific units. He will also be a working CRO as we have, as in traffic, we have a working traffic sergeant who rides a motor, takes crashes. He will also be out there with the CROs as additional help, not just as a supervisor. He will do the supervision, obviously, of both units, but he'll be another resource to our CRO unit with another body. The over-hire sergeant's position will backfill that position on patrol. to maintain six patrol sergeants, one sergeant over traffic, and then now the additional sergeant who will be over the community resource officers and the school resource officers. I think I covered everything. If I didn't, hit me up.

I think you got it. I think you got it all. And then I also do appreciate your side to make the kennel assistant a permanent position. And then also, I think the animal control rescue coordinator is going to be really key into the future, especially as we grow our animal shelter, and then also try to make sure and help with getting grants and plus placing pets into homes and not in our shelter. So looking really forward to some of these positions and getting them through. So any questions from council? Go ahead, sir.

Just to add on to that, we use the term CFD. That's Community Facilities District. That's what we talk about. New development doesn't pay its way. That was the old way. The new way is that all the new homes that are being built, they're paying the CFD, Community Facilities District, fees on their homes. That's for a new component. which is public safety and for roads and streets in their neighborhoods. So that's partially what's funding this, the sergeant, the PD officer, and the dispatcher. So that's important to let people know that we are using the monies that we collect on new developments to help pay forward these issues so we don't get behind with personnel, especially in public safety. That'll work with fire as well, because in this particular case, we used it to take care of some of the needs of the police department. Measure Q, of course, was for the overfill of the sergeant. So those are two items that we have brought forward that are at least two different measures, one for new houses developed and one for sales. So I think it's important that we showcase that these are being used as we promised. Thank you.

Yes, sir. If no other comments, I will open it up for public comment.

I have no hands raised, and I have no cards.

Okay, anybody in the public would like to speak on item C-5? Okay, seeing none, I'll bring it back to council. If there's no more questions or comments, I entertain a motion.

Motion for approval.

Second. Okay, I have a motion from Council Member Morowitz, second from Council Member Breitenberger. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. We'll go to C-6.

waive the second reading by substitution of the title and adopt 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 one through four project. And tonight we have director of development services, Brad Onelock.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, Brad Walnut, Director of Development Services. I believe this item was pulled by a member of the public, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Sure, I'll open it up for public comment.

Perfect. My card is from Sudakar.

On up, sir.

Good evening, Council and fellow residents. Thank you for the opportunity. So this item was last, on August 18, there was a public hearing, and there was a supplemental report with around 70, 78 signatures and 20 emails. Around 98 people opposed the reduction of school site 0.82 acre for a non-public use. So city and school district had an agreement of one acre Tara Park for the sole purpose of fire station. But city needs only 0.18. And ideally, the decision making of a public interest would be to return that 0.8 to the school district because the site that was initially 16.98 in 2014 is reduced to 15.87 in 2024. for street improvements and now with that again reduced to 14.87. So the goal of land use seven, which is adequate land, the number of homes around that site are 3,000 and additional 2,000 homes are in pipeline. that means there would be around 5,000 homes. So the existing site which was in 16.98 back in 2014 will not be sufficient to the entire 5,000 homes that are going to be built. And city had unable to provide any adequate site public infrastructure for it. And one of the previous meets with the council the council asked me that how are you sure that this 0.82 acre is not going to be a for a future public use if it is for future public use the zoning will stay as pqp not converted to hdr also the developer who has given 1.882 acre PD Dana for the apartments from the apartment site. He got a one acre land that is of the city owned being converted to a commercial zone which is of the site one. We all request is stop the PQP to HDR and approve the remaining zoning conversions. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Stocker. I don't know if there was a question in any of that, but I think, Brad, maybe you can explain the split, this 0.8, 0.12, and how we got to one acre, two acres for the fire station.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. As mentioned at the previous council meeting, the school district is giving the city one acre. As part of that one acre, 0.18 is being separated from the 0.82 as was mentioned. That 0.82 on the southern portion of that donation is going to potentially be considered by council for somewhat of a swap at a future meeting with PD Dana. That will also allow the city to acquire a two acre parcel at the north part of that parcel. of the apartment site, thereby reducing the HDR site and increasing the PQP that is currently between those two parts. So that will increase by 1.18 acres the PQP general plan and zoning designations for those parts. It's all said and done, it's going to be a watch. There will actually be more PQP than there currently is on that site.

The school district only gave an A. Correct. Anybody else in the public would like to speak on this item? Okay. I'll bring it back to council. Any questions, comments? Okay. If none, I'll wait for a motion. Motion to approve. We have a motion from Council Member Breitenberger, second from Council Member Halford. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Okay. With that, that takes us to our first public hearing.

B1, adopt an urgency ordinance pursuant to California government code section 65858, establishing a temporary 45-day moratorium on the acceptance of new entitlement applications for new motor vehicle fueling stations within the city of Manteca while the city evaluates, considers, and implements amendments. to the Manteca Municipal Code regulating the location, operation, and development standards for fueling stations. Mayor and Council, this item will need a four-fifths vote. Tonight, we have Director of Development Services, Brad Wendluck.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, once again. Here we go. Um, the item before you tonight is consideration of an urgency ordinance establishing a temporary 45 day moratorium on new fueling stations within the city. I'll try and keep this presentation somewhat brief, but I will say that the purpose of the ordinance is fairly straightforward. It provides the city a short period of time to preserve the status quo while we complete the zoning code and development standards. the council previously directed staff to prepare and I believe that item part of that item will be under the next public hearing. This is not a permanent prohibition on new feeling stations. It's an interim measure under government code 65858 while that work is completed. A little bit of background, as you're aware, Council considered this item over the past several months, and staff's response to those discussions is this evening's item. On December 2nd, 2025, The discussion generally considered future fueling station development, including the possibility of a moratorium and potential amendments to both the zoning code, use permit, and general plan. Staff returned to city council on June 16th, 2026, with five different policy options for council considerations. And again, those options ranged from the zoning code amendments, use permit, general plan, and a phased approach. Following that, DISCUSSION, CITY COUNCIL PROVIDED DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A PHASED APPROACH, AND PART OF THAT IS THE MORATORIUM, AND THEN ITEM D2, WHICH IS THE ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT. TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT FOR DISCUSSION, TODAY THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 33 GAS FUELING STATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF MANTECA, AND THE MAP HERE SHOWS THOSE LOCATIONS AND HOW THEY'RE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. The concern we have been discussing internally is not any one particular fueling station, but it really looks at the cumulative land use questions of how many facilities are appropriate, where they should be located, and what standards should apply going forward. As you know, fueling stations in any type of construction are long-term land use decisions, so the decisions we make today regarding their location can shape our commercial corridors for the decades to come. When we look beyond the 33 that are currently existing, the potential number increases fairly significantly. We have currently five additional projects that are in the entitlement process, excuse me, that have received entitlements, and four additional projects that are within the planning process now. So this isn't simply a theoretical issue. We continue to see significant interest in fueling station development. And that level of activity is one of the reasons staff believes it's necessary and important to complete the regulatory framework now, update the zoning code, the table, and be able to do that before any additional applications proceed under the standards City Council has already directed us to evaluate. So the purpose of this moratorium is to preserve, as mentioned, the status quo while we finish updating the regulations. Fueling stations present several planning considerations that are somewhat unique because of the intensity and the longevity of the uses. We see many of our fueling stations along Yosemite that have been there for a considerable amount of time. And those impacts from those stations include traffic circulation, driveway access, pedestrian and bicycle safety, compatibility with adjacent land uses and properties, and the effects these facilities can have on our commercial corridors. So we want to ensure that site design, architecture, environmental considerations, and the city's longer term economic development objectives are being adequately addressed. So the purpose, again, is not to simply stop applications. The purpose is to make sure that when the future applications come forward, we have the right standards in place to evaluate them under. So this slide is important. Government code 65858 establishes a specific legal standard for the adoption of an urgency ordinance. And city council must determine that there's a current and immediate threat to public safety, public health, safety, or welfare, and that allowing additional entitlements to proceed under the city's existing regulation would continue that threat. The ordinance, before you unite, considers and identifies several areas of concern, including turning movements, stacking, fuel delivery operations, pedestrian and bicycle conflicts, compatibility with surrounding land uses and developments, and the long-term consequences of developments in these land use decisions. Again, this is an issue that the city's already working on and rewriting the regulations that govern these facilities. Accepting additional applications under the existing framework could result in projects proceeding under standards that the council has already determined warrant further review. So I do want to mention that this ordinance is intentionally limited in both scope and duration. For 45 days, the city would not accept new entitlement applications for new fueling stations. That 45 days is a maximum timeline under government code, and I'll talk about that briefly later, but I did want to mention that now. During that period, we would also not determine a new fueling station application that comes to planning to be complete or process any new applications towards approval, and that's new applications. If someone submits a new fueling station application after the ordinance becomes effective, that application would be returned without further processing. So just as important as what the ordinance does not do, it does not affect applications that have already been determined to be complete that are in the process. It does not affect existing legally established fueling stations. It doesn't prevent building permits from being issued for projects that have been approved. Existing businesses that are under operation can continue routine maintenance, repairs, remodeling, equipment replacement, code updates, or similar improvements. It also does not prohibit EV charging facilities, accessibility improvements, landscape improvements, provided those improvements don't expand the fueling operation itself. This is narrowly targeted for new fueling station entitlement applications rather than existing businesses or projects entitled already. The exemptions shown on the presentation include, again, completed applications, existing stations, approved projects, remodeling, and EV charging as examples. work underway. So the moratorium does not stop staff working on the issue. In fact, the purpose of the 45 days is to allow the work to continue and be completed. So we're asking staff to consider adoption of these comprehensive standards during your next item under D2, which would allow the second reading and then those items to go into effect soon after the 45 days. Those will potentially include distances between fueling stations, minimum parcel size, access, driveway spacing, internal circulation, and connectivity. This is the first step, and those standards may need updating in the future to ensure a balance between the needs and market demand of the community with enhanced fueling station development. Importantly, we're also looking at amendments that would establish a conditional use permit requirement for future fueling stations, enhancing and increasing the review requirements that we currently have. And the goal is to move from the city's existing framework to a more comprehensive process that gives both staff and planning commission and city council better tools to evaluate future proposals. So if Council adopts the ordinance tonight, it takes effect immediately. Under state law, the urgency ordinance is limited to 45 days. And unless Council subsequently extends it within that 45 days in accordance with government code, it will automatically expire at the end of that period. I will note state law also requires staff to prepare a written report describing the measures taken to address the conditions that resulted in the moratorium before that expiration date. Within that 45 days, we'd have to deliver a report back to council. Our intent during that period is to continue developing standards and advancing the permanent zoning amendments rather than relying on the moratorium any longer than necessary. Lastly, from a CEQA standpoint, staff has determined this item to be exempt under 15061 and 15308. Simply maintains the existing regulatory standards and status quo temporarily while we complete the review. And then lastly, that brings us to the ACTION BEFORE COUNCIL THIS EVENING. STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT COUNCIL CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING, ADOPT THE URGENCY ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING THE 45-DAY MORATORIUM ON NEW FUELING STATIONS PURSUANT GOVERNMENT CODE 65858. AND AS THE CITY CLERK MENTIONED, THIS WOULD REQUIRE A FOUR-FIFTH VOTE FOR ADOPTION. AGAIN, STAFF'S INTENDED TO DECIDE IT WOULD BE VERY NARROW AND TEMPORARY MEASURE THAT PRESERVES THAT STATUS QUO WHILE WE UPDATE THE ZONING CODE AND STANDARDS AS DIRECTED BY CITY COUNCIL. And with that, staff is available to answer any questions that council may have.

All right. Thank you, Brad, for that. Council, have any questions before I open up the public hearing? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing for D1 at 7.14. Any questions on Zoom? Answer it.

I do have one hand raised. Leonard, can you hear us?

Yeah, I can hear you.

OK, we'll go ahead and start your three. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. We'll go ahead and start your three minutes now.

OK, great. We need a moratorium since there are no EFI dispenser units included in the new zoning additions. And there are pre-application inquiries for new fueling stations already. If these confer to formal applications before the moratorium is adopted, they will fast under the current rules. And the current rules do not require EFI charging dispensers or EFI ready infrastructure. There are no assessing zoning or language that mandates EFE charging dispensers, EFE-ready conduit or transformer capacity, or mixed fuel modernization standards. The developers can legally submit fossil fuel only projects. The city currently has no mechanism to require EFE charges. And once fasted, the city cannot retroactively impose EV charging conditions. Manteca risks locking in decades of outdated fossil fuel infrastructure, and it undermines the state electrification goals, insurance industry risk guidance, long-term economic resilience, and the general plan modernization. The state policy context that California streamlines EFI charging permit through AB 1236, AB 970, and the state law allows EFI charges but does not require developers to install them. Local jurisdiction must adopt explicit requirements to ensure EFI infrastructure. The moratorium is necessary because it provides time to update zoning and entanglement language, prevent search of applications exploiting the EFE requirements gap, and ensure future fueling stations that will include EFE charging dispensers future proof for electrification and align the state transportation plans and funding opportunities. To adopt the moratorium is to prevent fasting under outdated rules. So I would say Manteca to draft a minimum EFE dispenser requirements, EFE ready electrical capacity standards and modernization requirements for expansion or remodels. to integrate EV charging policy into the general plan into the zoning updates. If a corporation comes in the city with enlarging the footprint, they should be able to also honor the requirement to smaller your footprint through solar and alternative resources. I think a famous one said that we should quit fiddling. Leonard, that was three minutes. The state and the country and the world is... Any other hands raised?

I have no other hands raised.

Okay, comment cards?

The one comment card I have is Leanne.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I'm asking Manteca to adopt stronger protections when approving new gas stations near homes and schools. This isn't anti-business, it's responsible development. Gas stations store and dispense large quantities of gasoline, receive tanker truck deliveries, generate traffic, and can release gasoline vapors containing volatile organic compounds, including benzene. So we should be asking more than, is this property commercially zoned? We should be asking, how close is it to our homes and schools, and is there a better location? California CEQA regulations recognize a quarter mile, approximately 13, 20 feet when evaluating certain projects near schools involving hazardous air emissions or hazardous substances. CEQA does not automatically prohibit gas stations within that distance, but at a minimum, Manteca should use that quarter mile distance as a benchmark when establishing protections for new gas stations near schools and homes. There is also an issue of public trust. Manteca's own code of ethics says officials should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. It specifically addresses organizational responsibilities or personal relationships that may give the appearance of a conflict of interest. When an official has a significant relationship with an organization representing the petroleum or fueling station industry, while participating in decisions regulating that same industry, the public has a legitimate reason to question that participation. That relationship should be fully disclosed and the city attorney should publicly address whether participation is appropriate under California law and Manteca's own code of ethics. And when the circumstances create the appearance of a conflict contemplated by our own ethics policy, the official should step away from the decision. Manteca calls itself a family city. Our public officials should be putting families first when making decisions that affect our neighborhoods, where we live, and the schools where our children learn. We can support responsible development without sacrificing the interests of our families. Thank you.

Thank you.

That's all the cards.

Anybody would like to speak on item D1?

Maxine, you can come up now.

The only thing I wanted to say was I counted the gas station. I was on Main Street, and I used to walk the lake three miles every day. I'm not sure if they're distant, but from Louise up to the arch, that's four gas stations. Once you go under the arch and keep going toward the freeway, that's four gas stations. Not counting when... We get more gas. I didn't even count the gas station on Union or airport. So I hope it does put a limit on gas stations because from, like I say, from Louise up to going across the freeway, I got eight gas stations. And I could walk that. That's eight gas stations. And I hope you put a limit on them.

Anybody else like to speak on this item? regarding the moratorium.

Question, a clarification question. When you're talking about new items, so anything that's in the pipeline now is going to be looked at from the old standards? Or is that going to, whatever new standards you come up with in the 45 days, will that be used?

Is that all your question?

Okay.

How do you want to answer that?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. Any applications currently in the process would apply or the current standards would apply. So that's why we're looking at the moratorium and considering it so that if adopted, the next item would allow any new applications for those new standards to go in place and they would be applied. But we would not be able to change any applications that are essentially vested with the standards that are in place at the time the application has been received.

Anybody else would like to speak on this item?

Okay, seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing at 7.23. Bring it back to council. Council Member Halford.

I'm in support of the emergency ordinance. Okay, Vice Mayor.

I'm also in support of the emergency ordinance. I think that looking at our, the way we have everything written at the moment, it needs to be evaluated and updated for safety and for our current city plans.

Okay. Council Member Brightman.

I'm good with the ordinance.

I agree as well with the ordinance. It gives us time to look at the whole picture and see what we want to do as a city moving forward. Thank you.

Yeah, and I concur. We definitely need to get this 45 days in, and so that way staff can move forward with something that we can look at more permanently into the future. So with that, I'll go ahead and entertain a motion. Second. I have a motion from Vice Mayor Lackey, second from Council Member Morwit, to adopt an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, establishing a temporary 45-day moratorium on acceptance of new entitlement applications for a new motor vehicle fueling stations within the City of Montego while the City evaluates, considers, and implements amendments to the Montego Municipal Code regulating the location, operation, and development standards for fueling stations. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Takes us to D2.

to conduct a public hearing for the Fueling Stations Zoning Text Amendment Project and by motion find the project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15061, Subsection B, Subsection 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and 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 table... 17.22.020-1 of section 17.22.020 and adding chapter 17.98 relating to fueling station development and performance standards to title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code for ZTA 26-62. Mayor and Council, tonight we have Deputy Director of Development Services Planning, Jesus Orozco.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, members of the public, and staff. That was a quick turnaround with development standards for your urgency ordinance. So this is a two-part ordinance this evening. I'll just glaze over the project background since a lot of it has already been presented before this item. But the item, this ordinance has been reviewed and vetted by the Planning Commission at their August 6th Planning Commission meeting and the Commission with some minor amendments recommended Council adopt the ordinance before you this evening. Some of the considerations that staff looked into while preparing this ordinance, really looking at the existing locations of the fueling stations, the entitled not under construction fueling stations, and the ones under review. For the most part, a lot of the fueling stations will transition into a non-conforming status with this proposed ordinance. I do want to make note that within the ordinance there is a proposal to have specific distance requirements between fueling stations and residential zone parcels. That being said, currently the majority of the fueling stations are located less than 300 feet from residential. The ordinance will require a greater distance. The majority of the parcels zoned neighborhood commercial and DMU, which have a number of fueling stations, are located on Yosemite Avenue, which is the former 128. And again, that is something to consider with regards where the perception of proliferation with fueling stations comes from. Considering that fueling stations have, some of them have some longevity and have been around for a period of time. So just keeping in mind that the numbers do add simply because they trace back to the original major thoroughfares within the city as it currently stands. So just a quick breakdown. four fueling stations within the mixed-use commercial or the CMU zone district. There's about six in the neighborhood commercial, 19 in the general commercial, and four in the downtown mixed-use zone district. I do also want to note that in preparing this ordinance, staff looked at the city as a whole and not any one specific project or site. So again, this is a citywide ordinance and it's not intended to address any one project, parcel, or particular situation. Staff did consider public comment from the various city council, public and and planning commission meetings as well as outreach meetings that have occurred throughout the community as it relates to several of the projects here in the city. As I mentioned, a lot of this ordinance will, as a result, transition a lot of fueling stations into a non-conforming status. The ordinance will address that as well. So presently, the first part to this ordinance, it doesn't tell changing the land use table. Presently, fueling stations are allowed in four commercial zone districts. The proposed amendment will change that, only allowing fueling stations in two commercial zone districts, that being the mixed-use commercial or CMU zone and the general commercial zone district. Presently, fueling stations are allowed through the ministerial minor use permit process. That will be changed requiring a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit requires a greater degree of review, discretionary review by the planning commission, and that's where the commission or the approving authority looks into the compatibility component that was discussed as part of the previous presentation with the urgency ordinance. The Zoning Tax Amendment entails a new chapter within Title 17, Chapter 17.98, which will be titled Fueling Stations Development and Performance Standards. It does a number of things. As I mentioned, the first one, We'll create a minimum separation between fueling stations that would be a 500 foot minimum distance between fueling stations with some exceptions when they are located in a major intersection. a greater distance may be required depending on the specific situation. Specific site and development standards, fueling stations under this ordinance will require that they would be allowed in those respective zones, which is the General Commercial Zone District and the CMU Zone District. However, those parcels or those zone parcels would need to be accessible from either a major collector or an arterial road, which would be defined by our circulation element, which adds to making sure that any impacted, potentially impacted residential uses are not impacted because the access requirement of this ordinance for the fueling stations would be through larger thoroughfares that can support higher volumes of traffic. There will be specific street frontage improvement requirements, locations, and standards related to ingress-egress to make sure there's adequate maneuvering into and out of the site as well. Architectural design to ensure greater integrity with surrounding uses and compatibility. And proximity restrictions to residential uses, as I mentioned, 300 foot requirement distance, that number is greater than what most fueling stations currently are situated and located away from residential uses. There'll be restrictions on outdoor storage and fueling dispensing limitations as well. There will be also performance standards which ensure any potential for hazardous storage, waste, and things of that nature are properly accounted. Our current zoning code already has those established and codified as a general requirement for all uses, but this goes the extra step to ensure that any fueling stations in particular adhere to those specific requirements. And as I mentioned, a lot of the fueling stations will transition into a non-conforming status. The ordinance does also address those situations in the event that there are expansions or modifications to existing fueling stations, that they are allowed to expand or modify within certain limitations that are addressed within the proposed zoning code amendment. So there's two specific general plan goals and policies that support this particular effort. I do want to focus on land use policy 4.4, which talks about having commercial and non-residential developments be compatible with adjacent uses. The ordinance overall does implement that policy by ensuring specific distance requirements, separation, and looking out for potential impacts. Since future fueling stations will be subject to the conditional use permit process, that does allow the city for revocation of a use permit should a site no longer be compatible or integrate other uses that make it incompatible or create some form of nuisance for surrounding land uses. The findings necessary to adopt the zoning code have been made and incorporated within the staff report provided to the council this evening as well. This item was presented, was noticed on the Matica bulletin on August 11th. There have been no early public comments submitted to the planning division at this time. And this project has been evaluated pursuant to CEQA section 15061B3 for the CEQA guidelines, which is the common sense exception. Since this is a policy decision and not necessarily affecting any one particular development project or parcel, Staff is recommending you take two actions this evening. The first one is find the project exempt from further CEQA and waive the first reading by substitution of title and introduce an ordinance amending the land use table and adding a new chapter, chapter 17.98 to Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code. That completes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you, Jesus. Any questions or comments by council before I open up the public hearing? Okay, seeing none, I'll go ahead and open up the public hearing for item D2 at 7.36. All right, any hands raised on Zoom?

I do have a hand raised on Zoom. Leonard, can you hear us?

I can hear you.

Perfect. We can hear you. We'll go ahead and start the three-minute timer now.

All right. Just one question. I'm looking at the entitlements, and I don't know what the furbage is, but I was wondering if the entitlements for these new gas stations that they have already, is there a specific furbage that... not allows EV charging dispenser units in those new stations, because if there is no furbish of that, then it seems to me that I guess it's okay to have EV charging units in the new gasoline stations. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you, Leonard. Brad, Jesus, anybody want to answer that?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I'll go ahead and answer that. Speaking to his question, no, the zoning code amendment that's being proposed does not prohibit EV charging stations in any location. Further, I would like to add to the previous comment from Mr. Smith. The CalGreen code, apart separate from the zoning code, does have requirements for EV capable spaces, which requires conduit, the electrical panel to be sized appropriately, and EV charging stations, even at gas stations, even at fueling stations. So with these new development standards, most likely these sites are gonna require more than 10 spaces, 10 parking spaces, and at 10 spark, excuse me, 10 parking spaces, It will require four EV-capable spaces, so again, with the conduit, with everything ready to essentially put in the conductors and the EV chargers, and then it will also require three EV chargers to be installed at time of permit. I wanted to touch on that.

Okay, let me get this straight. So you're saying four will be capable and three will actually be installed?

Yes, as part of the template, you'll have. seven that will essentially either be ready to go or already have EV chargers installed.

So do they, are they seven out of the seven, are four actually installed or?

Three are actually installed. Three installed, four ready to go. With, again, the electric panel size, the breakers ready, just pulling the conductors and installing That's part of the Cal Green code? Cal Green code requires that currently. Part of the 2025 Cal Green code.

And that's if there's 10 spaces or more required?

10 to 25, and there's a ratio. I mean, you get above 235 plus 30.

What if you have less than 10 spaces?

Less than 10 none is required. But again, with the new development standards, the size requirements, I don't see how you're not going to have 10 spaces. So with those 10 spaces, you're going to end up with four capable and three installed.

Okay, I'll resume my comments until later. Any other on Zoom?

Yes, I do have another hand raised. Sudhakar, can you hear it?

Can you hear it? Hi, everyone. Are you able to hear me?

We can hear you. I'll go ahead and start your 20 minutes now.

Yeah, hi. Thank you, council and fellow residents for the opportunity. So I heard that the from the residential zone, it should be only 300 feet. But I think 300 feet is very less compared. I think it should be at least 600 feet like the from the residential zoning so that it's for the sensitive receptors like the kids who are living in the residential zoning would not have an impact from a gas station. So appreciate if it's modified from instead of 300 feet to a 600 feet. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else on Zoom?

I have no other hands raised on Zoom for public comment for item B2.

Okay. Comment card.

The first comment card I have is Johanna.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I'm here tonight to ask the Council to support the proposed new fueling station standards. I want to thank the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, the City Council, and everyone on city staff who helped move these stronger protections forward. I believe these proposed changes are a meaningful step in the right direction. I am especially concerned about the neighborhood surrounding 1840 Pillsbury Road, but the issue is bigger than one property in one neighborhood. If the standards are not strong enough, the same type of conflict could happen in other residential areas throughout Manteca. The city's own documents identify the 1840 Pillsbury property as a 4.67 acre parcel surrounded by residential development. I do have one question. I would like staff to confirm whether under the proposed 300 foot standard, there is any location anywhere on that entire parcel where a fueling canopy, dispensers, and underground tanks could legally be located. If the answer is yes, then I believe that the city should consider whether 300 feet is truly enough or whether larger setbacks and additional protections are needed. Gas stations, convenience stores, drive-thrus, late night lighting, and similar uses can have very different impacts when they're placed immediately next to people's backyards. I support the proposed fueling station standards and the temporary moratorium tonight. And I hope this is the beginning of deeper protections for residential neighborhoods throughout Manteca. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next card I have is Lauren.

Just a second. Brad, you want to answer the 300 feet on Pillsbury?

Yeah, so first of all, regarding the comment at 600 feet, that looking at just real quick, looking at some real quick analysis, I would say that none of our current gas stations in the entire city would comply with that. Even looking at Costco, it's within 600 feet of the parcels across the freeway south. I'm looking at the Pillsbury site. Specifically, there is no part of that parcel that because it's surrounded essentially on four sides by residential that would meet the 300 foot requirement to potentially prohibit fueling stations that location.

Okay, next. I have Lauren.

Good evening, Mayor, Council and those in attendance tonight. I live directly next to 1840 Pillsbury Road. So this news is As long as it goes, this is wonderful. And it's a CMU designated property that has become significant community concern since a fueling station was proposed there in early 2025. This parcel received its CMU designation before nearly all of the surrounding residential development occurred and is now surrounded on all four sides by homes with some residences like mine only steps away. Under the current zoning standards, residents like myself are left vulnerable to incompatible development. Can you imagine having an AMPM as your next door neighbor? The fueling station zoning amendment would provide an important safeguard for residents in the Woodward area. My hesitation is whether the amendments fueling stations minimum 300 feet from any property zoned for a single family residential use is truly enough to protect residents. Many environmental and health advocacy groups suggest a minimum of 500 feet to protect public health and reduce noise. I recognize that this amendment and the moratorium are about more than just the Woodward area. I've lived in Manteca for 16 years. I've taught in Manteca Unified for 22 years. I've chosen to raise my children here because I care deeply about this community. I love Manteca and want to see it grow in a way that reflects the needs and values of its residents. The amendment and moratorium would help protect our city from incompatible and oversaturated development while ensuring that future projects are thoughtfully evaluated for their impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Most importantly, it gives the city of Manteca the ability to say, We want to protect our residents and preserve their quality of life. On a personal note, I sincerely thank all of you, including the Planning Commission, for listening to the feedback of your residents and working to get the moratorium and the zoning amendment to the table. And I also appreciate the many of you who have met with our group specifically off schedule to hear our concerns. So thank you very much for your time and consideration.

The next card I have is Cindy.

Hello, Council, Mayor. Thank you for giving me the time and opportunity. I am, like with Lauren and Johanna here, agree with this new ordinance, hoping that you see your way clear to approving it. I think it's gone a long ways to help with residential communities And frankly, it was something we've been asking for for a long time to have the commercial mixed use. Land use guidelines be reviewed and looked at, so I very much appreciate that you've all have done that I recognize there's a lot of work involved in looking at that and how you can make that amenable but it's you know we can't go back and. look at gas stations that exist today. We recognize that. But we can move forward in areas where there is no development yet and prevent homeowners from having to be negatively impacted by this type of development with gas stations. So I do appreciate very much that the Planning Commission, that Tobin, all the hard work that's been done by so many, the planning department, all of you for being patient with us. I know we've been very vocal and very loud, but I always say you get what government you deserve, and you guys are allowing citizens to make a difference, and you're hearing our voice, and I very much appreciate it. Thank you.

All right. Anybody else would like to speak on this item? Me too. Okay. We're going to go ahead and bring it back to council. I'm going to close the public hearing at 748. Start with council member Brighton book.

OK. Yeah, I'm good with this. Somebody asked, growing up next to a gas station. I didn't get to grow up next to a gas station, but they put the Chevron next to mom and dad's house. And so there was a convenience in that, that I could walk over and get a soda, get mom a candy, and she'd be happy. But she never really understood it was there. If she would, she would have fought it, too, because that was next door to where they've been since 69. Just thinking of things, 13 of the gas stations are in District 3. So that's a third of the gas stations. The rest are scattered over the other three districts. Would I have liked to have a gas station out at Woodward? I lived there from 1999 to 2013. It would have been nice to have a gas station anywhere on the other side of the south, south of the bypass. So... You know, it's nice that there are the amenities that are coming in for you over there. But for this location, yeah, it's not a good idea. And I think we need to research that and for future bills that they meet the requirements that we set forth and not that somebody else set. So that's what I got.

Thank you. Council Member Halford.

I am getting bored. I'm supportive of the ordinance. I think it's a reasonable ordinance. Some of the distances that have been talked about. Maybe you can tell us a little bit how you came up with the 300 feet.

There's nothing specifically. It's more of a land use industry standard. We apply 300 foot distance, similar to what we use for noticing requirements, which is a requirement of the government code. But that number is used somewhat as an industry standard throughout land use.

And it's 300 feet from the dispensers?

That is correct, yes.

Or any vapor emitting portion of the?

Yes, it would be 300 feet as a crow fly from a fielding canopy and the underground storage facility and things of that nature to the nearest property line of a parcel zone for single-family residential use.

And that still leaves sufficient grant slots available to put gas stations on. That's kind of a question to answer. If we expanded that distance, Brad kind of mentioned if you went to 600, all the existing ones would be illegal. And if we went to 1320, I would suspect there would not be a place within the city limits.

Yeah, when we look at more than 300, it uses his point about the industry standard for land use. When we look beyond that, it really does prohibit essentially all. starts to prohibit locations where we would typically want to see these, which is along those main corridors, adjacent freeways that isn't immediately adjacent to residential. So going beyond that, 600 to 1,300. 1,300 certainly prohibits. 600 makes it incredibly difficult. Like I said, even Costco's fuel and canopy would not be that. So just to give you an idea of how far that is. All right.

That being said, one of the other ones is a 500-foot distance between gas stations. You mentioned there was an exception if the city engineer recommends it. My concern with that 500 feet is if you have them on opposing corners of a major intersection, you've now prevented that second one coming in because it's going to be within 500 feet of the existing. How would we accommodate a second gas station at the intersection of

It would be on a case-by-case basis. Keep in mind that the intent behind that specific provision within the ordinance does some degree require that fueling stations that are at that same intersection serve different flows of traffic. So traffic going east will be served by one gas station or fueling station. Traffic going west will be served by another.

If I can add, Councilmember, 1798040 does allow two fueling stations at a single intersection, so that does not need to meet the 500-foot requirements. The 500-foot requirement is that the approval of the city engineer based on road geometry and things of that nature, but it would allow two at a single intersection.

Thank you. All right. Councilmember Morowitz.

Yeah, I think the ordinance is proper. What I'd like to talk a little bit about is this is something we probably needed to do before, and now we got basically told by the residents. And I think that's a great basically from the democracy here. People coming to a meeting, and I think everybody did a great job. They used to come, they bought some signs, no one caused any grief. They put their opinions out on social media. They sent us letters and emails. I mean, I think that is exactly what you're supposed to do. But you also came to the meetings, and I think that's really important. It's really not that easy. It's much easier to stay home and Get on Facebook or on your social media and send messages. And when you come in person, we get to see you. And it shows much more emotion and why you want to do things. So I think that what moved us the most is you folks coming down here and. doing what you did. I think the staff did a fantastic job making sure we try to cover all bases. 300 feet, coincidentally, is also Assembly Bill 98. It requires 300 feet on loading docks and truck routes and things in commercial areas, industrial, which we're dealing with up north right now. So that is quite a radius for noise and things that occur at night. For loading docks and commercial facilities. So I think that goes in line with gas stations as well So I'm I'm pleased with the way this was done. I'm pleased with the way the folks handled it and It's gonna work out the city moving forward and I think it's more thoughtful for residents as we go into areas that doesn't mean though that if you buy a home next to a commercial lot you should be prepared and do your homework and Because if it's not a gas station, it might be something else. So it's important. But in this particular case, the gas station, I know folks are really worried about and more concerned about what's going on in Pillsbury.

But this is going to be very good for the rest of the city as well.

So I'm pleased with this. Thank you. Thank you to the staff.

All right. Vice Mayor.

All right. So quick question. This ordinance It does affect the applications that are in already or it does not?

It would affect the future applications coming in. It would not affect the applications that have been deemed complete.

Have been deemed complete. Okay. So this would affect the property that was mentioned on Pillsbury, correct?

This time there isn't a complete application. Correct.

Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. I am seriously celebrating inside you guys. So Pillsbury is my district. And as I mentioned to the residents in my district, the five of us are considered to be quasi judicial, which means that when there's something that comes in front of us, like the Pillsbury project, we have to withhold our opinions. Because if we give our opinions, then we come across as bias one way or another. And then we could potentially be asked to withhold our vote if it were to come to a vote. Through this entire process, you know, I've heard the residents, and I've told them over and over again, we hear you. And, you know, I hope that they believe that. And, you know, we form opinions as we go and you know i heard from the property owner he came and spoke to our residents and i did not believe that this was a good location for the gas station and i can finally say that out loud which is a really good feeling we heard you guys and you did everything right You came to the meetings. You talked to us, not at us. You asked. You didn't demand. And we were able to work together. And I know it was frustrating because I couldn't tell you what was in my head at times. And it's not because I wasn't trying to be transparent. It's because I was trying to do my best to work for you. And at the end of the day, if it came to a vote, I did not want either side to ask me to recuse myself. So I am very happy with this ordinance. I am very happy that this is going to benefit the entire city as a whole. We don't know what's going to come down the pipeline. As far as the moratorium, I think that the two go hand in hand. And I'm not all about shutting down industries. I think You know, people have the right to conduct business within our city. But we do need to look out for our families and our neighborhoods first. And so, yeah, as soon as you guys brought this, I'm sitting here celebrating. And good job, you guys. Congratulations. I'm in favor.

All right. It's been a long journey to get to this point. So first thing, I wanted to ask about, I'm back to the EV thing again. So you said 10, they would be required. Less than 10, not necessarily. Can that be changed?

So we could amend the requirements two ways, either through the zoning code or through increased requirements with Cal Green. Amending it would apply, at least within Cal Green, to all retail and commercial uses, non-residential uses. We didn't consider that as part of the zoning text amendment. However, I will note that we are bringing forward a larger zoning code update in the near future, and if that was the direction of the council, we could potentially include that.

Yeah, I'm not looking at necessarily all commercial spaces. I'm looking at specifically, you know, with gas stations, trying to plan for the future now instead of, you know, I remember even from the days of being in Planning Commission, We used to talk about this, and it said, well, they're getting ready for it. They're getting ready for it. A lot of time has passed since then, and I think they shouldn't be getting ready for it anymore. It should actually be happening. So I would actually like to see even, it doesn't matter how many parking spots they have, they should have at least a certain number, maybe three, EV charging stations in Augusta.

Understood, I think that my previous comment.

So where do we do that?

So, I mean, we could do that through the zoning code update and provide that change. I think that because of the size requirements of these parcels, you're going to have 10 parking spots, so you're going to have this anyway. But we could certainly include that as a feature amendment.

Yeah, I just want to get it covered just in case there is less than 10. So I guess we're not sure when that's going to come forward from us, in front of us for that. So I guess my question with that is that until that happens and if there is something that comes forward that's less than 10, what happens?

So we have 45 days under the moratorium and then the new standards would apply. With regards to any applications, if the moratorium was not extended at the end of 45 days, if we received a new application, I can tell you that the public draft of the zoning code update is scheduled to be released next week. So we'd be looking at planning commission and city council within the next 90 days. There would be a brief window. The only other option, as mentioned, would be To amend the Calgary requirements would be scheduled for two city council meetings, a second reading in the 30 days. We're right in that window as well. So there would be a brief period either way, I think, where we'd have potential developments of a new application came in that they wouldn't, if they somehow were less than 10 parking spaces, they would need to have EV capable spaces.

Yeah, I think I do like the zoning code way to do this because I think that's more universal that we can handle the whole city with instead of an area specific or a project specific so definitely agree with that, and I think if it's coming then i'm okay with that I just wanted to make sure. that we no longer just say, hey, you just gotta be capable, or I actually would like to see that. And I think once we kickstart that, you'll also start seeing conversions into full EV stations and not gas stations anymore, which is already starting to happen in other cities that I've seen. The other thing I guess what I'll say is a lot of my partners up here has already said it, but it was a long journey to get to this point. There's a lot of things that we can't say sometimes and don't take that against us that, hey, we're not listening to you. I remember when I first brought this up, it's been a while. to be even looked at, so I'm glad we got it to this. I wanna thank staff to all their hard work to make this not only just come forward, but something that will stick, that we can stand by, because that's the other side of it, is sometimes we may want things a certain way, but if they can't legally stick, then we're just making stuff up, and it doesn't really matter, and it's not gonna solve any issues or problems that we all have. I live in that area too, so I am very cognizant of what you guys were looking for. It's just that we had to go through the process. You know, let's just tell you how we feel most of the time. But I think we have now gotten to a solution that is going to be not just for Hillsbury, but also for our whole city. And I appreciate the CUPs, because I think that gives us a little bit more we'll be able to review projects a lot more firmly than just automatic allowance, especially at a planning commission perspective. Do you want to add something?

I did want to add something. Deputy Director Orozco also mentioned that beyond that 45 days, since all new projects will require a conditional use permit, we can include that as a requirement as part of the conditional use permit to meet those.

Yeah, that's what I was going to get at now, that you can add it to the CUP. So definitely that's great. Now, if this is approved tonight, when does this go into effect?

Sure. Anyone? So after the second reading, it'll be 30 days, which presumably next council meeting will be 30 days from the second reading.

So for 45 days, we're covered with the moratorium. And by that time, this will be in effect. So nothing can happen, right? There should be some happy people in the audience if this vote goes through soon here. All right. I'm done. And I'm glad to be here and glad to get this done. And I'm pretty sure there's a few people ready to give me a motion.

Motion. Second.

All right. I have a motion from Vice Mayor Lackey and a second from Council Member Morawieck to 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 table 17.22.020-1 of section 17.22.020 and adding chapter 17.98 relating to fueling stations development and performance standards to Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code for ZTA 26-62. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Congratulations. With that, I'm going to ask for a 10 minute break. After that. 2. All right, we are back. And now we're going to move on to item D three.

Bear with me for this title. adopt a resolution making the necessary findings and adopt an initial study mitigated negative declaration and the mitigate the mitigation monitoring. and reporting program prepared for the project. Adopt a resolution approving a general plan amendment amending the land use designation for project parcels identified in GPA 24-76 from the very low density residential. to the high density residential land use designation, waived the first reading by substitution of a 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 project parcels identified in REZ 24-77 from the residential estate to the multifamily the multiple family dwelling zoning district, and adopt a resolution approving the site plan and designation review, lot line adjustment, and minor zone modification, allowing the development of the Wawona apartment project located at 2005, 2019, and 2027 Wawona Street. Mayor and Council, tonight we have Assistant Planner Tobin Barnum.

Thank you. Glad it wasn't a laugh track. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, staff, members of the public. I'm Associate Planner Tobin Barnum. The request for the council is for a general plan amendment, a rezone site plan review, lot line adjustment, and minor zone modification to allow construction of a 44-unit apartment building at 2005, 2019, and 2027 Wawona Street. A brief overview of the project. Proposes a four-story, 44-unit apartment building with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping. The site in total is 1.67 acres made up of three contiguous parcels. And again, the site is at these three adjacent parcels on Wawona Street just east of the intersection with Airport Way. Site plan, specific uses, it's a four-story apartment building, 44 two-bed and two-bath dwelling units, covered parking, community open spaces throughout the site, 80 total parking spaces, 360 degree access around the residential structure with a bi-directional main driveway on Wawona. Open space amenities include an on-site leasing office, looped circulation all the way around the building with the fire department staging area toward the front, with red curbs, enhanced perimeter landscaping, two public trellis areas, and a rooftop open space. The item was originally heard by Planning Commission on April 2nd, and then heard by the Council on June 2nd of this year. At that meeting, Council moved to continue the item to September 1st. The Council also gave instruction at that meeting for the applicant to contact the residents that are adjacent and discuss the concerns that were expressed by both the council and those residents, those including water quality, on-site parking, fire department access, privacy of the neighbors and the building aesthetics. Staff afterwards met with the applicant in one-on-one meetings to discuss methods on how they might accomplish some of these goals and address the topics. The outreach effort from the applicant included text messages to the site neighbors to request one-on-one meetings and in-person meetings, physical letters sent to adjacent neighbors also to request meetings, meeting in person on July 5 with one of the neighbors adjacent, and then meeting on the 12th of July with more neighbors, and then the The applicant actually received a letter of support signed by almost all the neighbors abutting the property. That's attachment 13 to the agenda report. You can see that. A quick review of the site plan and the revisions that were provided. This is in response to the meetings that the applicants had with the residents. The developer met with city staff after these meetings and presented some proposed changes to the landscaping the fencing and the rooftop open space, you can see them represented here on this graphic in the green some newly required 24 inch. box Italian cypress trees in the northern half of the eastern box line. 24 inch being the largest box size you can buy, allowing the largest or the most mature trees at the time of planting. The fencing all the way around the site will be enhanced to seven feet tall. to provide greater durability and privacy for the folks in the adjacent properties. And then prominently, the south elevation rooftop open space has been revised to show a six-foot-tall opaque glass wall. That's a revision from what was there before, which was just a railing, which allowed people to look over to the south and into the adjacent properties. This wall will then prevent them from doing that. In addition to those, regarding water quality, the developer added a condition obliging themselves to cover any costs associated with the connection of the abutting properties to city water should it be determined that their water source was contaminated or compromised through the construction process. And this obligation remains active until the date of the issuance of certificate of occupancy for the structure. You see the text is here, that's condition nine in the revised conditions of approval. To remind the council, the request and entitlements this evening are a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from its current VLDR, which is very low density residential, to HDR, high density, allowing the proposed use. A rezoning to change the zoning from RE to R3 in consistency with the general plan designations. A lot land adjustment to merge the three contiguous parcels into one, eliminating the physical constraints that would otherwise limit the site's development. A site plan review allowing the construction of the 44-unit four-story building with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping. And lastly, a minor zone modification, which is to allow a 10% reduction in the required 10-foot wide planter on the southwest corner of the property, specifically which accommodates the parking required for the site. Recommendation from the staff is for the council to conduct a public hearing for the Wawona Apartments Project and take the following actions. Adopt a resolution adopting an initial study and litigated negative declaration and MMRP. Adopt a resolution approving general plan amendment GPA 24-76. Approve rezone 24-77, waiving the first reading and introduce an ordinance to rezone the project site from RE to R3 zone district. And adopt a resolution approving SPR 24-79, LLA 24-78 and minor zone modification or MZM 25-01. That concludes my presentation. Council, thank you for your consideration. Staff is here for your questions and the applicant team is here as well. All right, thank you.

Are there any questions from Council before I open up public hearing? Okay, I will go ahead and open up public hearing at 8.32. We'll start with the applicant.

Five minutes. Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Sean Samaniego. I'm with MCR Engineering here in Manteca. We're here this evening to follow up on Council's previous discussion regarding Wabona Apartments project. When the project was continued, the direction was clear from Council as well as the residents. We needed to spend additional time engaging the surrounding neighborhood to take a closer look at some of the concerns that had been raised. We took that direction very serious. Since the last hearing, the development team has worked to refine the proposal and specifically address concerns related to landscaping and privacy, rooftop community area, neighboring water quality concerns, project consistency with the general plan, and improvements along the frontage. Tonight, I would like to briefly walk you through some of these changes and the additional outreach that has occurred. Tobin has done a great job at going over the things that we had changed. So I'm going to filter through some of these so we're not repetitive out of respect to time. primarily the architecture. One of the concerns that Councilman Halford had made mention of at the last meeting was the architecture was a little bit foreign to the Manteca landscape. I don't technically disagree with that, but like everything else, trends occur. In this slide, what we have here is a like example of what this architecture is or where it exists in Manteca today. Very similar concepts at least. Living spaces was constructed five years ago, four years ago, followed the same contemporary landscaping or architecture. Stabridge Suites on Daniel Street was recently erected, very similar architecture. But moreover, real life example of this architecture, almost a duplicate to this building exists over by Kaiser Permanente in Modesto on Healthcare Way, which is the same architect for this project. And that is an actual photo of that facility, which would replicate the architecture that we'd be using at this site. General plan policy area number two, that is a very important topic that I don't want overlooked. General plan policy area two specifically identifies this area as intended to support the expansion and the retention of Kaiser to the north to create a high transit use corridor with airport way and connections to the future transit center and provide connectivity to the family entertainment zone. Importantly, the general plan identifies high and medium density residential as appropriate land uses within this policy area. One of apartments also provides important transition between the commercial uses along airport way and the lower density residential uses to the immediate east and to the south. From a land use perspective, we believe this project is not introducing a use that's foreign to the city's vision for this area. It's actually implementing a type of residential development that the adopted general plan contemplates for this policy area. Within one of these slides, we do have a blow up of the area. I know it's difficult to tell, but immediately north, you can see that the area in brown is all designated HDR, and that's consistent. That line, if you were to draw it straight south, is consistent with our east boundary line.

We believe this is a fitting transition.

You have the attachment in your packet. This is the letter that the neighbors had signed. It does lack one signature that's immediately abutting and I believe the individual's here tonight. CEQA. I want to reiterate to the Council that this project has gone through all the proper CEQA policies that are required of a development like this, meaning that the environmental studies that are required of CEQA include noise, include transportation, include mitigations to help facilitate those impacts. Those are all addressed in this project with the conditions of approval. And in addition, implementing even more by way of frontage improvements, connecting the school to, well, basically there's a lack of sidewalk on the north side of Wabona. So we're connecting airport to Fishback with curb gutter and sidewalk, which will help pedestrians. That is, again, shown here in this slide. I guess, you know, since the previous hearing, we have listened to the concerns that are raised by the council and by staff. We've enhanced the landscaping and screening. We've modified the rooftop community areas to improve privacy. We've addressed concerns regarding neighboring water quality. We've conducted additional outreach with surrounding property owners and we further demonstrated how project fits within the city's general plan and planned transition of land uses in this area. We believe the result of this project that responds to the concerns that were raised while still accomplishing an important city objective, provide additional housing where the general plan contemplates medium and high-density residential. We appreciate the council's consideration and an opportunity to return tonight to demonstrate the changes that have been made. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. All right.

You guys have any questions for Sean right now? Okay, we'll go ahead and go back to public comments first. Anybody on Zoom?

I do have a hand raised. Brad? Brad, can you hear us?

I can hear you. Can you hear me?

We can. I'll go ahead and start your three minutes now.

Great, thank you. I have three issues to discuss. Good evening, council members and Mr. O'Barnum, applicant and members of the public. I have three issues to discuss if I can get to them. First, it seems from available data online that the traffic signal at Wilhelminan Airport became operational around July 25. The traffic study that was conducted, I believe, was April 9th, 2025. And if these dates are correct, the city must conduct a new study The city must conduct a new study. Anyone who has made that left at that intersection over the last 20 years knows how difficult it could be. So the traffic light is appreciated. However, the traffic signal will likely increase traffic. And in fact, neighbors have already experienced a significant increase in the number of drivers using Walona. With the proposed 44-unit project potentially adding more than 80 vehicles combined with this increased traffic volume of the general public and peak traffic generated by Sierra High School Go Timberwolves, the traffic analysis should be re-executed to reflect current conditions. To my second issue regarding condition nine, Should construction cause damage to the existing water systems, the current plan appears to provide only a limited remedy that the developer would either repair the damage or pay to connect the affected property to city water. However, this remedy is limited to only property owners whose parcels directly abut the project site. This remedy should rather be expanded to include other properties located along Wawona Street between Airport and Fishback Road, encompassing that entire area, which is approximately around 700 feet from the project site. Furthermore, the current plans provide this remedy for only incidents that occurred during construction, but this protection should also extend to incidents that arise after construction. Who's to say that all potential issues caused by the construction will necessarily materialize during the construction period? Some impacts may not become apparent until years later, following repeated rainstorms, seasonal temperature changes, defects in the construction, and other environmental conditions. Accordingly, this remedial measure should remain available to the broader group of those potentially affected property owners that I listed before for a period of five years at least following the completion of the project. Additionally, there should be testing that occurs as a baseline testing prior to the ground being broken during the construction and also after the construction for a period of five years. Lastly, that the presentation just showed and I see that I'm out of time, so unless I can have an extra minute, I will yield my time. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Anybody else on Zoom?

I have no other hands raised.

Okay, you have comment cards.

The first card I have is Ryan.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Ryan Bergman. I live near the proposed Wabona Apartments site. I want to express my concern regarding the immediate and long-term impacts this project will have on our drinking water. Firstly, page 104 of the project's environmental report, which was published in October of 2025, marks every water safety category as a less than significant impact, meaning the city has incorporated zero actual water mitigation or protections for the surrounding neighbors who rely on well systems. Hydrological data proves that a construction project of this scale poses immediate risks to our neighborhood wells. Construction dewatering can pull down the local water table, causing an immediate loss of water pressure. Heavy machinery vibrations shake up underground sediments. causing immediate water discoloration and pump damage. Furthermore, altering the natural ground flow leaves our aquifer highly vulnerable to runoff contamination during and after construction. We need a formal guarantee that either the developer or the city will be fully liable and cover all financial costs for any drop in well performance, degradation, or contamination caused by this development. Please do not approve this project without these protections formally in writing. Thank you.

The next card I have is Erica. Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Erica Duer, representing Manteca Unified School District. We're pleased to report that we have worked with the applicant and their engineer over the past couple months The applicants have entered into an agreement to mitigate their impacts to school facilities. In addition to facility impacts, we also appreciate the city and the applicant's shared concern for pedestrian safety. With the development of this project, the sidewalk on the north side of Wawona from airport to Fishback will be installed. So we're greatly appreciative of that. So thank you very much. I'm here if you have any questions.

The next card I have is Natalyn.

Good evening, members of the City Council of Mayorsingh and another Bergman. it down sorry there you go um my name is ellen bergman and i'm speaking on behalf of the residents and property owners who oppose the warona apartment project as it's currently proposed first i want to be clear that we're not opposed to the development we appreciate the city's efforts to address some of our concerns however we still do not believe the current proposal does enough to provide for the privacy character and quality of life in that surrounding neighborhood. Our first concern is the privacy. The six foot wooden fence is not adequately blocked. The additional noise lighting and activity generated by this project the proposed italian cypress trees will not provide meaningful screening for years and we are therefore requesting a solid eight foot mason masonry wall around the project instead second we are still asking that the building be reduced from four stories to three The city reports acknowledge that effective screening by the trees will not exist for years, and a building nearly 60 feet tall will have a significant impact on the privacy and the character of the neighboring properties. We are requesting additional restrictions on the rooftop deck, including reasonable hours of use, limits on amplified sound and lighting, and additional screening to protect the nearby homes. A new traffic study should be conducted since the traffic conditions have changed significantly since this signal was installed at Wawona and the airport, which I do appreciate the light, but now it's like a freeway past my house. Residents already experience substantial congestion and adding dozens of new vehicles could create additional safety concerns for the families. and the high school students. If you choose morning and night, you'll see the backup pass several cars. And we had a drunk driver run into a wall right across from my street because he was still going fast. Finally, I agree that we need more protections for the private wells and water quality. It can take years for the construction-related impacts to occur. So we are requesting the independent testing before, during, and for five years after construction. and with the requirement that the developer pay to correct any construction-related issues affecting any wells within 700 feet. For these reasons, we respectfully ask the council to deny the project as currently proposed or require meaningful changes that better protect the residents who will be most affected. Thank you so much, and I did submit a letter with a more detailed report.

Thank you.

The next card I have is Jim.

Good evening. I want to thank you guys for giving me the opportunity to speak. I live right next door to the proposed development and I still have concerns about traffic study. They did put the light in, it did help where people can get onto airport easier, but now there's a lot of traffic going through there, especially after school. The other day I'm trying to get out of my driveway. It literally took me five minutes because no one wants to let me get out to get out on Wabona. Now you're putting all these apartments in here and potentially 80 more cars. It's gonna cause even more traffic there. That's a concern. The well is still a concern. According to the applicant, they're only willing to check the wells once they're done with the construction. I believe with the construction going on and the settling of what's going to go on over there, there's still going to be issues. There could be potential issues with the water. I know they said they did environmental study. I'm not sure when they did this, but I don't know if they have done it since. They park truck trailers over there. We've witnessed them changing oil in their property over there, in their big rigs. I know that you can't change oil and not get oil in the soil. So we're already having issues already, and then when they start doing construction over there, you're gonna have construction vehicles over there. If they have to service those vehicles, are they gonna service it without anything happening to the soil? Okay, so those are issues I have. I don't have a problem with them, like Natalyn said, putting apartments in there, because there is gonna be growth, but I think we need to worry about what it looks like and the people that live in that area still have to deal with that. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next part is Antonio.

Good evening, everybody. So I also am a resident of the area. All the concerns that have been said already, I mean, we've gone over them plenty of times. Traffic is a huge issue in that area, regardless of the time, especially the speeding. And also after school, there is a lot of traffic in that area. So it's going to grow even more with this 80 parking spots, right? That's not including everybody else that's going to be overflowing into the neighborhood. So just reconsider the size is my biggest concern, not the actual development. It's the size that we're all concerned about. Thank you.

And the last card I have is Eric.

First, I apologize for jumping the gun. But I want to start out with being living there in that property for 26 years. And when you're that amount of time in that community, you're very overprotective of what happens in the surroundings. And when you're going to build an apartment building like that, there's a lot of things that go into play. Like first, when Mr. Carwash came in, we complained about sound. They said it wasn't going to be a problem. I kind of, you know, They drove it off, they built the wall, and then they built Rod and Robbie's gas station. They said it was supposed to be 300 feet. Now Pillsbury says, oh no, 300's not adequate. At the time, we asked for that to be an issue, but it wasn't looked at like that. And now we have an apartment building. And we're concerned with traffic. We're concerned with the amount of people going into the apartment buildings. Who are they renting to? Or if it doesn't become an apartment building and it becomes a Motel 6, then who's turning off the light when the residents don't like the light? That's certain issues. But at the end of the day, the true question is this. Manteca said they weren't going to build any more apartment buildings except for the ones off 120. They said we're going to build The housing community was going to rise and they were going to build apartment buildings all across 120 to cover the exposure of economics of people trying to rent because they couldn't afford housing. Now, all of a sudden, they're trying to approve one across the street. To me, it's an eyesore. To me, it's problems in traffic. Why? Because I see it. When I'm opening my garage, I have my grandson, and all of a sudden, you see those cars don't want to wait for that red light. What do they do? They whip right through depot. And they're going super fast. And they're going, and you know, at times you're saying, hey, slow down. They don't listen to you. And it keeps going and going and going. Them saying they sat down with me on a text, they never sat down with me. No one came to me and knocked on my door and said, hey, you know, let's talk and this and that. Nothing. Nothing of that was done. All I know is at this point in time, I'm concerned. I'm concerned. Should I stay? Should I sell my home? Or is Manteca gonna really look at this project a little bit more deeper than they did Rotten Robbie and that car wash? Thank you for your attention.

Is that all the comment cards?

That's all the cards that were submitted.

Okay, anybody else would like to speak on item D3?

Good evening, mayor and council members. My name's Leanne Arletta Larson. I wanted to address responsible growth and the impact of high density development on our schools. I live on Wawona Street where children are already being moved from their neighborhood schools because there isn't enough room. Manteca needs housing, but housing cannot be planned in isolation. before approving more high density housing, we should ask, where will these children go to school and do those schools have room? School impact fees don't create classrooms immediately or help families. whose children cannot attend their home schools. I'm not against housing or apartments. I'm for responsible growth where housing, schools, roads, public safety, and parks grow together. Our children should not, excuse me, pay the price for growth that outpaces our infrastructure. Thank you.

Anybody else? Okay. I guess I'll bring the applicant back up if you wanna rebuttal some of the things brought up as far as traffic, the well, drinking water. There's a laundry list of them.

Yeah, no rebuttal. I think these are all legitimate items that should be taken seriously. The signal at airport in Wawona, It's my understanding that when the signal went in, the study for the signal's timing took into account this project's demand. If it didn't, this project does not have an issue working with the signal timing and engineering to make it right. We can work on that with engineering. That's kind of news to us. We thought it was already taken care of. That was Brad's concern as well as a few others. Antonio had it, Jim had it. Jim's legitimate concerns are based on what Wawano's traffic is today. And I don't discount that at all. I live by a school myself. People park in front of my house to drop their kids off because they don't want to park in front of the school. They want to avoid the traffic. So I'm aware of it. It's an ongoing concern with neighborhoods. It's just become a product of what we have to live with as far as the peak hour school traffic. The population in schools with the MUSD rep in attendance, the school district has not made any comment as it pertains to attendance being an issue at the local schools. So if it is over packed, that's the first time I've heard that. So I don't know how to necessarily respond to it other than it wasn't a concern to the district. The well, the groundwater concern, the groundwater water quality. Some things were said that aren't consistent with this project. One was a dewatering operation. This project was actually programmed to connect to the basin to the south. It's in an area of benefit that all the drainage has already been accounted for. So there'll be no additional benefit. No additional impacts to the aquifer as it pertains to stormwater collection on site. The groundwater typically associated with dewatering is for construction purposes, is deep utility driven. There are no deep utilities that reach into the groundwater at this location. There's no anticipated dewatering. The foundation as well is not a peer-driven foundation. It will have footings, it will have over excavation, but there won't be a ground penetration associated with the construction that we're aware of. But the concern goes back to the well, the well, the water quality with the neighbors. we've we've worked with staff to come up with a condition on the project that we would hope would mitigate their concerns the concerns aren't going to be mitigated they're going to have concerns until the day they're told that the water is not affected and that's that is rational way of thinking for us it's the obligation right the obligation is Overcommitment. Five years from now, there's a lot that can go on that we don't have control over. Sierra High School can go through a renovation, and all of a sudden, it looks like Manteca High, where it's got two or three store buildings going up. I don't know that. We can't control that. So to control what happens five years after we take occupancy for the water quality of the neighbors, I'm not saying there's something that can't be done. It's just that that seems a little bit of a reach. The heavy construction component and the certificate of occupancy, those are two different things. The building will be erected, the heavy construction will be over, but it'll be continued to be constructed from within with what I would deem as lighter construction. So what I mean by that though is these homeowners that are adjacent that have these water concerns, they're going to get to live and witness the heavy construction ease up And there will be this period of time where everybody's in the building getting it ready that there's no ground vibration. The ground vibrations are gonna be caused by deliveries or construction workers. And so I guess what I'm going with that is there's gonna be a period of time where there shouldn't be any disturbance. Things should be able to kind of, the dust should settle per se. And these tests can be done after occupancy. Now, if the owner wants to commit to something longer, that's not to my discretion as far as the testing goes. Fencing was mentioned at six feet. We are doing a seven foot tall fence, privacy fence, which is an upgrade to what is required.

Sean, real quick. Instead of six feet, you're doing seven foot fence? That's correct. All the way across? That's correct. All around? What's our requirement on commercial Next to HDR?

To the previous commenter's point, there's no requirement for a CMU wall. It's just that six-foot wood fence. So the seven-foot would be in excess of the requirement. Also, the additional 24-inch box, the Italian cypress, typically they come 10 to 12 feet in height. So it would be above that even eight-foot height that's being requested now. The sound attenuation by those is probably not quite the same, but it will help sufficiently with the dual barrier of the Italian cypress and then the wood fence beyond it.

Okay. So just with that, we'll just close on the fact that, you know, we met a few months ago. We heard the neighbors' concerns. We believe we try to mitigate within means, means that are within reach of us. Nobody can mitigate for the unforeseen, and I don't know what that is. The owner doesn't know what it is, but I... I can't speak for them, but what I've seen is their willingness to commit to the community. And I really think that if the neighbor adjacent came to them a year and a half later and just said, I'm adamant that this well is failing because of your project, they would listen. They wouldn't turn their back. At least I don't believe they would. But again, I don't know how you can commit to that in a condition.

Okay, thank you. I know the school thing came up. So Erica, you said you're ready for questions. So here we go. Do you believe that with this project, there's a capacity issue in schools nearby?

So as part of our mitigation program, we also do an annual demographic study. We have a lot of growth in our district, so we have to always keep our thumb on the pulse to understand where that growth is occurring and where it's impacting our school facilities. Because we have the mitigation program and we are collecting these fees and have been collecting these fees, you do know of many school projects and increase to capacity at many of our school sites. That is a direct result of not only our residents and their supporting general obligation bonds, but additionally this mitigation program. This project is within the Brock Elliott attendance area. There is adequate capacity at that school site now. In addition, the mitigation fees and impacts, or excuse me, the program that they entered will help further mitigate and fund projects at school sites like Sierra High. Again, we're constantly monitoring. We do this study annually. We're embarking on it again. We're doing our enrollment study session with our board this fall, and we're constantly evaluating district-wide. We do have capacity, but again, in certain parts of our district, geographically, we have to always be monitoring. And the most critical component to that is we require all development mitigate impacts. We only support projects that mitigate their impact to school facilities, and we oppose all projects that do not. So do you have any other questions?

Brad, there was a mention of, you know, apartments being really on 120 only. Can you kind of go Like how, what happens with our housing element and our housing inventory?

So first of all, to the commenter, I'm not aware of any comment that's been raised over the past 15 years with regards to isolating apartments south of 120. General plan has high density residential sites throughout the city and within developments, both in New development areas as well as existing. I mean, we look at the North Cottage with the senior apartments there that's an existing or that's a newer facility, but again, within the city limits, not south of 120. There's several others that are in the development process or have been that are along the 120 or south of 120 corridor, but there are developments throughout the city or will be of high density residential to meet our housing element goals and policies.

And this is not, you know, we're, we're pushing high density residential right now. It's more of just the market or how is it happening? And some of it's not being built.

Some of it is currently actually in the past two years we've seen permitted zero high density residential. So it's not necessarily something we're pushing. However, there is the need in the community for units such as these.

Okay. All right, with that, I don't see any more public comments. I will go ahead and close the public hearing at 9.06 and bring it back to council for discussion. Start with Vice Mayor. All right, council member, write a book.

So the builder has done what we've asked them. They've gone out and they've addressed the concerns. Some of these are now stuff that is coming up at the last minute. And so I was wondering why they weren't here the first time this project was posted and prior. I'm okay with what they've done. They've gone above and beyond. And I think the explanations from the representative was sufficient as far as the deep. There are no deep utilities into the water basin. They're going to do the testing. And, yeah, you can't control what happens five years down the road. You just can't. If we could, then we'd be able to plan a whole lot better. Things happen. And so I'm okay with what they're doing and what they've done to meet the requirements of the council and staff. Thank you. All right. Council Member Morwood.

Yeah, I was at the last meeting. There were a lot of concerns regarding the top of the roof, some privacy issues. Like I say, there were some new concerns now. Traffic's a problem off of airport. That's going to be a problem no matter what happens. It's a busy street. It's going to get busier. As far as the water goes, it sounds like the area, as long as you've tested a time of occupancy, it's going to be quite a ways after they start doing the building and shaking. The internal work, which I understand, is basically with the carpentry and things that are done inside once the building's put up. So there's going to be quite a time lapse. Certainly be plenty of time, I believe, to be wanting to be tested and to see if your wells are still, you know, not infiltrated by any problems. That's in the conditions. I believe staff has addressed that as well. There's been a lot of improvements from the last meeting. One of them being the school was a big one. The roof was another one. Now we have a seven foot wall or fence, more cypress. We do have a need for multifamily. So at this point, I don't see a big issue. with the going forward. I know it's a big project on the corner of a very busy street, but that's, it is on the airport. I don't believe that's been addressed. Airport's going to be addressed and widened eventually anyway as well with the PG&E and some of the widening of the road. So, I have nothing further.

Okay. Council Member Howell.

You know, there were a number of concerns that were brought up at the previous meeting. I think the owners of the project supporters have addressed the bulk of those. Certainly, they've addressed the privacy issue, which is one of my major concerns with it. in that adding the additional Italian cypress and elevating the fence from six feet to seven is going to help with the sound and noise. The opaque six-foot glass on the south side of the roof, which faces the adjoining dwellings, I think more than adequately should address the privacy issues. You're not going to be able to look through that see anything other than movement, certainly not in detail. The water issue, the well issue, the legitimate concern about construction having an impact on wells, particularly relatively shallow wells. I don't know how deep the wells are out there. I think what the applicants have proposed is reasonable. To go out five years, I think, is a bit of a stretch. And you always have civil remedies available to you if there is damage to the well, perceived damage to the well after the construction is done. You can have to go through other processes if there is any damage to the well. So at this point, I'm generally supportive of it. Kind of wish it was three stories instead of four, but it is legal as it is proposed and meets the requirements. So I'm generally supportive at this point.

Vice Mayor.

All right. So the council members already mentioned that there were a lot of concerns brought up at the last meeting. And the last meeting, we were not easy on the applicants. We brought up a lot of questions, and we asked for further clarification and more preparation when it comes to this project. Again, the water, I understand. There is a concern, but I do think that having a guarantee for a full five years following, it is a stretch. I think that having it tested at the time of completion, and again, there is issues following that and you want to go the civil route, that is within your right. My biggest concern at the last meeting was school district. Having resources for our youngest residents, making sure that they are able to go to school within their district. Erica, you are confirming that there is room at Brock Elliott for

amount of students that potentially could be moving into this apartment complex without busing kids to other locations clarify the current there is currently capacity however students don't come in perfect little packages for each grade level So I cannot guarantee that if there happens to be 63rd graders, that there may not be an overflow situation. So currently Brock Elliott is their home school of attendance and there is capacity, but I can't speak for each grade level. So there's just no guarantee at any school, even if it had 50% capacity. So that's just the reality of schools and attendance. but right now there is adequate capacity at that school site.

And I will say that, thank you, I will say that the applicants in regards to paying development with this project, they're making sure that we do have a sidewalk that we haven't had before. going from airport to the school site. For the safety of our kids. That's huge. That's a huge accomplishment to have them agree to put that in for the city. They're also you know, the developers they pay into the school districts, and you know, they have agreed to go above and beyond with that as well. So as this is you know i am satisfied with the amount of work that they have put into everything that we've asked over this summer i do still think four stories is all but again it is legal within our city code so um thank you for for talking to the residents and addressing the issues and the privacy um it is different from what our residents are used to. It's different from what the residents on Wawona are used to. But when we have a community that has very low density properties, one to what, five acres? This is completely opposite from that way of life. That being in an apartment is opposite from living on a five acre lot. So... I do appreciate you having the compassion for the neighborhood and working with the neighborhood rather than against. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yeah, coming from where we were last time to where we are now, the developer and the staff has worked together to make some changes that definitely are for the better. I'm excited about the school getting cleared up. And I have to agree, the sidewalk thing is very important. That's always a thing for me with Safe Routes to School. But also, I've sat here over the years and seen projects where none of that was done. And it wasn't even... a condition. So we have come a long ways. And when it comes to holding development accountable and making sure that we're taking care of future impacts. They're paying all their fees. They're, we're never going to be able to resolve 100% of everybody's concerns. But I think they're doing their due diligence and make sure they can take care of most of them. The traffic I remember when that light wasn't there. Traffic was even worse with the stop sign. So during school times, it's always been bad there. I went to Sierra and I remember even back then. But I think it will get better and if there's a cycling issue, a timing issue, they have said they would make sure that the light is working properly. The other big thing is that we also have to understand that there's this future goal with our general plan when it comes to airport and that whole area. A lot of that region on both sides, eventually airport's going to become four lanes as it is already in the north. And a lot of it's owned commercial and high density residential. A parcel to the north of this project is HDR also. And I believe the one next to that also, which is a much larger parcel. So that's how it's been for many years now. We just haven't seen development happen just because it wasn't feasible yet. Some of the utilities hadn't gotten there and just economics. So I think now some of that's happening and I also do feel this is a good project. I don't like obviously the four stories necessarily but I do think they have taken care of how the project looks and we can't just look at it today with this one maybe eyesore right now that you would think, but I also think that in the future when everything's built around it, it's gonna blend right in. So that's kind of my comments at this point, and I'll wait for a motion.

So moved.

Okay, I have a motion and a second. Okay, I have a motion from Council Member Bridenbrooker and a second from Vice Mayor Lackey and bear with me here. Okay, adopt a resolution making the necessary findings and adopting an initial study mitigated neck deck and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the Wawona Apartment Project. Adopt a resolution approving general plan amendment and amending the land use designation for parcels 222-100-15-14 and dash zero nine from the very low density residential to the high density residential land use designation waived the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance of the City of Manteca State of California rezoning parcel APN 22210015 dash one four and dash zero nine from the residential a state zone to the multifamily dwelling R3 zone by amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040 of Chapter 17.20 of the Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code and adopt a resolution approving the site plan and design review plot line adjustment, and minor zone modification allowing for the Wawona apartment project located at 2005, 2019, and 2027 Wawona Street. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. All right. And that will take us to B1.

receive and file a presentation regarding the Manteca Police Department's use of automated license plate reader ALP. technology, including the department's history of ALPR use, current policy and accountability measures, system capabilities and limitations, common misconceptions regarding the technology, and a case study demonstrating its use as an investigative tool. Mayor and Council, tonight we have Police Chief.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. On August 18th and 26th of the City Council meeting, Mayor Gary Singh, with the consensus of council, requested a presentation of our FLOC system. FLOC is a brand of ALPR, and so we are going to give you a presentation on our ALPR with block system, and tonight I have Lieutenant Ian Osborne, who's our operations division lieutenant, and he is the oversight for our ALPR system and our city security camera system, so. Lieutenant Osborne.

All right, Mayor and Council, thank you very much for having me here. First, I'll start off with automated license plate reader technology. I'm going to refer to it as ALPR because if not, it's way too many words. Manteca's ALPR history started back in 2005 with our first car-mounted system that only alerted to SVS hits. That's a stolen vehicle system. That also includes felony vehicles, missing persons, amber alerts, things like that. In July of 2019, we got our first pole-mounted ALPRs, which were 27 cameras at four intersections. Ironically, today is their end of life. After tonight, they will no longer work. July of 2024, we got our first flock ALPRs, which were 49 fixed ALPR cameras and 30 Pantel Zoom Condor cameras, which are the security type cameras. January of 2025, whenever we signed the agreement for the red light cameras with Vera Mobility, they added 12 additional fixed flock ALPRs Side note, they do not have access to our system. All they do is pay the bill. Nothing changes, there still are cameras, they just pay for it. Going into our Lexapool policy. Lexapool are rules and regulations for the police department. Policy 460, official business only. ALPR use is restricted to official law enforcement purposes. Personal or unauthorized use may be, sorry, may result in discipline up to termination. Patrol and investigation may be used during routine patrol or criminal investigations. Reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required before using ALPR. Major incident canvases. Canvassing a crime scene in the surrounding area. Partial plates for major crimes may be entered in to help identify the suspect vehicles. Training required. Department approved training is required before operating ALPR equipment or accessing ALPR data. Authorizing, sorry, authorized data access. Operators may not access department, state, or federal data unless otherwise authorized. Verify before enforcement. When practicable, verify ALPR response through CLETS before enforcement action based solely on an alert.

Ian, real quick before you move on. So last slide, how many total ALPRs do we have now?

After midnight tonight, we will have 60 ALPRs and 20 Pantel Zoom security cameras.

60 and 20. And if I could comment real quick on those other 27 and why there were so many of them. At the time when we got that type of camera, it was vigilant. And now our ALPRs now cover the entire lane, all the lanes of traffic and the other. So coming and going, it covers all the lanes. Vigilant. There were smaller cameras, and you can see them on a couple of the intersections. They had one camera per lane. And so if you figure an intersection has four lanes coming and going in each direction, the cameras add up. And so it wasn't spanned over 27 like you would have an ALPR, just for clarification.

OK. Thank you. Continuing with the policy, this is 460.6, privacy and official use. The Manteca Police Department utilizes ALPR technology to capture and store digital license plate data and images while recognizing the established privacy rights of the public. All data and images gathered by ALPR are for official department use. Because the data may contain confidential information and is not open to the public review. ALPR system auditing. ALPR system usage is audited monthly to ensure searches are being conducted appropriately and in the compliance with department policy. Users are required to identify a law enforcement purpose associated with their search, creating an audible record of system activity. The police department takes misuse of law enforcement databases and investigative technology seriously. If an employee is found to have intentionally misused the ALPR system, the employee may be subject to disciplinary action, including or up to and including termination. Who audits it? I do, and the rest of command staff has the ability to. So this is ALPR rumors versus reality. The first rumor, flock continuously tracks a person's movement. That is not true, the reality, the camera captures vehicle information when a vehicle passes a camera location. Investigators may search available ALPR data when there is a legitimate law enforcement purpose. The technology does not provide the department with the continuous GPS tracking of a vehicle. The next rumor, flock tracks people's cell phones, reality. Flock ALPR cameras do not track cell phones. The system captures vehicle and license plate information from the vehicle's passing within a camera's field of view. Lastly, the cameras use facial recognition. Manteca's ALPR and the PanTilt Zoom security cameras does not use or include facial recognition. Another very wordy slide here. Law enforcement ALPR capabilities. When used appropriately, ALPR technology can significantly reduce the amount of time required to identify vehicles associated with criminal activity. Rather than relying solely on an officer or witness to see and remember a vehicle, investigators can use vehicle descriptions, license plate information, and other investigative details to identify potential vehicles of interest. that technology does not replace traditional police work. Instead, it gives investigators another tool to identify leads, narrow investigative possibilities, and help officers direct their resources more efficiently. There's also a list of technology that may assist investigations involving stolen or wanted vehicles, missing or endangered persons, amber alerts, and similar critical incidents, vehicles associated with violent crimes, burglaries, robberies, theft, property crimes, hit and run investigations, locating vehicles associated with wanted persons, and developing investigative leads when only limited vehicle information is initially available. This next slide, some of the words are kind of small, but essentially this is what an officer sees when we get an ALPR alert. This one specifically is for a stolen vehicle. On the slide you can see the upper left hand corner says California SVS and then stolen vehicle. Just below that it says plate, CA, and this is not a real license plate. This is a test plate that we use through California DOJ. So I've modified the actual numbers to protect the person who was driving the stolen vehicle at the time. So it gives you what it believes the license plate is. In this case it says CA for California and then SAM123. It believes it's a California license plate that reads SAM123. It gives you the date and time that it went through the location as well as a written location, and it drops a pin where that location was. Whenever an officer gets this, they may start moving in that area to do an area check, but the first thing they're gonna do is they're gonna verify that what they believe the license plate is actually matches the license plate. If that's a match, then they can run it through the database, through SVS, or have dispatch run it to confirm that it is actually a stolen vehicle before any enforcement is made. Things that we can look for is make, color, body style, whether it has a plate or no plate, and then we can also search by time and location. This here, it's gonna start I'll explain after it's done. This was one of our Condor security cameras that happened to capture a collision. And like most collisions, and I can't speak for this one, but you can see how this helps us out, is it's a he said, she said. One person says the car pulled out, the other person says that the car was going too fast and they didn't see him. So this just happened to be an example of one of our cameras in town near Edison in Maine This is where it's positioned daily, and it happened to capture that collision. Immediately, the officers went in, was able to review the recorded video, and determine, there may be more circumstances, but you could probably help determine the primary collision factor in this to help determine what caused the accident. Yeah.

I remember that was also some chatter that said that it was because of the fencing we put up on Main Street that's what caused that accident. So it kind of cleared up that misnomer as well. It had nothing to do with the fencing that was down Main Street. That was also on social media.

Well, we can use flock for more than one thing. So I know last time I was here, we spoke about jugging and the definition of jugging. So I'm just going to give a good breakdown of how the investigation actually played out. First, there was a crime of jugging, bank jugging. Individual's vehicle got broken into. The security video was a private business security camera that captured the break-in and showed the suspect's vehicle make, model, and color, did not capture the license plate. Investigators searched Flock using the vehicle description and the timeframe the vehicle was believed to be in Manteca. After some investigation, officers located a matching vehicle that was captured with a license plate attached. The Bay Area registered vehicle had multiple ALPR hits in Manteca on the date of previous jugging incidents. It was a community service officer that entered the vehicle into what's called a custom hot list to receive an alert when that vehicle came back into town. An alert indicated that the suspect vehicle had ran to re-enter town. Officers located it using unmarked police vehicles. They set up surveillance on it, watched it park facing a bank, and the subject then began surveillance of potential victims. Officers who were working ended up contacting the suspect before another crime can occur, and then the suspect was ultimately arrested for the crimes he was committing at the time, as well as he was arrested for the previous jugging incident that started this case. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to take any questions.

All right. I'm pretty sure council has questions, but I'll bring it up to public first. Zoom.

I do have a hand raised. John, can you hear us?

Yes, I can hear you. Thank you.

Perfect. We can hear you. I'll go ahead and start your three minutes.

All right. ALPR raters require license plates to read. What is the city of Manteca, what is the city PD's policy towards vehicles being driven without license plates within the city? Is there any exception for law enforcement agencies using vehicles with unplated vehicles and unmarked cars? If vehicles in unplated vehicles are to be cited, are the drivers of those agency vehicles also to be cited? If flock surveillance is good for the general public, why or why not is it also good for law enforcement agencies? Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Ian, Chief, license plate.

So if a vehicle doesn't have a license plate, and obviously those vehicles that are entered into SBS, and there was one slide on there that had, like, eight or 10 different reasons on the side of the slide. And those are all license plates that are automatically put into SVS. Stolen vehicles, hit and run vehicles, missing persons, wanted felony vehicles, et cetera. And if a vehicle doesn't have a license plate, we go off of, like we did for this jugging one, off of a security camera. We didn't have a license plate. We just had a description. So you can put that description in And then it will go through and it picks up that description. Let's say we were looking for a blue Ford Mustang with a dent on the side and a bumper sticker on the back. It would go through the system and see if it can't find that on one of our systems. And if it does, then there may have been a time when it did commit a crime or had a license plate. or can say, yeah, hey, this vehicle's now in your area, and so we could go and maneuver into it. As far as policies and procedures on vehicles required to have license plates, that's a topic for another day. That doesn't have, that's not germane to this topic here, and so I'm gonna try to stick.

All right, thank you. Any other Zoom?

I have no other hands.

Hey, I'm a card.

I do have a public comment card, which is ever counsel.

And actually, I have some questions. It might be easier. Can I just hand them to you? Or somebody?

Let's read them out loud and then. And then if you want me to hand them to me so I can see them. I'm going to try to write as you go.

I'm wondering if we have turned off national and state sharing. Who is our data shared with?

Okay, so our data is only shared with in-state agencies that are approved by Lieutenant Osborne will go through and make sure that they're in-state. We don't share with any federal agencies and we don't share with any agency.

Is it possible that we can have the flock transparency portals? that would allow community members to log in and see if it's rip and fleece or who exactly can look at our data.

Absolutely. I can get your number later and I'll have Ian give

And then how long is the data stored? Is it 30 days?

The data by flock is stored seven days. However, we have, and it can stay up to 30. And so we do 30 days. And the reason we only do, well, we can't go beyond 30, but the reason we do 30 and not the seven is, like last meeting, I talked about people who come and case places, and they case the crime area days, weeks, before they actually commit the crime. And so if they commit it, we catch it. We can go back at least 30 days to try to do our investigation.

And who has authorized access? Does it have to be like a sergeant, a lieutenant?

So authorized access at our police department are dispatchers. our community service officers, and our sworn police officers, officers through Lieutenant now, for admin rights. There's only a few of us that have admin rights. Lieutenant Osborne does. Captain Carmona has admin rights, and I have admin rights.

So like there's no city employees that can access our clerical positions or anything like that?

Correct.

And do we have any other contracts or data sharing with any other surveillance companies?

So we have a contract with Vigilant, but Vigilant is no longer after today. And then we do have, we just purchased some of these cameras. You've seen them like at Library Park. So there's like four cameras set up in Library Park. And we have, I think that's the TAMO group, and we have three sets of those cameras.

And so that company has access to our data?

No, that company doesn't have access to it. It gets stored. We have access. They're a company that – I thought the question was what other camera systems do we have. So we have access to our own data. They don't have access.

And then have we considered any other vendors that offer like a closed local network like Genetech? There's just so many concerns about slots.

When FLOG first came out, we, years ago, we did an RFP and went through that process. And to answer your question short, no, we haven't. That wasn't a concern at the time when it went through the RFP. This is something that's come up new. Sure.

Chief, I have a question. Now that we have 60, 20, if we were to want to change to a different company, do these cameras are no good anymore or can they be changed over?

No, they'd be no good. And we have a lot right now vested into Block and Condors, et cetera, plus ongoing contracts with those.

So we basically have to start over and refund everything. Correct. Any other cards?

I have no other cards for this item.

Okay, anybody in the public would like to speak on E1? There's your chance. Okay. All right, we'll go ahead and bring it back to council. You want to go first this time? Vice Mayor.

You gave me that look. I knew you were going to call me. Lieutenant Osborne, thank you. That was a very good presentation. There's a lot of misconceptions about the cameras. And the most recent that I've seen is on social people asking, well, where's camera footage of a sign being destroyed? And I think that if everybody can see this presentation, they're going to understand what our cameras actually do. And so, yeah, no, I really appreciate you debunking some of the misinformation that's out there. I appreciate you, ma'am, coming up and asking those questions. Where were you two weeks ago? Those are questions that people are asking, and those are answers that they want to hear. And our police department, they are very transparent on how they do their job, and they generally care about the safety of our community. I truly do believe that. And I believe that, you know, although I'm admitted, I'm not a huge fan of cameras everywhere. I'm not a fan of walking down the street and having a house talk to me and tell me that you are being recorded. But when you have situations like this car accident, I guarantee you that the person that got hit in this accident in this video was extremely thankful for that camera and for that footage to be able to prove that they weren't in the wrong. The families who have kids that go missing, I'm sure the first thing they do is they go looking for cameras. So it has its benefits. There are the negatives out there, and there's people that abuse it. And we are very fortunate. We do not have those informational abusers in our police department. So we have our PD that has the highest integrity and I'm very thankful for you guys and for the presentation that you've taken the time to put together. So thank you.

All right.

Council Member Bridenbrook.

Now between Captain Osborne's presentation, David's questions. Ian, sorry. IAN OSBORNE, RIGHT?

JUST PROMOTED HIM.

OKAY. I WAS WONDERING. I WAS WONDERING. YOU DID SUCH A GOOD JOB TONIGHT.

YOU PROMOTED KEVIN.

Anyway, between their presentation and their questions, just about took everything away. The one thing I would ask is how successful have our LPRs been over the years in doing their job?

You know, I wish there was a way to quantify it other than just saying they are probably, for sake of technology, over the past 25 years or 30 years of law enforcement, it's huge. It's a game changer. It really is. It would take manpower a whole lot more to do what the systems can do to solve these crimes. I mean, it's a split second we have the data at our fingertips. And it's our data at our fingertips.

And then we have the checks and balances in place to make sure that we're not having any issues data breach, or whatever. That's all in place. Our system is such that it's all good. And if people are worried about what's being out there tracking them, you can just go to this. It listens to you. You talk about something, and then advertisers pop up. So if you're really worried about something, Don't worry about your phone. This is a tool that helps our police department and helps our community. And I see nothing wrong with them. Thank you.

All right. Council Member Halford. Thank you, Ian.

You're welcome. I think it's mostly been said. LPRs are a tremendous tool for law enforcement. Can they be abused? Absolutely. Do they get abused much? No. A very, very, very small number of abuse. It would be very public when it comes to light, which is appropriate. And I'm sure that you and the command staff for the police department are going to do the audits and ensure that you double check and make sure people are doing the right thing. The cops and the people that have access to the system are going to do the right thing 99.99999% of the time. You know, we all hire from the human race, so people occasionally make mistakes. and do stupid things. That being said, the advantages far outweigh the negatives of the technology. The video that is actually taken, the picture you showed is very accurate. It's typically the back of the car, and you really can't see the driver in it at all. It is an incredible force multiplier for law enforcement. I mean, you talked about the efficiency and the time savings. Previously, you talked about an armed robbery that occurred up on North Main Street, where within minutes, they had identified the suspect, vehicle the suspect, and ultimately arrested him. You know, the jugging case was a good example of the investigative technique and were alerted when the suspect vehicle came back in the town, and you were able to prevent a crime and arrest the bad guy. Today on the news in Monterey County, a very heinous crime. A 14-year-old girl gave birth, killed the baby. The father of the 14-year-old is the father of the baby. Block was instrumental. Block camera is instrumental in identifying the suspects in that time. And the two suspects are on the run. So it's a tremendous tool. And I'm obviously very supportive of it and encourage you to expand the system beyond what we have now. All right, Council Member Morwick.

So many good comments from our previous chief. I do have a question. If the, which happens if the plate is read wrong, what occurs, Chief or Lieutenant?

So it does happen. It does happen. It uses what's called optical character recognition. And with license plate frames, if you just pay attention to the cars out on the roadway, T's and I's will often be mistaken. R's and B's. F and E. F and E. Those are probably the most common. So the officer has to visually look at the picture of the license plate, and you can usually see that, oh no, it's an I, not a T or an E versus an F. So if it doesn't match, it's essentially a non-read.

No, it's just another check-in. So it's a two-stage process. You get the LPR picture, then you verify as a human being to make sure that it matches. So it's not just relying on technology. We're double-checking.

Correct. And then there's actually a third level, then, if you want to look at it, because the officer has to run that vehicle through SVS to see if it's still a legitimate hit.

Okay, so there's three layers. So you have a verification. Okay, that's great.

And it also gives you the make and model when you run that license plate. So if you've got a license plate that's supposed to be on a 72 Volkswagen and it comes back to a Mercedes, that's a clue that something's not right.

Correct. A lot of times at night, as you saw in that picture, the license plates illuminate. And the darker it is, and we have some of these where there are no street lights, and so they're just, all you see is a license plate in the black. And so during the day or during, or some places that have the lights, they can pick up that car and give you the plate and say this is a stolen vehicle, and we'll have the stolen vehicle's correct license plate because it reads it that way, but the vehicle that was observed there is a Ford Mustang, When we run it in Clets, which is the California law enforcement terminal system, you run it in that, it will come back stolen. But in that system, it has a description of what that vehicle really is. And so then you've got to look at it again and see if it was a misread by the cameras.

And the technology in the FLAC, it's just not a regular camera. It uses infrared, and the lights are reflective. It's not like you're looking at a licensed place in the dark. It's reading it differently than you're seeing it in your eye. So it gets a better view and a better picture of that license.

So that being said, that's great. And then I think what happens is that we've had a lot of publicity, so to speak, on this flock. And unfortunately, a lot of agencies have had some issues. And when issues are hit now, once again, social media and the news really blow it sometimes out of proportion. We're talking about thousands of police officers and personnel that look at these all the time. you hear a few incidences. I do understand people are concerned about sharing the information out of state. I think the chief, and you as well, Lieutenant, had mentioned that is not shared out of state. It's a California law. You have to stay within the jurisdiction, and it only can be shared with certified other agencies. So I think that concern is a California issue. At California, although we always say they have so many rules, some of these rules protect your privacy very well. So that's one of them. So unfortunately, You know, unfortunately, if someone comes in, you know, to the state or leaves the state, we can't just, you know, go gather that information. We have to get, you know, permission. So it's there's a lot of pluses and minuses. But the biggest plus is that everywhere you go, there's a camera. And the problem is they're in liquor stores, convenience stores, banks, everywhere. These serve a purpose. Purpose is to read license plates and see if there are felons or felony vehicles or vehicles that are stolen. So it's not just a random... Like when you walk into a store and you're getting a picture when you walk in on the TV when you go into ARCO. I mean, those are what they do. This is not like that. This is really to look at vehicles that have issues. So I'm glad you did a great job. I hope this puts a lot of this to sleep, some of the concerns. The lady that came up front, great, with the questions. That was very organized. And so I'm very happy with it. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, yeah. I know I asked for this last time, because obviously, there's a lot of rumors and a lot of stuff rolling around everywhere. And thank you for the presentation. A couple more things. You know, retail crime is another thing that was big. And you know, I'm pretty sure this helps with that also.

It does. One of the benefits with Flock is I know Home Depot and Lowe's and there's a few other smaller companies have installed Flock cameras throughout California on their property. They are owned by those businesses or leased by those businesses. They can search their own plate reads within their own parking lot. But what they do is they give us access to all those. So they can't see anything of ours. It's a different database. There's a private and a government sector to it. But so we get to have access to all those cameras, which are nice, because we have a lot of ORC theft out of Home Depot. And Great Wolf is another example in town.

Yeah. The other thing is also you mentioned database. There's this concern of database breaches, but you're saying ours lives here. or our data is our data? So explain what is in place to make sure that doesn't happen.

So there's several factors. Some of them are above my technical skills. But I do know that Flock recently went out to a third party company to have them do an audit of the system. I believe it's still being done. And they've yet to find any vulnerabilities of the system. We've implemented multi-factor authorization, so you get the code sent to your phone before you can actually do any searches. The data is not stored with the Manteca Police Department, it's stored in the cloud, but it's our data in the cloud.

Okay, other question was, regarding that was, I know this has come up with immigration and situations with that and us sharing data with immigration officers.

Yeah, so one of the questions she talked about was the sharing with other states or federal agencies. We currently do not share with any federal agencies, including ICE or Homeland Security, and we do not share with out-of-state agencies. So it's strictly within California.

Okay, and the next.

Mayor, if I can interrupt real quick. We are almost there. Our 10 p.m. deadline.

Yes.

I don't know if you guys want to make a motion to continue. You'll beat it? Okay.

Okay, all right, I better talk fast. Last one is, how do we kind of pick where cameras go, or how do you guys decide that throughout the city?

So initially, our goal was to cover every entrance into Manteca with the LPRs. Now that we're losing a few in two hours, we may have to plug some holes in some of those areas. But right now, if you enter Manteca, in theory, you'll be captured by an LPR. There are locations where I would like to add more.

Are there any locations where it's you know, going into people's backyards or into private properties, or are most of them all street?

All the ALPRs are narrowly focused onto the roadway, capturing only what is visible from public. You know, none of them are overhouses looking down. 90% of the time, they're on a light pole right next to the roadway edge, looking at the roadway.

All right, well, that takes care of all of my questions. Thank you, and I really appreciate it, and thank you for kind of taking over these myths, and there's a lot of misinformation out there, and I really encourage the public to watch this that wasn't here to kind of understand our systems and how good you guys are doing to make sure that it's run properly.

One other thing, I don't want to put you over the 10 o'clock pass, but one other thing, and I know this question wasn't asked, But this is also located on our website. If you go to the Manteca Police Department, you can go under our FAQs. They have the red light camera and different other questions if people have questions about the police department. So this entire presentation with the council, the agenda, the background is all there, along with our policy. So if you have any questions, you can go directly there and you can see our written policy in its entirety.

And with that, can I entertain a motion? Motion. I have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All right. Motion carries 5-0. Or two city manager comments.

All right, Mayor and Council, just a quick recap. Last week, we started the first ever Manteca Citizens Academy. And we will continue this week. So I just want to thank you all again for your support with that. We have our tiny home ribbon cutting at the Wave Veterans Village, September 8th. It'll be at 10 a.m. Lots of exciting stuff going on. September 9th, we're gonna have our transitional housing and dog kennel containers ribbon cutting at 555. September 12th, we'll have Park Palooza. It'll be at Woodward Park from five to 10. On September 17th, we'll have music on Maple. It's going to be oldies funk. And then we'll also, prior to that, have a ribbon cutting at the new mural alley, which has a few more things coming towards it. So keep an eye out. And then also October 7th, we'll have a groundbreaking for the police department. And October 14th, we'll have a groundbreaking for fire station six. And so lots of stuff coming up. We'll be bringing you at the next meeting a draft financial plan for both of the police department and fire station six for your review. And then lastly, I just want to close this evening and just state that police chief released a statement on election season. And I just kind of want to bring up one point. Election season does bring out strong opinions. creates passionate conversations and disagreement, and the Manteca Police Department as well as the city. We respect everyone's rights to peacefully express their views and support any candidate of their choice, but if I could say anything is, I do know everyone wants what's best for the city, but the city is in, moment of there's just a lot going on it's growing we have some we have some growing pains and some people are excited about it and some people aren't but if I could say anything is please check out the statement that was released by the police chief and be kind and do what's right that's that's what we do here every day so that's all I have for this evening unless anyone has anything for me have a good night and thank you all right thank you we'll go to council comments council member help

It was a good meeting, tagging on to hear comments about the election. You know, there's a lot of stuff being said on social media that honestly is pretty disheartening to me in the tone and the inferences and the innuendo that's out there. So I would hope people would take a breath, step back, and keep their comments true and accurate.

Vice Mayor.

Another long meeting, but I think it was a great one. I would like to possibly ask for a consensus to take a look at these playgrounds with the recycled tires and see if we can't find a solution, figure out what the effectiveness is of these tires, safety issues, possible replacement, how many parks are affected by this? You know, because I do know that recycled tires with our heat, granted, it's now September. However, we want to use, we want to be able to keep our kids as safe as possible. And if, you know, playing on on these surfaces is a potential issue. then I'd like us to take a look at that.

Can I ask for a consensus to have them look at that? If you don't mind if I can answer, Vice Mayor. We are already looking on it, and that is actually one of the playgrounds on the list. So in between, I think it was the last break, I spoke with Parks and Recreation Director, and we're going to get back to Ms. Larson, and we can get back to you with all of the details as well. That's not a problem. So consensus is not needed. They're on it.

Fantastic. Even better. Okay. Check that off my list. Attended the police department badge ceremony today, and that was amazing. And even though I hid back in the corner and he didn't know I was there, it was a great presentation. And then today starts what I like to call the Burr Months. And while I was doing all my volunteering with scouts, I would tell them that today is the official start of planning out your holiday season. Because it gets very busy. Every weekend gets full. So happy Vermont's everybody and all is on its way pumpkin spice is here. I'm so excited. I've had two already. And it was mentioned tonight about code of ethics. And one thing that wasn't talked about is our responsibility up here is to the greater good of the community it's not to answer every call with what they want to hear it's not you know we receive a complaint and there you go i'm gonna i'm gonna be able to fix it for you that's not what we can do we have to follow the law we have to go through legal channels Our responsibility is to listen to our constituents, to the residents, to of all opinions, whether it's good, bad or indifferent. And to take those opinions and evaluate the best option for the greater good of the community, not just one person, but for everybody. And that's not always an easy thing to do. Because no matter what we do, no matter what we decide, somebody is not going to be happy. And that is, I think, the hardest part about sitting up here, is I know that every time we have a council meeting, somebody is going to be mad at me. Somebody is going to be mad at these guys. But I do know that, and I think I can speak for everyone up here, we do. make decisions based on the greater good of the direct community that's impacted or the entire city as a whole. And we look at not only the small surrounding area to a project, but how is it going to impact in the long term? So code of ethics is something that we all live by. And you might not agree with the things that we do. or the things that we say or the choices that we make up here every two weeks. But we do it with our hearts. We're up here because we believe in our community. And we are only human. We make mistakes, too. And we'll own up to those mistakes. In and out of election season, there's times where we have an oopsie and we own up to it. And if there is a consequence to that, then we accept that. Doesn't mean that we have to keep something held over our heads for the next few years. There's a lot of stuff going out on Facebook. lot of things that keep dredging up history. And question of character. Everyone got voted up here because you believed in our character. And you believed in what we can do for our community. And our community is doing better than ever. And I truly believe it's because we have council members up here that think beyond their own front door. We give up our family time. We give up our personal time. We give up our income so that we can sit up here and do our best to make things better for people that we don't personally know but we care about because we're all in the same community. We're all neighbors. So all I can ask is over the next couple of months, If you have a question, ask one of us. If you see something on Facebook and you're not sure what the history behind something is or where it's going, ask one of us. It's very simple to get a hold of us. Actually, the city of Manteca just updated their website and made it easier than ever. And it's a great website. They did an amazing job. We're all human up here, and we take the information as we get it, and we work with what we have. So that is all I have to say. Have a wonderful night, and enjoy September.

All right. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Bright.

Thank you. So happy Labor Day weekend coming up. I remember back in the day when you started school on Tuesday after Labor Day, not three weeks into August. Congratulations to Grandma Lackey. I'm looking forward to both the way the veterans housing there and 555 the Housing there in the kennels, the ribbon cutting. If you haven't seen the kennel, it is nice. It's air conditioned. There's space inside and outside for the dogs. So that's a great, great thing to happen. And that kennel was, we got that donated, correct, City Manager? Yep. at that donated, so it was a great win for us. They're also moving forward with the construction of 555 Industrial. They're starting on the roof, so that'll be worked on and completed, I think, end of the year, ongoing, yeah. But I mean, the roof will be done, yeah, so, okay. Well, it already rained, so. A couple months. Hopefully, yeah, yeah, hopefully, yeah. And then I'd ask that we close the meeting in memory of Fred Stillhorn. Fred Stillhorn was a longtime resident, longtime businessman. He was a member of Rotary, and I'll let one of you speak to that because he did a lot outside of this community through that program. I've known him since I was nine. Him and his first wife were my swim coach. He was my optometrist since I was 12. And then I ended up coaching their sons at Manteca High and on dolphins. I've known Fred a long time. He will be greatly missed. He was a good gentleman and loved his community and loved the people of this town. Thank you.

All right. Council Member Morales.

Good, good meeting. A lot of information. I would say that same thing about the Labor Day coming up, and I hope everyone has a safe holiday. I'll just touch briefly on Dr. Fred. He was a great Rotarian. He's been there over 50 years, I think, Charlie? About 50? God, it seems...

Forever.

Forever. Forever.

He might have been close to 50.

Anyway, he was a good doctor. He was a very smart man. He did a lot for the community, put a lot of time in, traveled a lot, helped others. So he will be missed as well. And I would like to say for those who hung in there, thank you and have a good evening.

Yes, yeah, thank you. A lot of good items that were covered tonight. You know, the gas station moratorium has been lingering for a while, that item, so I'm glad we got that to the finish line. Got a good project through that's going to hopefully kind of change the dynamic of that area. Appreciate all the support from the council and everybody out there. A lot of good things going on in the community, a lot of great projects Groundbreakings and ribbon cutting so looking forward to that speaking of one the new food for less is officially opening up tomorrow morning. Bright and early at seven thirty in the morning we might go straight from here there. But it's great to see that's our first grocery store on the south side of one twenty. So I'm pretty sure a lot of those individuals over there appreciate it. And in that, it just was a really good night and I'm glad we got a lot of stuff done. And the last two meetings have been longer than normal, but there's been a lot of items on there. Also really appreciate all the new hires due to the Measure Q and CFDs. That's gonna hopefully help you guys be more efficient in your jobs and get more bodies and help the folks that are already working. And yes, Dr. Fred, long-time Rotarian, you know, palmatist locally, but even a lot of his projects, his Rotary projects overseas in underprivileged areas and providing eyeglasses for kids and others. So he was really instrumental in you know, spearheading those projects, and he will be sorely missed. And then I also would like to adjourn tonight's meeting in Dr. Fred Stellhorn, but also Veronica Stefani, who passed away, also a person that was full of energy, and Del Webbian, and a lot of thanks for in the community also. So I'll go ahead and conclude that night's meeting at 1014.