Tracy City Council
March 1, 2022

Date Posted: February 24, 2022

THIS MEETING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR IN-PERSON AND REMOTE PARTICIPATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e).

THIS MEETING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR IN-PERSON AND REMOTE PARTICIPATION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH GUIDELINES, UNIVERSAL MASKING IS RECOMMENDED. MASKS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL UNVACCINATED INDIVIDUALS IN INDOOR SETTINGS.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE REMOTELY IN THE MEETING VIA THE FOLLOWING METHOD:

As always, the public may view the City Council meetings live on the City of Tracy’s website at CityofTracy.org or on Comcast Channel 26/AT&T U-verse Channel 99. To view from the City’s website, open the “Government” menu at the top of the City’s homepage and select “City Council Meeting Videos” under the “City Council” section.

If you only wish to watch the meeting and do not wish to address the Council, the City requests that you stream the meeting through the City’s website or watch on Channel 26.

Remote Public Comment:

During the upcoming City Council meeting public comment will be accepted via the options listed below. If you would like to comment remotely, please follow the protocols below:
• Comments via:
o Online by visiting https://cityoftracyevents.webex.com and using the following Event Number: 2555 131 8902 and Event Password: TracyCC o If you would like to participate in the public comment anonymously, you may submit your comment in WebEx by typing “Anonymous” when prompted to provide a First and Last Name and inserting [email protected] when prompted to provide an email address.
o Join by phone by dialing +1-408-418-9388, enter 25551318902#8722922# Press *3 to raise the hand icon to speak on an item.

• Protocols for commenting via WebEx:
o If you wish to comment on the “Consent Calendar”, “Items from the Audience/Public Comment” or “Regular Agenda” portions of the agenda:
 Listen for the Mayor to open that portion of the agenda for discussion, then raise your hand to speak by clicking on the Hand icon on the Participants panel to the right of your screen.
 If you no longer wish to comment, you may lower your hand by clicking on the Hand icon again.
o Comments for the “Consent Calendar” “Items from the Agenda/Public Comment” or “Regular Agenda” portions of the agenda will be accepted until the public comment for that item is closed.

TRACY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

Tuesday, March 1, 2022, 7:00 P.M.

Tracy City Hall Chambers, 333 Civic Center Plaza, Tracy Web Site: www.cityoftracy.org TRACY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2 March 1, 2022

Comments received on Webex outside of the comment periods outlined above will not be included in the record.

Americans With Disabilities Act - The City of Tracy complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and makes all reasonable accommodations for the disabled to participate in Council meetings. Persons requiring assistance or auxiliary aids should call City Hall (209/831-6105) 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Addressing the Council on Items on the Agenda - The Brown Act provides that every regular Council meeting shall provide an opportunity for the public to address the Council on any item within its jurisdiction before or during the Council's consideration of the item, provided no action shall be taken on any item not on the agenda. To facilitate the orderly process of public comment and to assist the Council to conduct its business as efficiently as possible, members of the public wishing to address the Council are requested to, but not required to, hand a speaker card, which includes the speaker’s name or other identifying designation and address to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item being called. Generally, once the City Council begins its consideration of an item, no more speaker cards will be accepted. An individual’s failure to present a speaker card or state their name shall not preclude the individual from addressing the Council. Each citizen will be allowed a maximum of five minutes for input or testimony. In the event there are 15 or more individuals wishing to speak regarding any agenda item including the “Items from the Audience/Public Comment” portion of the agenda and regular items, the maximum amount of time allowed per speaker will be three minutes. When speaking under a specific agenda item, each speaker should avoid repetition of the remarks of the prior speakers. To promote time efficiency and an orderly meeting, the Presiding Officer may request that a spokesperson be designated to represent similar views. A designated spokesperson shall have 10 minutes to speak. At the Presiding Officer’s discretion, additional time may be granted. The City Clerk shall be the timekeeper.

Consent Calendar - All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and/or consistent wit h previous City Council direction. One motion, a second, and a roll call vote may enact the items listed on the Consent Calendar. No separate discussion of Consent Calendar items shall take place unless a member of the City Council, City staff or the public request discussion on a specific item.

Addressing the Council on Items not on the Agenda – The Brown Act prohibits discussion or action on items not on the posted agenda. The City Council’s Meeting Protocols and Rules of Procedure provide that in the interest of allowing Council to have adequate time to address the agendized items of business, “Items from the Audience/Public Comment” following the Consent Calendar will be limited to 15- minutes maximum period. “Items from the Audience/Public Comment” listed near the end of the agenda will not have a maximum time limit. A five- minute maximum time limit per speaker will apply to all individuals speaking during “Items from the Audience/Public Comment”. For non-agendized items, Council Members may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by individuals during public comment; ask questions for clarification; direct the individual to the appropriate staff member; or request that the matter be placed on a future agenda or that staff provide additional information to Council. When members of the public address the Council, they should be as specific as possible about their concerns. If several members of the public comment on the same issue an effort should be made to avoid repetition of views already expressed.

Notice - A 90 day limit is set by law for filing challenges in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders when those decisions or orders require: (1) a hearing by law, (2) the receipt of evidence, and (3) the exercise of discretion. The 90 day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6). Further, if you challenge a City Council action in court, you may be limited, by California law, including but not limited to Government Code Section 65009, to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public hearing, or raised in written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the public hearing.

Full copies of the agenda are available on the City’s website:
www.cityoftracy.org

TRACY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 3 March 1, 2022

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INVOCATION

ROLL CALL
PRESENTATIONS:

1. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH

2. CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT – MEASURE V RESIDENTS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

1.A. ADOPTION OF FEBRUARY 15, 2022 CLOSED SESSION, SPECIAL JOINT PLANNING

COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES

1.B. APPROVE THE CITY OF TRACY 2022 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND LOCAL

PROJECT SUBMITTAL FOR CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION REQUESTS DURING SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS’ ONE VOICE TRIP TO WASHINGTON D.C.

1.C. AUTHORIZE THE APPLICATION FOR AND ACCEPTANCE OF UP TO $200,000 FROM THE 2022 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL CANNABIS TAX FUND GRANT

PROGRAM TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF A POLICE RESPONDER VEHICLE AND

APPROVE THE APPROPRIATION TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 22/23

1.D. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY’S OPERATING AND CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022, AS PROPOSED

1.E. WAIVE SECOND READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE 1326, AN ORDINANCE OF THE

CITY OF TRACY AMENDING THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST

OF THE INTERSECTION OF THIRD STREET AND EVANS STREET, FROM LIGHT

INDUSTRIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY CLUSTER AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

1.F. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE INITIATIVE 21-0042A1: STATE BALLOT MEASURE RESTRICTING VOTERS’ INPUT AND LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITY

1.G. REJECT ALL BIDS FOR THE LINCOLN BOULEVARD SEWER MAIN AND LATERAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CIP 74163, AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO RE-ADVERTISE

THE PROJECT

2. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE

TRACY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4 March 1, 2022

3. REGULAR AGENDA

3.A. RECEIVE THE PROPERTY OWNERS REVISED LAND USE PLAN FOR THE

WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (FORMERLY TRACY GATEWAY) AND

PROVIDE DIRECTION TO CITY STAFF

3.B. APPOINT TWO APPLICANTS TO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF APPEALS, TWO APPLICANTS TO SERVE ON THE MEASURE V RESIDENTS’ OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE, AND THREE APPLICANTS TO SERVE ON THE PLANNING

COMMISSION

3.C. APPOINTMENT OF CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE AND AN ALTERNATE TO

INTERVIEW APPLICANTS TO FILL TWO TERM EXPIRATIONS ON THE

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMISSION

4. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE

5. STAFF ITEMS

6. COUNCIL ITEMS

7. ADJOURNMENT

TRACY CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

February 15, 2022, 5:15 p.m.

Tracy City Hall, 333 Civic Center Plaza, Tracy

1. Mayor Young called the meeting to order at 5:19 p.m.

2. Roll call found Council Members Bedolla, Davis and Mayor Young present. Council Member Arriola and Mayor Pro Tem Vargas absent from roll call.

3. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE – None

4. Request to Conduct Closed Session

A. Personnel Matter (Gov. Code § 54957)

Public Employee Appointment and Employment

Position Title: City Attorney

There was no public comment.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Bedolla and seconded by Council Member Davis to recess to closed session. Roll call found Council Members Bedolla, Davis and Mayor Young in favor; passed and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Vargas and Council Member Arriola absent. Time: 5:21 p.m.

Council Member Arriola arrived at 5:22 p.m.

Mayor Pro Tem Vargas arrived at 5:22 p.m. virtually.

5. Mayor Young reconvened the meeting to open session at 6:12 p.m.

6. REPORT OF FINAL ACTION – There was no reportable action.

7. COUNCIL ITEMS AND COMMENTS – None.

8. ADJOURNMENT- Time: 6:13 p.m.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Council Member Davis to adjourn. Roll call found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Davis and Mayor Young in favor; passed and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Vargas absent from roll call.

Special Meeting Minutes 2 February 15, 2022

The agenda was posted at City Hall on February 10, 2022. The above are action minutes.

____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:

___________________________
City Clerk

TRACY CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

February 15, 2022, 6:00 p.m.

Tracy City Hall, 333 Civic Center Plaza, Tracy

1. Mayor Young called the joint meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.

2. Roll call found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Davis, and Mayor Young present.

Mayor Pro Tem Vargas absent.

Roll call found Planning Commissioners Francis, Orcutt, Vice Chair Wood and Chairperson Hudson present. Commissioner Atwal absent at roll call. Commissioners Francis, Orcutt and Chair Hudson participated virtually.

3. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE – None.

4. JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS

THE ROLE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS, PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIVITY DURING 2021, AND UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS FOR 2022
Scott Claar, Senior Planner provided the staff report.

Robert Tanner suggested Council and Planning Commission create use permits that do not allow the concentration of cannabis retail stores in downtown areas, and shared concerns regarding the number of cannabis stores Council has approved for Tracy.

Council questions and comments followed.

Planning Commission comments followed.

Bill Dean, Interim Development Services Director stated he would respond to Council’s requests by memorandum and provide information regarding the cannabis policy, applicant process, density limits downtown, and distance requirements.

Planning Commissioner Atwal joined the meeting at 6:51 p.m.

Council and Planning Commission comments continued.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Council Member Davis to accept the report on the role, bylaws and activity during 2021, and upcoming agenda items for 2022 for the Planning Commission. Roll call vote found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Davis, Mayor Young, Planning Commissioners Atwal, Orcutt, Vice Chair Wood and Chairperson Hudson all in favor; passed and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Vargas absent. Planning Commissioner Francis absent from roll call.

5. COUNCIL ITEMS AND COMMENTS – Council Member Davis addressed accusations made by Mayor Pro Tem Vargas during the February 1, 2022 Closed Session meeting under Council Items stating Mayor Pro Tem Vargas publicly accused her of being the owner and/or in some way affiliated with a blog or news organization “Transparent

Special Meeting Minutes 2 February 15, 2022

Tracy”. Council Member Davis stated the accusation is unfounded, has no basis and is 100% false, Mayor Pro Tem Vargas has served on City Council for nearly 8 years and is aware of the inappropriate nature of her public and unfounded accusation towards a Council colleague and the adverse impact this has on Council relationships and public trust. After conferring with the City Attorney, Council Member Davis added she has filed a formal complaint with the City Manager’s office stating Mayor Pro Tem Vargas has violated Tracy City Council’s Code of Conduct, among others, Section 3.3.1 and Section

3.3.2. In accordance with her rights under Tracy City Council Code of Conduct, Council Member Davis formally and publicly requested that the record reflect her formal complaint which has been submitted to the City Clerk. Council Member Davis also requested Mayor Pro Tem Vargas stop violating the Code of Conduct as it relates to publicly defaming her character and should violations continue, she will not hesitate to formerly invoke her right to pursue censure and any other legal channels available to stop the senseless, baseless and unfounded attack on her personal character.

Greg Rubens, Interim City Attorney clarified that Council Member Davis is bringing the issue to the attention of the City Council and has submitted a letter but is not requesting censure or asking any Council Member to schedule a procedure. Nothing is going to happen unless a further request is made by Council Member Davis.

Council Member Davis confirmed Mr. Rubens understanding is correct, this is to bring it to Council’s and the public’s attention of what the Code of Conduct says and remind Mayor Pro Tem Vargas that we do operate under a Code of Conduct and if those violations continue, she will invoke her right to censure her.

Mr. Rubens added there is a procedure in the Code of Conduct to start that but that is not being requested.

Council Member Bedolla congratulated Bob Browne for being with the Tracy Press since 1998 and being named Managing Editor.

6. ADJOURNMENT: Time: 7:15 p.m.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Davis and seconded by Council Member Bedolla to adjourn. Roll call vote found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Davis, Mayor Young, Planning Commissioner Francis and Vice Chair Wood in favor; passed and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Vargas absent, and Planning Commissioners Atwal, Orcutt and Chair Hudson absent from adjournment roll call.

The agenda was posted at City Hall on February 10, 2022. The above are action minutes.

____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:

___________________________
City Clerk

TRACY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

February 15, 2022, 7:00 p.m.

City Hall, 333 Civic Center Plaza, Tracy Web Site: www.cityoftracy.org

Mayor Young called the meeting to order at 7:27 p.m.

Mayor Young led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pastor Kal Waetzig, Saint Paul’s Lutheran Church offered the invocation.

Roll call found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Vargas and Mayor Young present.

Mayor Young asked for a moment of silence to recognize Chief Gene LeBlanc former Fire Chief of the Tracy Rural Fire District.

Germaine Clark, Tracy Grand Foundation Board Member announced the donation of the Tree of Life Heart sculpture to the City’s Art Collection for display at City Hall.

1. CONSENT CALENDAR – Following the removal of consent item 1.A by Adrianne Richardson, City Clerk, 1.B by Alice English, 1.G and 1.H by Mayor Young and 1.K by Michael Langley motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Council Member Davis to adopt the consent calendar. Roll call found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Davis and Mayor Young all in favor, passed and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Vargas absent.

1.C ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY OF TRACY’S ANNUAL

COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT (ACFR) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2021– Resolution 2022-012 adopted the City of Tracy’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for fiscal year ending June 30, 2021.

1.D ACCEPT THE DEDICATION OF THE IMPROVED FIRE STATION 95 SITE

AND ALL EQUIPMENT, FURNISHINGS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE TRACY HILLS DEVELOPERS; AUTHORIZE CONVEYANCE OF THE IMPROVED STATION 95 SITE, EQUIPMENT, FURNISHINGS, SITE

IMPROVEMENTS, AND AN ASSOCIATED FIRE ENGINE APPARATUS TO THE TRACY RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT; AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT –
Resolution 2022-013 accepted the dedication of the improved Fire Station 95 site, equipment, furnishings and site improvements from Tracy Hills Developers.

1.E APPROVE A GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PATRIOT

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, OF CALIFORNIA FOR ON-CALL SERVICES

FOR REMOVAL OF FATS, OIL AND GREASE AT VARIOUS FACILITIES FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $200,000 PER YEAR FOR A PERIOD OF

THREE YEARS, AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT – Resolution 2022-014 approved a General Services Agreement with Patriot Environmental Services.

Regular Meeting Minutes 2 February 15, 2022

1.F APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH TERRACARE ASSOCIATES, TO AMEND THE ANNUAL ‘NOT TO EXCEED’ AMOUNT TO $1,230,000, FOR LANDSCAPE, PARK AND

CHANNELWAY MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR THE TRACY

CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT AND COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICTS – Resolution 2022-015 approved Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Terracare Associates.

1.I ADOPT A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZING REMOTE

TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ALL

LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF TRACY FOR THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 20, 2022 THROUGH MARCH 21, 2022 PURSUANT TO THE BROWN ACT – Resolution 2022-016 adopted making findings and authorizing remote teleconference meetings.

1.J APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TRACY AND WRT, LLC FOR

ADDITIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE UPDATE OF THE CITYWIDE PARKS, RECREATION, AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN – Resolution 2022-017 approved Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with WRT, LLC.

1.L AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION OF TREE OF LIFE HEART

SCULPTURE FROM THE GRAND FOUNDATION, AND DISPLAY IN CITY HALL – Resolution 2022-018 authorized the acceptance of donation of Tree of Life Heart Sculpture.

1.A ADOPTION OF FEBRUARY 1, 2022 CLOSED SESSION AND REGULAR

MEETING MINUTES

Adrianne Richardson, City Clerk pulled the item to announce two corrections to the published February 1, 2022 regular meeting minutes.

• Under Consent Item 1.D regarding the Homeless Services Manager position Council Member Davis had requested the record reflect her support of the Homeless Services Manager position but feels the pay is too much for right now.

• Under Council Items the date for the Point-In-Time count was amended to reflect the correct date of January 27, 2022.

There was no public comment.

There were no comments from Council.

ACTION Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Council Member Davis to adopt the corrected February 1, 2022, regular Council meeting minutes. Roll call found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Davis and Mayor Young in favor; passed and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Vargas absent.

Regular Meeting Minutes 3 February 15, 2022

1.B

APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $3,343,519 WITH LPA, INC., A CALIFORNIA

CORPORATION, FOR THE CITY OF TRACY MULTI-GENERATIONAL

RECREATION CENTER AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE

CHANGE ORDERS UP TO THAT AMOUNT

Richard Joaquin, Parks Planning and Development Manager provided the staff report.

Alice English pulled the item for the public to understand the agenda item and be aware of the money and revenues going toward amenities.

There were no comments from Council.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Council Member Davis to adopt Resolution 2022-019 approving a Professional Services Agreement with a not to exceed amount of $3,343,519 with LPA, Inc., a California Corporation, for the City of Tracy Multi-Generational Recreation Center and authorize the City Manager to approve change orders up to that amount.

Roll call found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Davis and Mayor Young in favor; passed and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Vargas absent.

1.G ADOPT THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH SB 1383 FOR

CALRECYCLE APPROVAL PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE AND

REGULATIONS TO SECURE ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY RELIEF FROM ANY CONTINUING VIOLATIONS FOR THE 2022 CALENDAR YEAR

Connie Vieira, Management Analyst provided the staff report for both consent items 1.G and 1.H. together.

Mayor Young stated she pulled consent items 1.G and 1.H for transparency as relating to future discussions and to know that staff is actively doing what needs to be done to hold off fees, and also item 1.H is authorizing the City to apply for grant funding that can offset some of those costs going forward. There will be more discussion and education, so the community is aware of what is going on and the needs.

There was no public comment.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Council Member Davis to adopt Resolution 2022-020 approving the Notice of Intent to comply with SB 1383 to Calrecycle for approval pursuant to the statute and regulations to secure administrative civil penalty relief from any continuing violations for the 2022 calendar year. Roll call found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Davis and Mayor Young in favor; passed and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Vargas absent.

1.H AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION(S) FOR ALL CALRECYCLE

GRANT AND PAYMENT PROGRAMS AND RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS FOR

WHICH THE CITY OF TRACY IS ELIGIBLE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY Regular Meeting Minutes 4 February 15, 2022

MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND

AMENDMENTS

Mayor Young pulled the item and commented about consent item 1.H under consent item 1.G.

Connie Vieira, Management Analyst provided the staff reports for both consent items 1.G and 1.H together.

There was no public comment.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Council Member Davis to adopt Resolution 2022-021 authorizing submittal of Application(s) for all Calrecycle grants and related authorizations for which the City of Tracy is eligible and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents and amendments. Roll call found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Davis and Mayor Young in favor; passed and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Vargas absent.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Council Member Davis to adopt Resolution 2022-022 authorizing submittal of application(s) for all Calrecycle Payment Programs and related authorizations for which the City of Tracy is eligible and authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents and amendments. Roll call vote found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Davis and Mayor Young in favor; passed and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Vargas absent.

1.K APPROVE AN APPROPRIATION OF $2,085,000 FROM GENERAL FUND (F101) TO GENERAL PROJECTS FUND (F301) FOR CIP 71111 THE GRAND

THEATRE CENTER FOR THE ARTS EXTERIOR REPAIRS PROJECT, AND

APPROVE CONTINGENCY AMOUNT FOR THE PROJECT

Robert Armijo, City Engineer provided the staff report.

Midori Lichtwardt, Assistant City Manager provided a history regarding the need for Grand Theatre Center for the Arts exterior repairs.

Mike Langley, Grand Foundation pulled the item to thank Council for appropriating the funds and spoke about the needs for the repair of the Grand Theatre, adding this Council is the first Council in 15 years to dedicate that amount to Grand Theatre. Mr. Langley shared information regarding the history of the Grand and the enjoyment of the arts.

There was no Council comment.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Council Member Davis to adopt Resolution 2022-023 approving an appropriation of $2,085,000 from General Funds to the Grand Theatre Center for the Arts exterior repairs project, CIP 7111. Roll call vote found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Davis and Mayor Young in favor; passed and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Vargas absent.

Regular Meeting Minutes 5 February 15, 2022

2. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE – Wes Huffman spoke about the following: 60 American Legion flag poles missing from a City storage facility and requested the City’s help to replace poles, referred to an email he had sent to Council about election rule change, and stated he was happy with the $20,000 sent to Tracy Tree Foundation but the lawyers won’t let them work at the park due to liability issues, and requested someone look into that.

Mary Mitracos stated during the previous joint meeting nothing was said during the staff report about updating the General Plan and recommended that Council take that project on. Ms. Mitracos spoke about the rewriting of the General Plan by two previous Tracy Tomorrow programs and the report came back with 200 suggestions and 175-180 rolled into the General Plan which has lasted for 22 years, and requested Council consider doing another Tracy Tomorrow program.

Robert Tanner shared his concerns regarding only having one Police Station and taking 15 plus minutes to get from one side of town to another. During budget time he hoped Council would increase the Police Department head count with 10 officers and another car with equipment. The City needs to reduce that response time.

Dotty Nygard, Chair of Tracy Earth Project spoke about their attempts to bring to the City’s attention an Environmental Task Force and the interconnection there is to be tying our sustainability action plan to all of the updated plans that are being reviewed. Ms.

Nygard added Tracy is Caltrans District 10 and need to bring awareness that they have funding and are looking for cities in need of improving pedestrian and bikeways.

Suggested the City put the Caltrans survey out to the public to speak up in support of receiving funding. The survey is listed on the webpage for Caltrans District 10 bicycle pedestrian pathway update.

Mayor Young asked staff if the Caltrans survey could be put on our website and social media.

Alice English echoed Mr. Tanner’s comments and also Ms. Nygard’s comments stating the City keeps approving homes but never designed connectivity, it is not safe to ride bikes. New development took off all the walkability, need connectivity. Ms. English congratulated Council Member Davis who was appointed to Chair on the Fire JPA, and added the City needs to do something with Police.

Pamela Epstein, GOE Tracy stated they have been working on the CUP application which is ready to be submitted but they are waiting for the cannabis business permit. Ms.

Epstein requested the City issue the cannabis business permits conditioned on the background check approval so they can move forward at their own risk. The State’s window for provisional licensing terminates as of March 31, 2022. Part of the completed application process is local approval. Ms. Epstein requested Council direct staff to provide conditional cannabis business permits so they can proceed.

Greg Rubens, Interim City Attorney responded staff will look into the issue to see if there is a way to issue a provisional permit under our code and report back to Council. If it is not in the code that authorizes the permit process, the City will not be able to do it.

Mayor Young stated if it is in the code fine, if not let Council know so we can look at what options would be available.

Regular Meeting Minutes 6 February 15, 2022

Juan Bautista spoke about his purchase of a lot in Tracy and trying to build a house, has submitted plans and is waiting for zoning.

Karen Moore stated she appreciated Council working to keep the meetings shorter and allowed being active in meetings remotely. Ms. Moore sent an email regarding a Caltrans District 10 survey for allocating funding and requested the PIO send it out and residents mark Interstates 580, 205 and 5 as areas that don’t have designated bike and walking paths, it would be helpful to make sure Tracy isn’t lacking in getting those funds.

Dan Evans spoke about the emergency homeless shelter project and shared concerns about transparency, project delays, and spoke about community reports monthly regarding the project. Mr. Evans requested transparency and to get the public some reporting on this and where we are at.

Council Member Arriola confirmed there is a Homelessness Advisory Committee meeting on Thursday, February 17, 2022 at City Hall.

Midori Lichtwardt, Assistant City Manager clarified the updates are on our website under our homelessness page. The project is still in design phase. The special meeting has a 24-hour notice requirement and will be noticed tomorrow.

3. REGULAR AGENDA

3.A DISCUSS CITY'S RESPONSE TO COVID-19 (VERBAL REPORT)

Carissa Lucas, Public Information Officer provided the staff report.

There was no public comment.

There were no Council comments.

Council accepted the report.

3.B PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE ZONE DISTRICT OF APPROXIMATELY 4.6 ACRES NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF THIRD STREET AND EVANS STREET – APPLICANT IS JUAN BAUTISTA – APPLICATION NUMBER R21-0002

Alan Bell, Senior Planner provided the staff report and answered questions.

William Muetzenberg supported the rezoning and as the City proceeds with the division of the parcels to consider how this land could connect Third Street to the future TOD since adjacent to the Bowtie. Mr. Muetzenberg advocates for future property developers to build medium density residential, consider building apartments or duplexes to open opportunities to be able to afford to own or rent in that area. Look at affordability measures as well so people can benefit from being close to downtown.

Regular Meeting Minutes 7 February 15, 2022

Juan Bautista, applicant thanked Council and stated he was excited about the project of building a house on the property and hoped it gets approved.

Mayor Young closed the public hearing.

Council questions and comments followed.

Adrianne Richardson, City Clerk read the title of the proposed Ordinance.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Council Member Bedolla to waive the reading of the full text and introduce Ordinance 1326 an ordinance of the City of Tracy amending the zoning of property located northwest of the intersection of Third Street and Evans Street, from Light Industrial to Medium Density cluster and Medium Density Residential. Roll call found all in favor; passed and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Vargas absent.

3.C RECEIVE THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TRACY ARTS COMMISSION

William Wilson, Cultural Arts Supervisor provided the staff report.

Cynthia Reis, Tracy Arts Commissioner provided a presentation.

There was no public comment.

Council comments followed.

Council accepted the Annual Report of the Tracy Arts Commission.

Mayor Pro Tem Vargas joined the meeting at 9:51 p.m.

3.D RECEIVE AND DISCUSS RESULTS OF 2021 NATIONAL COMMUNITY SURVEY™

Vanessa Carrera, Assistant to the City Manager, provided the staff report.

Jade Arocha, NRC Director of Survey Research provided the presentation on the survey methodology and findings.

There was no public comment.

Council questions and comments followed.

Council accepted the results of 2021 National Community Survey™.

3.E DISCUSS AND APPROVE UPCOMING OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, INCLUDING TRAVEL TO WASHINGTON, D.C. FOR

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE AND TRAVEL TO DALLAS, Regular Meeting Minutes 8 February 15, 2022

TEXAS FOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP (P3) CONFERENCE AND EXPO; AND CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TO MARCH 15, 2022 CITY COUNCIL

MEETING

Karin Schnaider, Finance Director provided the staff report.

Council questions and comments followed.

Mary Mitracos supported education travel and lobbying efforts as they can pay off handsomely and provided some examples in Tracy. Ms. Mitracos encouraged Council to do as much education and lobbying for dollars as possible.

Dustin Smith-Salinas stated as a member of the LGBTQ+ community and Tracy taxpayer, he hoped Council will respect the rights of the LGBTQ+ community and not spend tax dollars in Texas and spend in states that better support civil rights and the LGBTQ+ community.

Council questions and comments followed.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Vargas to allow interstate travel for Council Members Arriola, Bedolla and Mayor Pro Tem Vargas to attend the National League of Cities Congressional Cities Conference held in Washington D.C. and Council Member Davis and Mayor Young to attend the Public Private Partnership Conference and Expo held in Dallas, Texas. Council also moved the March 15, 2022 meeting to March 29, 2022.

Mayor Pro Tem Vargas made a friendly amendment to add, if needed, an item for Legacy Fields to be added to the March 22, 2022, special meeting. Council Member Arriola accepted the friendly amendment.

Roll call found all in favor; passed and so ordered.

4. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE – Dotty Nygard announced the following: Earth Day event on April 23, 2022, located adjacent from the Farmers Market from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm, will be partnering with the City and showcasing programs that support sustainability and environmental practices, show short-term and long-term goals to educate families.

Also showcasing a screening of documentary Kiss the Ground at Tracy Community Center at 3:00 p.m. There will be a ribbon cutting for Tracy Bike Life Youth Program on February 26, 2022 at noon at 305 West Street, and shared information regarding a Youth Bike Repair Program and partnering with Tracy Police Department who will provide donated bikes.

5. STAFF ITEMS – Michael Rogers, City Manager provided an update on the following actions taken by the City Manager during the COVID emergency:

• Approve Off Site Improvement Agreement to allow Valpico Tracy Apartments, LLC, to proceed with Developer’s construction of public improvements associated with the Vela Apartments.

Regular Meeting Minutes 9 February 15, 2022

• Award a Construction Contract for the West Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project, CIP 73171.
• Accept the Construction of Tracy Municipal RDA Improvements, CIP 77582. • Accept the Construction contract for the Slurry Seal Project FY 20-21, CIP 73182.

Mr. Rogers announced that the public comment period is still open for Infrastructure Master Plans until 5:00 p.m. on February 21, 2022. Mr. Rogers reported on the City Manager’s conference in Monterey, spoke about alternative project delivery and a future meeting to move projects forward.

6. COUNCIL ITEMS – Council Member Arriola announced there will be a Homeless Advisory Subcommittee meeting on Thursday at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Also, last week there was a Fiscal Sustainability Subcommittee meeting and will be bringing new information on February 22, 2022 for the Measure V meeting, and March 22, 2022 for the CIP and 10 year budgeting meeting.

Mayor Young confirmed with Midori Lichtwardt, Assistant City Manager that the meeting will be on Thursday, February 17, 2022 in Room 203 at 7:00 p.m.

Council Member Bedolla stated there is an open Council item that mentions options for two or three committees - sustainability, some kind of climate and/or water committee.

Heard from the community that there is enough of a nexus that it should be an option when it comes back to Council to be one committee. Council Member Arriola said he thought he had seconded him in the past and seconded him again.

Council Member Bedolla clarified his request – there is a Council item for a separate water committee and a separate sustainability or climate committee and as the audience has stated a couple of times there is enough of a nexus with those two potential committees that there should be an option when it comes back to Council that it should be one committee.

Mayor Young asked when the committees are coming back for consideration which includes environmental and sustainability and water, and supported Council Member Bedolla’s options also. Staff to get back to Council about when that item will come back.

Council Member Davis reported on the following: Mayor and Council Round Table for League of California Cities (LOCC) meeting and discussed multiple challenges during their terms. Also attended the LOCC Housing, Community, and Economic Development committee which she serves on and there are exciting things happening with housing and affordability shortages and there is a lot of money that the state is trying to get people on board with how we address affordability within our communities. Also, policies to address local control.

Council Member Davis thanked the Grand Foundation for all they do to ensure art in our community. The Tree of Life heart donation was beautiful and thanked the artist and the person who purchased and donated it to the City of Tracy. Thanked the Grand Foundation board members and all the volunteers. Council Member Davis thanked the board members which includes Mayor Young who elected her as chair for SSJCFA.

Congratulated all Chamber award recipients who will be honored on Friday, February 25 th at the 60th Annual Community Awards. Especially want to congratulate her friend Jeff Brown who is receiving Agriculturalist of the Year. Council Member Davis offered Regular Meeting Minutes 10 February 15, 2022

her condolences regarding the life lost a few days ago in a pedestrian traffic collision and requested support for a conversation about traffic enforcement as it is becoming increasingly dangerous. Would like information on how we are addressing traffic issues, speeding, and red light runners. Council Member Arriola seconded the request.

Mayor Young responded she hoped it would be included in Police Department Annual Report.

Mayor Young stated next Tuesday, February 22, 2022 we will be back here at 6:00 p.m. for the Measure V discussion.

Mayor Pro Tem Vargas stated she is the Chair of the California Cities Transportation Communications and Public Works and reported on the meeting. They continue to advocate with 400 other cities in moving projects forward. One item changed that was on the statement is rail connections and rail connectivity for transportations specifically to communities that are underserved. Will be bringing to Council some of the bills that they will be supporting later. Another meeting that she Chairs is Valley Link and spoke about their new Deputy Director. Mayor Pro Tem Vargas announced they will be cohosting a meeting with Assemblymember Villapudua on 23 rd at City Hall and touring
the operations and amenities in the City. Will report back on that meeting.

7. ADJOURNMENT – Time: 10:40 p.m.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Vargas to adjourn. Roll call found all in favor; passed and so ordered.

The above agenda was posted at the Tracy City Hall on February 10, 2022. The above are action minutes. A recording is available at the office of the City Clerk.

____________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:

__________________________
City Clerk
March 1, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 1.B

REQUEST
APPRO
VE THE CITY OF TRACY 2022 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND LOCAL

PROJECT SUBMITTAL FOR CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION REQUESTS DURING SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS’ ONE VOICE TRIP TO WASHINGTON D.C.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City
Council’s approval of the listed projects will allow these transportation improvement projects to be eligible for inclusion in the San Joaquin Council of Governments’ (SJCOG) One Voice trip to Washington D.C. legislative agenda and congressional funding appropriation requests.

DISCUSSION
Ever
y year the City of Tracy submits a list of projects to SJCOG for consideration in their legislative agenda and congressional appropriation requests during the One Voice trip to Washington D.C. The One Voice trip includes representatives of San Joaquin County, SJCOG, and city elected officials. Each city is asked to submit projects of regional significance, and projects for local improvements. Nominated regional projects must meet the following criteria:
• Proj
ects should be regional in nature, meaning their impact extends beyond the immediate location of the project to other jurisdictions within the region. • Project readiness should be key to selection, meaning any request should be able to utilize funding, or whatever authority is granted, within two years. • A project must be eligible to receive federal funding at the time of request. • SJCOG will limit the number of regional projects to no more than three total.

Staf
f has reviewed the existing needs of various transportation projects and is recommending the following three projects for the 2022 One Voice trip.

Valley Link (Connecting BART and ACE Rail System)
Total
Construction Cost (estimate) - $1.8 billion
Requested Appropriation - $25 million The growt
h of Northern San Joaquin Valley commuters to the Bay Area on the I-205 and I-580 have been particularly dramatic, more than doubling from 31,670 in 1990 to 64,930 in 2013, with traffic anticipated to increase another 75% within the next two decades.

Additionally, nearly 14,000 trucks per day slowly travel over the Altamont Pass causing further congestion and bottlenecks.

The Met
ropolitan Transportation Commission ranks the I-580 among the Bay Area freeway corridors with the highest commuting delays.

Agenda Item 1.B
March 1, 2022

To ease cong
estion, the Valley Link plan emerged and Valley Link will extend initially from the planned ACE Lathrop Station in San Joaquin Valley through the Altamont Pass, then readily connect with the Dublin/Pleasanton BART terminus station in the Tri-Valley, with additional Phase 1 stations in River Islands, Downtown Tracy, and Mountain House.

International Park of Commerce (IPC): Interchange Improvements and Parkway Improvements connecting the two Interchanges – Central Valley Gateway Project Total
Construction Cost (estimate) - $122 million
Cost for Interchanges - $85.6 million
Awarded EDA Grant - $8.35 million (for International Parkway Bridge) Awarded TCEP Grant - $25 million (for I-580 @ International Parkway) Requested Appropriation (estimate) - $50 million (for interchanges only) The Int
ernational Park of Commerce (IPC) is an office, retail and industrial park comprised of approximately 1,700 acres and is generally located on the west side of Tracy bounded by I-205, the former Mountain House Parkway, Schulte Road and just east of Hansen Road. The project is expected to create over 30,000 jobs at build-out and will include over 28 million square feet of building. The IPC project is of national significance as it directly accesses 2 routes on the National Freight System. It is also within 50 miles of the Port of Oakland, the third largest port in California, and a Port with known rail congestion issues, making truck transport a necessary option for national goods movement. In order to facilitate efficient goods movement in the region and nationally, two interchanges and a key access parkway between the interchanges are necessary for construction.

The tot
al construction cost for the 2 Interchanges is approximately $85.6 million. The requested federal appropriations of $50 million dollars (from the INFRA Grant Program or BUILD Grant Programs) will be used for the construction.

Lammers Road/I-205 Interchange Project
Total
Construction Cost (estimate) - $63 million
Requested Appropriation - $5 million (Phase 1) Resi
dents in San Joaquin County have one of the longest commute times in the nation.

The construction of a new interchange at Lammers Road and I-205 is necessary to relieve traffic congestion from the I-205 corridor to the City of Tracy and Mountain House areas. The project will provide connectivity to both east and westbound ramps from Eleventh Street and Byron Road. It will also provide access to the International Park of Commerce, the County’s largest planned industrial park. The total construction cost for the interchange is approximately $63 million. The requested federal appropriations is $5 million.

This
list of projects, after approval from City Council, will be submitted to SJCOG for inclusion in the legislative agenda for the One Voice trip to Washington D.C. and congressional funding consideration. Submittal of projects to the SJCOG’s One Voice effort does not necessarily mean continued participation in the program. Other alternatives can also be considered in the future to advocate for Tracy projects.

Agenda Item 1.B
March 1, 2022

STRATEGIC PLAN
This
agenda item supports City of Tracy’s Economic Development Strategic Priority, which is to enhance the competitiveness of the City while further developing a strong and diverse economic base.

FISCAL IMPACT
Approv
ing the proposed projects for the One Voice trip will not impact the General Fund.

The City is requesting approximately $80 million in congressional appropriations and this funding could come from a future BUILD and/or INFRA Grant Award. In addition to this funding, the proposed projects will be supported through other sources, including SJCOG Measure K Sales Tax and development impact fees.

RECOMMENDATION
That
City Council approve, by resolution, the City of Tracy 2022 regional transportation and local project submittal for congressional appropriation requests during San Joaquin Council of Governments’ One Voice trip to Washington D.C.

Prepar
ed by: Veronica Child, Management Analyst II
Revi
ewed by: Robert Armijo, PE, City Engineer / Assistant Development Services Director Bill Dean, Interim Development Services Director
Karin Schnaider, Finance Director
Midori Lichtwardt, Assistant City Manager
Approv
ed by: Mi chael Rogers, City Manager
RESOLUTION 2022-_____

APPROVI
NG THE CITY OF TRACY 2022 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND LOCAL

PROJECT SUBMITTAL FOR CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION REQUESTS DURING SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS’ ONE VOICE TRIP TO WASHINGTON D.C.

WHER
EAS, The City of Tracy submits a list of projects for congressional appropriation consideration at the annual One Voice trip to Washington D.C., by the San Joaquin County Council of Governments and city elected officials, and
WHER
EAS, Staff reviewed the existing needs of various transportation projects and is recommending the following three projects be submitted for congressional funding consideration as part of the One Voice trip:

Valley Link (Connecting BART and ACE Rail System)
Total Construction Cost (estimate) - $1.8 billion
Requested Appropriation - $25 million International Park of Commerce (IPC): Interchange Improvements Total Construction Cost (estimate) - $85.6 million
Requested Appropriation - $ 50 million
Lammers Road/I-205 Interchange Project
Total Construction Cost (estimate) - $63 million
Requested Appropriation - $5 million (Phase 1) WHER
EAS, In addition to the requested congressional appropriations, funding for the above projects will be shared by a variety of sources including Measure K Sales Tax and development impact fees;
NOW
, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Council of the City of Tracy hereby approves the City of Tracy 2022 regional transportation and local project submittal for congressional appropriation requests during San Joaquin Council of Governments’ One Voice Trip to Washington D.C.
* * * *
* * * * * * * *
The for
egoing Resolution 2022-_____ was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City of Tracy City Council on the 1st day of March 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: C OUNCIL
MEMBERS:

NOES: C OUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: C OUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: C OUNCIL MEMBERS:
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:

CITY CL
ERK
AGENDA ITEM 1.C

REQUEST
AUTHORIZE THE APPLICATION FOR AND ACCEPTANCE OF UP TO $200,000 FROM THE 2022 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL CANNABIS TAX FUND GRANT

PROGRAM TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF A POLICE RESPONDER VEHICLE AND

APPROVE THE APPROPRIATION TO T HE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 22/23.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Tracy is eligible to apply for grant funding from the California Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax Fund Grant
Program for funding the purchase and outfitting of a Ford F-150 Police Responder Vehicle. This report recommends that the City of Tracy apply for and if awarded, authorize an appropriation of up to $200,000 to the Police Department budget for FY 22/23 if awarded.

DISCUSSION
With the passage of Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), California voters mandated the State set aside funding for the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to award grants to local governments and qualified nonprofit organizations, as described in Revenue and Taxation Code Section 34019(f)(3)(B).

As a medium-sized law enforcement agency, the City of Tracy, through the Tracy Police Department, is eligible to apply for funds from the California Highway Patr ol Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program (CTFGP).

The grant provides for the funding of equipment, training, education, prevention, and/or the enforcement of traffic laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including cannabis and cannabis products.

The traffic safety unit is currently comprised of one sergeant and five officers who are normally assigned to enforcement duties on BMW or Harley-Da vidson police motorcycles. In the event of in clement weather, officers assigned to the unit are required to take a vehicle from the patrol fleet to carry out their assigned duties.

Currently, the Traffic Safety Unit utilizes a 2003 Ford Econoline van to move the department’s RADAR trailers, tow a motorcycle trailer for when a police motorcycle requires maintenance or repairs, to transport
officers and their equipment to major
collision investigation scenes, or any other duties that do not require the use of a police motorcycle. The van can only carry one
passenger in addition to the driver and is not
suitable for enforcement duties of any kind due to limited capability of the vehicle.

The CTFGP allow
s for funding for equipment, or in this case, a vehicle for the enforcement of DUI laws.

By having a suitable enforcement vehicle assigned to it, the Traffic Safety Unit would not
only have the same capabilities the van provided, it would March 1, 2022
Agenda Item 1.C
March 1, 2022

expand the
unit’s ability to enforce DUI laws, respond to major collisions, which are often times caused by driving under the influence, or is a related factor in those collisions, while lessening the impact to the patrol fleet.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This agenda ite
m relates to Council’s Strategic Priorities for Public Safety. .

FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Tracy will apply for and if awarded, receive up to $200,000 from the 2022 California Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program. No City match is required. However, this is a reimbursement grant that will require the upfront costs be paid from the Police Department’s operating budget. Accepting this grant funding requires the funds to be appropriated from the California Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program and up to $200,000 added to the Police Department’s operating budget.

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council adopt a res olution authorizing the application for and acceptance of the 2022 California Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax Fund Gr ant Program in an amount up to $200,000 for the purchase of a Police Responder Vehicle and approve the appropriation of up to $200,000 to the Police Department’s operating budget for FY 22/23.

Prepared by: E
rik Speaks, Police Corporal
Reviewed
by: Sekou Millington, Chief of Police
Karin Schnaider, Finance Director
Approved by:

Michael Rogers, City Manager
RESOLUTION ________
AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR AND ACCEPTANCE OF $200,000 FROM THE 2022

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL CANNABIS TAX FUND GRANT PROGRAM TO FUND THE

PURCHASE OF A POLICE RESPONDER VEHICLE AND APPROVE THE APPROPRIATION TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 22/23
WHEREAS, The Tracy Police Department seeks to apply for and, if awarded, accept up to $200,000 from the 2022 California Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program for funding the purchase and outfitting of a current model year Ford F-150 police responder vehicle, and
WHEREAS, The grant provides for the funding of equipment, training, education, preve
ntion, and/or the enforcement of traffic laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including cannabis and cannabis products, and WHEREAS, The Tracy Police Department’s goal is to reduce traffic collisions, reduce traffic collision related death and injuries through education, proactive traffic enforcement of laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including cannabis and cannabis products, and
WHEREAS, Staff recommends City Council approve the application for the 2022 California Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program, and if awarded, accept up to $200,000;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Council of the City of Tracy hereby approves the application for, and if awarded, acceptance of up to $200,000 from the 2022 California Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program and approve the appropriation of up to $200,000 to the Police Department’s operating budget for FY 22/23. * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
The foregoing Resolution_______ was passed and adopted by the Tracy City Council on the 1st day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL ME
MBERS:

NOES: COUNCI
L MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL
MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUN
CIL MEMBERS:
__________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________

CITY CLERK
March 1, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 1.D

REQUEST
ADOPT
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY’S OPERATING AND CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022, AS PROPOSED

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May
18, 2021, Council adopted the FY 2021-22 Operating and Capital Budget. This report provides an update of the City’s current financial performance, for Second Quarter (Q2), through December 31, 2021. This financial summary identifies Q2 General Fund revenue and expenditure actuals and encumbrances, minor amendments to the FY 2021-22 budget, and provides an update of current Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs).

DISCUSSION
Quarterly, staff prepares a report to the City Council on the year-to-date revenues and expenditures as compared to the amended budget as of December 31, 2021 (Second Quarter-Q2). For comparison, FY 2020-21 Q2 actuals are also provided.

FY 2021
-22 General Fund Budget to Actuals
As of December 31, 2021, the General Fund expenditures are approximately 33% of the approved operating budget. General Fund revenues collected in Q2 (as of December 31, 2021), reflect approximately 36% of estimated revenues. City revenues tend to lag a quarter behind, and many revenues will appear low or zero as a result. For example, General Fund revenues in Property Tax, as well as VLF/Property Tax, are distributed in December and April and will appear in the second and fourth quarter reports. The City’s Sales Tax are one-quarter in arrears and will appear after the second quarter, and first quarter collections represent advances from the State based on prior year collections, not necessarily actual collection by the State. General Fund revenues in Franchise Fees and Business Licensees are typically reported in the third and fourth quarter of the fiscal calendar.

Continued on
Next Page
Agenda Item 1.D
March 1, 2022

REVENUES FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 % of
(in thousands) Q2 Adopted Amended Q2 Budget
Property Tax $ 8,103 $ 28,114 $ 28,114 $ 8,892 31.63% Sales Tax 9,483 29,222 54,222 20,473 37.76%
Sales Tax Measure V 4,083 12,000 12,000 4,952 41.27% Other Taxes 1,148 2,370 2,720 1,322 48.60% Other Revenues 7,536 26,132 26,423 8,738 33.07% TOTAL REVENUES $ 30,353 $ 97,838 $ 123,479 $ 44,377 35.94% EXPENDITURES % of
(in thousands) Budget
Personnel $ 28,328 $ 59,243 $ 63,216 $ 22,662 35.85% Purchased Services
and Supplies 5,390 15,489 17,894 7,271

40.63%

0.00%
Utilities 930 2,168 2,171 1,018 46.91%
Capital 93 - 255 5 0.00%
Debt - 1,121 1,121 - 0.00%
Net Transfers
In/(Out) - 14,173 14,173 1,900 13.41%
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES $ 34,741 $ 92,195 $ 98,830 $ 32,856 33.25% Total Change in Net
Position $ (4,388) $ 5,644 $ 24,649 $ 11,521 2021-
22 Second Quarter (Q2) Operating Budget Augmentations
The following table is a summary of all recommended Q2 budget augmentations for FY 2021-22. They are listed by department, with General Fund totals separated, and categorized as one time or on-going expenses.

Department Description
General
Fund Other Fund One Time On Going
Economic
Development
Banner
Replacements $ 40,000 $ 40,000
Public Works
Ballistic Panels for
New PD Vehicles,
Repair Costs,
Garage, PD & City
Hall, Landscape
Maintenance
Contract
378,095 60,000 318,095
Public Works
Emergency Net
Repair at Sports
Complex
65,000 65,000
Total: $ 105,000 $ 378,095 $ 165,000 $ 318,095
Agenda Item 1.D
March 1, 2022

FY 2021-22 Second Quarter (Q2) Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Augmentations
Staf
f is making the following recommendations for increased appropriations for current CIP’s, and are summarized in the following table:

NEW APPROPRIATIONS
CIP Amount Fund Project Description
73171-West Street
Sidewalk Gap
Closure Project
$ 55,000 245 - Gas
Tax
Revised budget - Increase
in costs based on recent
bids
73173-Transportation
Master Plan
$100,000 363 - TIMP
Traffic
Amended Scope, funding
needed for additional
services
73177-ADA
Accessibility
Improvements
$100,000 245 - Gas
Tax
Revised budget - Increase
in costs based on recent
bids
73178-Overlay
Program FY21
$450,000 242 -
Measure K
Revised budget - Increase
in costs based on recent
bids
73178-Overlay
Program FY21
$450,000 245 - Gas
Tax
Revised budget - Increase
in costs based on recent
bids
73178-Overlay
Program FY21
$200,000 248 - SB1
Revised budget - Increase
in costs based on recent
bids
73179-Pavement
Management System
Update
$ 75,000 245 - Gas
Tax Revised budget - Increase
in costs
73180-Sidewalk,
Curb, and Gutter
Repair FY 21-22
$100,000 245 - Gas
Tax
Revised budget - Increase
in costs based on recent
bids
Note:

Over the last year, the City, like the rest of the state and nation, is facing steep increases in construction costs. Engineering, as well as our developers, are experiencing a 20% or more increase over their estimates.

Staf
f is making the following recommendations to create new CIP’s and appropriate funding, summarized in the table below along with brief descriptions of the projects:

PROPOSED NEW PROJECTS
CIP Amount Fund
71116-El Pescadero Park Wall Extension $ 200,000
301-General
Projects
75153-Tracy Hills Zone 5 Water Booster Station $3,800,000 513-Water
Capital

1. CIP
71116- El Pescadero Park Wall Extension: This project will provide for an approximately 360' extension of the existing CMU wall located along the western edge of Agenda Item 1.D
March 1, 2022

El Pescadero Park. The new wall will tie into the existing CMU wall in this area and extend northward toward Kavanagh Ave. During the December 21, 2021 Council meeting, Council asked the City Manager for an opportunity to fund the extension of the wall along this area. The City Manager has directed that this project be completed as soon as possible. Funding source is general fund.

2. CIP
75153- Tracy Hills Zone 5 Water Booster Station: In order to serve the development of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map completion of the Tracy Hills Zone 5 Booster Pump Station at John Jones Water Treatment Plant is required. This pump station and associated work are depicted in the Improvement Plans titled “Tracy Hills Zone 5 Pump Station” prepared by West Yost Associates and approved by the City on October 2021.

Funding Source is through a funding agreement with the City and Lennar Homes.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This
agenda item addresses Goal 2 of the Governance Strategy to ensure continued fiscal sustainability through financial and budgetary stewardship.

FISCAL IMPACT
Quart
erly, staff prepares a report to the City Council on the year-to-date revenues and expenditures as compared to the amended budget as of December 31, 2021 (Second Quarter Q2). Staff is recommending minor amendments to the City Operating and Capital Budget for FY 2021-22. The FY 2021-22 proposed budget appropriations of $2.2 million from all funding sources.

SUMMARY OF NEW BUDGET AUGMENTATIONS FOR FY 2021-22
Department Description
General
Fund
Other
Fund One Time On Going
Economic
Development Banner Replacements $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Public Works
Ballistic Panels for New
PD Vehicles, Repair
Costs, Garage, PD &
City Hall, Landscape
Maintenance Contract
378,095 60,000 318,095
Public Works
Emergency Net Repair
at Sports Complex 65,000 65,000
Total: $ 105,000 $ 378,095 $ 165,000 $ 318,095
Conti
nued on Next Page
Agenda Item 1.D
March 1, 2022

NEW APPROPRIATIONS
CIP Amount Fund
71116-El Pescadero Park Wall Extension $200,000 301 - General Projects 73171-West Street Sidewalk Gap Closure
Project $ 55,000 245 - Gas Tax
73173-Transportation Master Plan $100,000 363 - TIMP Traffic 73177-ADA Accessibility Improvements $100,000 245 - Gas Tax 73178-Overlay Program FY21 $450,000 242 - Measure K
73178-Overlay Program FY21 $450,000 245 - Gas Tax
73178-Overlay Program FY21 $200,000 248 - SB1
73179-Pavement Management System
Update $ 75,000 245 - Gas Tax
73180-Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repair FY
21-22 $100,000 245 - Gas Tax

RECOMMENDATION
The Cit
y Council, by resolution, adopt the Amended Operating and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22.

Prepar
ed by: Felicia Galindo, Budget Officer
Reviewed by: Karin Schnaider, Finance Director
Midori Lichtwardt, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Michael Rogers, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS
Attac
hment A – FY2021-22 Q2 CIP Update

GENERAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT BUDGET UPDATE
FY2021-22 Q2
CIP Expenses Budget
% Budget
Expensed
Planning
Design
Construction
Close out
71027-Retrofit Water Tower 6th St 5,632$ 210,000$ 3% 71078-New Radio Tower - Station 96 28,905$ 118,080$ 24% X 71107-Public Facilities Master Plan Update 397,970$ 500,000$ 80% X 71108-Public Safety Master Plan Update 188,176$ 250,000$ 75% X 71109-Fire Training Tower Site 106,756$ 450,000$ 24% X 71110-Multipurpose Reality Based Training Facility 254,521$ 400,000$ 64% X 71111-Grand Theater Repair 365,987$ 421,000$ 87% X 71112-Temporary Emergency Housing 54,338$ 100,000$ 54% X 71113-Station 91 Renovations 83,279$ 365,000$ 23% X 71114-PD Communications Software 124,613$ 167,000$ 75% 71115-Cardiac Monitors -$ 293,750$ 0%
CIP
71116-El Pescadero Park Wall Extension

ACTIVE PROJECTS
200,000$ 301 - General Projects

NEW APPROPRIATIONS
Amount Fund

ATTACHMENT A

TRAFFIC SAFETY PROJECT BUDGET UPDATE
FY2021-22 Q2
CIP Expenses Budget
% Budget
Expensed
Planning
Design
Construction
Close out
72095-Traffic Signal - Corral Hollow & Valpico 213,014$ 300,000$ 71% X 72098-Adaptive Traffic System - 11th Street 7,561$ 801,413$ 1% X 72104-Intersection Improvements - Corral Hollow & Linne 95,825$ 925,000$ 10% X 72113-Adaptive Traffic System - Corral Hollow Road 2,714$ 977,250$ 0% X 72116-Crosswalk Safety Enhancement on 11th St at F St 11,837$ 280,000$ 4% X 72117-Traffic Cameras Repair/Replacement 518$ 50,000$ 1% X 72118-Upgrade & Maintenance of Traffic Management Center Software 723$ 140,000$ 1% X 72119-Local Roadway Safety Plan 48,651$ 80,000$ 61% X 72121-IS Imp Grant Line & MacArthur 9,637$ 118,440$ 8% 72122-Holly Drive Pedestrian & Bikeway Improvements -$ 105,000$ 0% 72123-Adaptive Traffic Signal System - Grant Line Road -$ 1,015,000$ 0%

ACTIVE PROJECTS

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS PROJECT BUDGET UPDATE
FY2021-22 Q2
CIP Expenses Budget
% Budget
Expensed
Planning
Design
Construction
Close out
73084-New Interchange - I-205 & Lammers Road - Ph I, EIR Study 707,512$ 1,008,000$ 70% X 73103-Widening - Corral Hollow, 11th to Schulte 191,438$ 740,829$ 26% X 73109-I-205 at Chrisman Road Interchange 113,085$ 696,290$ 16% X 73144-Widening - Corral Hollow, Linne to Old Schulte 1,964,071$ 6,111,938$ 32% X 73146-I-205/Mountain House Overcrossing 2,044,537$ 5,611,631$ 36% X 73147-I-580/Mountain House Overcrossing 1,279,131$ 36,377,000$ 4% X 73148-Bridge Widening Over Delta Mendota Canal on Mountain House Parkway 17,603$ 101,205$ 17% X 73149-Bridge Widening Over California Aqueduct on Mountain House Parkway 10,858$ 101,716$ 11% X 73150-Bridge Widening Over Delta Mendota Canal on Old Schulte Road 25,786$ 121,547$ 21% X 73161-Reconstruction - Corral Hollow Road from Linne to I-580 1,007,452$ 2,210,231$ 46% X 73166-Street Patch & Overlay Program FY19 1,569,182$ 3,224,190$ 49% X 73171-West Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project 38,604$ 250,000$ 15% X 73173-Transportation Master Plan 486,279$ 700,000$ 69% X 73175-Tracy Boulevard Sidewalk 15,996$ 724,581$ 2% X 73176-Street Patch & Overlay Program FY20 693,579$ 2,175,000$ 32% X 73177-ADA Accessibility Improvements 42,783$ 330,000$ 13% X 73178-Overlay Program FY21 223,317$ 3,311,862$ 7% X 73179-Pavement Management System Update 3,865$ 50,000$ 8% X 73180-Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repair FY 21-22 23,550$ 250,000$ 9% X 73181-Asphalt Concrete Pedestrian Path Installation on Lammers Road -$ 80,581$ 0% X 73182-Street Patch FY21 500,144$ 700,000$ 71% X 73183-Pavement Rehabilitation Project FY 21-22 12,360$ 2,530,445$ 0% 73184-Slurry Seal FY21-22 1,039$ 600,000$ 0%

ACTIVE PROJECTS

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS PROJECT BUDGET UPDATE
FY2021-22 Q2
CIP
73171-West Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
73173-Transportation Master Plan
73177-ADA Accessibility Improvements
73178-Overlay Program FY21
73178-Overlay Program FY21
73178-Overlay Program FY21
73179-Pavement Management System Update
73180-Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repair FY 21-22

NEW APPROPRIATIONS
100,000$ 245 - Gas Tax Amount Fund
100,000$ 245 - Gas Tax 100,000$ 363 - TIMP Traffic 245 - Gas Tax75,000$
55,000$ 245 - Gas Tax 450,000$ 242 - Measure K 450,000$ 245 - Gas Tax 200,000$ 248 - SB1

WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BUDGET UPDATE
FY2021-22 Q2
CIP Expenses Budget
% Budget
Expensed
Planning
Design
Construction
Close out
74083-New Outfall Pipeline WW Treatment Plant- Larch Road & Holly Drive 23,706,007$ 39,900,000$ 59% X 74084-WW Line Upgrades - East Side Sewer mains on Grant Line Rd 34,987$ 756,000$ 5% X 74091-Wastewater Recycling, Phase I 23,719,269$ 24,000,000$ 99% X 74107-Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion - Phase 2 26,775,255$ 31,000,000$ 86% X 74159-Wastewater Master Plan Update 514,611$ 781,200$ 66% X 74162-Lincoln Avenue Sewer Connection -$ 200,000$ 0% 74163-Lincoln Blvd Sewer Main & Lateral Replacement -$ 320,000$ 0% 74164-Primary Clarifier Effluent Pumping System -$ 450,000$ 0% 74165-Sewer Capacity Upgrade -$ 3,000,000$ 0%

ACTIVE PROJECTS

WATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BUDGET UPDATE
FY2021-22 Q2
CIP Expenses Budget
% Budget
Expensed
Planning
Design
Construction
Close out
75130-SCADA Replacement 425,000$ 675,000$ 63% X 75153-Luis Manner Well Rehab 734,884$ 964,973$ 76% X 75155-Up Flow Clarifier Rehab -$ 400,000$ 75156-WTP UV Upgrade 263,161$ 400,000$ 66% X 75159-Water Master Plan Update 439,020$ 659,767$ 67% X 75160-Water Lines Lammers Rd 385,714$ 4,800,000$ 8% X 75161-HACH WIMS ESMT Report Auto Generator -$ 120,000$ 75162-Well Improvements 220,221$ 1,500,000$

ACTIVE PROJECTS

DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BUDGET UPDATE
FY2021-22 Q2
CIP Expenses Budget
% Budget
Expensed
Planning
Design
Construction
Close out
76059-South MacArthur, Ph 2-From Northern Boundary of Elissagaray Ranch to Connection at Eastside Channel 53,377$ 554,007$ 9.6% X 76066-Detention Basin 2B - Blue Zone, Zone 1 - South Central area 266,792$ 1,829,893$ 14. 6% X 76086-Storm Drain Master Plan Update 854,147$ 728,070$ 117.3% X 76087-Eastside Channel Lining from Grant Line Road to MacArthur -$ 2,500,000$

ACTIVE PROJECTS

AIRPORT TRANSIT PROJECT BUDGET UPDATE
FY2021-22 Q2
CIP Expenses Budget
% Budget
Expensed
Planning
Design
Construction
Close out
77560-Paratransit Bus Replacement 1,028,851$ 1,060,000 $ 9 7.1% X 77561-Fixed Route Transit Bus Replacement 2,168,982$ 2,300,000 $ 9 4.3% X 77564-Transit Station Security Cameras 10,424$ 140,000 $ 7 .4% X 77582-Airport RDA Improvements 1,404,636$ 1,502,717 $ 9 3.5% X 77583-Airport Layout Plan/Geospatial Info 127,352$ 227,937 $ 5 5.9% X 77584-Transit Station Rehab 1,174,890$ 1,424,000 $ 8 2.5% X 77585-Tracer Bus Stop Improvements -$ 500,000 $ 0 .0% 77586-Transit Maintenance & Storage Yard (Land Acquisition) -$ 1,000,000 $ 0 .0% 77587-ITS infrastructure Planning & Construction -$ 1,400,000 $ 0 .0%

ACTIVE PROJECTS

PARKS RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BUDGET UPDATE
FY2021-22 Q2
CIP Expenses Budget
% Budget
Expensed
Planning
Design
Construction
Close out
78054-Aquatics Center 1,322,813$ 65,000,000$ 2. 0% X 78170-Gretchen Tally Park Phase III 604,953$ 3,600,000$ 16. 8% X 78171-Bikeways Master Plan Update 100,000$ 100,000$ 100. 0% X 78173-Playground Replacements Alden & Yasui Parks 734,549$ 750,000$ 97. 9% X 78178-Multi-Generational Recreation Center 116,816$ 4,000,000$ 2. 9% X 78179-Parks Master Plan Update 293,691$ 426,000$ 68. 9% X 78180-Nature Park 100,000$ 471,000$ 21. 2% X 78181-Lincoln Park Landscape Improvements 10,109$ 140,000$ 7. 2% X 78183-Bikeways Improvements 88,309$ 155,000$ 57. 0% X 78184-Hoyt Park - Per Capita Improvements 76,780$ 234,065$ 32. 8% 78185-Legacy Field Site Phase 1E 882,561$ 17,150,000$ 5. 1%

ACTIVE PROJECTS
RESOLUTION ________

AMENDING THE CITY’S OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022, AS PROPOSED

WHEREAS, The City Council, on May 18, 2021, adopted the FY 2021-22 Operating and Capital Budget for the City of Tracy, and

WHEREAS, Based upon a review of revenues and expenditures, the City Manager has prepared and proposed additional amendments to the FY 2021-22 budget, and

WHEREAS, The City Council has considered information related to these matters, as presented at a public meeting of the City Council, including any supporting documents and reports by City staff, and any information provided during that public meeting, and

WHEREAS, The City Council has reviewed the level of budgeting control needed by the City Manager to ensure efficiency in managing the operations of the City, including the authorization of budget transfers between funds;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Tracy hereby adopts the Amended Operating and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22 as evidenced by the attached summary of FY2021-22 Revised General Fund Budget. .

* * * * * * * * * * *

The foregoing Resolution 2022________ was passed and adopted by the Tracy City Council on the 1st day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

___________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________

CITY CLERK

Resolution ________ Exhibit A

SUMMARY OF NEW BUDGET AUGMENTATIONS FOR FY 2021-22
Department Description
General
Fund Other Fund One Time On Going
Economic
Development
Banner
Replacements $ 40,000 $ 40,000
Public Works
Ballistic Panels for
New PD Vehicles,
Repair Costs,
Garage, PD & City
Hall, Landscape
Maintenance
Contract
378,095 60,000 318,095
Public Works
Emergency Net
Repair at Sports
Complex
65,000 65,000

Total: $ 105,000 $ 378,095 $ 165,000 $ 318,095

CIP Amount Fund
71116-El Pescadero Park Wall
Extension $200,000 301 - General
Projects
73171-West Street Sidewalk Gap
Closure Project $ 55,000 245 - Gas Tax
73173-Transportation Master
Plan $100,000 363 - TIMP
Traffic
73177-ADA Accessibility
Improvements $100,000 245 - Gas Tax
73178-Overlay Program FY21 $450,000 242 - Measure K
73178-Overlay Program FY21 $450,000 245 - Gas Tax
73178-Overlay Program FY21 $200,000 248 - SB1
73179-Pavement Management
System Update $ 75,000 245 - Gas Tax
73180-Sidewalk, Curb, and
Gutter Repair FY 21-22 $100,000 245 - Gas Tax

March 1, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 1.E

REQUEST
WAIVE SECOND READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE 1326, AN ORDINANCE OF

THE CITY OF TRACY AMENDING THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED

NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF THIRD STREET AND EVANS STREET,

FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY CLUSTER AND MEDIUM

DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance 1326 was introduced at the regular Council meeting held on February 15, 2022. Ordinance 1326 is before Council for adoption.

DISCUSSION
This proposal is to amend the zone district for property located northwest of the intersection of Third Street and Evans Street, including ten lots, and comprising approximately 4.6 acres
When cities decide future land uses, they first establish the General Plan designation, then create and establish the zone district to implement the General Plan designation. In accordance with State law, a site’s zoning is required to be consistent with the General Plan. If there is a discrepancy between the two, the General Plan designation takes precedence because it is the City’s guiding policy document, from which zoning and other implementation steps are developed. The purpose of this proposed zoning amendment is to bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan designation of the site.

The site is near or adjacent to existing or former industrial uses and may have been considered for industrial development in the past. Today, the adjacent Bow-Tie area is designated Downtown by the City’s General Plan (no longer industrial) and would be more compatible with, and mutually supportive of, adjacent residential development, as envisioned by the General Plan.

An application to rezone the vacant property at 209 E. Third Street (third lot west of Evans Street) from Light Industrial to Medium Density Cluster was initiated by the owner of the site. In order for the building permit application to be consistent with the zoning, one of the criteria needed to obtain a building permit, the site must be rezoned from Light Industrial. Approval of this rezoning request will enable the owner to obtain a building permit to construct a new single family home.

The owner of property at 243 E. Third Street (immediately at the northwest corner of Third and Evans Streets), has likewise expressed a desire to construct a single-family home on that site, which could be allowed following approval of this rezoning application.

Otherwise, no development application for any portion of this property is proposed or being processed by the City at this time.

Agenda Item 1.E
March 1, 2022

Proposed Ordinance 1326 was introduced at the regular Council meeting held on February 15, 2022, to amend the Zoning of property located Northwest of the intersection of Third Street and Evans Street, from light industrial to medium density cluster and medium density residential. Proposed Ordinance 1326 is before Council for adoption.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This agenda item is a routine operational item that does not relate to the Council’s Strategic Plans.

FISCAL IMPACT
This is a routine development application. The applicant paid the normal, flat rate application processing fee of $3,306 when they submitted the application to rezone the property. City staff time to process the application was paid through the normal, Development Services Department budget.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council waive the full reading of the text and adopt Ordinance 1326, approving amending the zoning of property located Northwest of the intersection of Third Street and Evans Street, from light industrial to medium density cluster and medium density residential.

Prepared by: Necy Lopez, Deputy City Clerk
Reviewed by: Adrianne Richardson, City Clerk
Midori Lichtwardt, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Michael Rogers, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Ordinance 1326
ORDINANCE 1326

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TRACY AMENDING THE ZONING

OF PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF THIRD STREET

AND EVANS STREET, FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL

TO MEDIUM DENSITY CLUSTER AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, The City of Tracy City Council most recently confirmed the General Plan designation of the subject property Residential Medium with the General Plan update on February 1, 2011, Resolution 2011-029, and
WHEREAS, In accordance with State law, the zoning of the property (currently Light Industrial) is required to be consistent with the General Plan, and WHEREAS, The Medium Density Cluster Zone and the Medium Density Residential Zone are consistent with the Residential Medium General Plan designation and are designed to implement the Residential Medium General Plan designation, and WHEREAS, The proposed zoning amendment will not change the development density of the site as established by the Residential Medium General Plan designation and therefore, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183, no additional CEQA documentation is required, and
WHEREAS, On February 15, 2022, the City Council c
onducted a public hearing to
review and consider the zoning amendment;
The City Council of the City of Tracy does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1: The Zoning Map of the City of Tracy is hereby amended to reclassify the following property from Light Industrial (M-1) to Medium Density Cluster (MDC):

Eight lots: 209, 221, and 243 E. Third Street (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 235-120-07, 08, 09, and 10); and 323, 329, 335, and 342 Evans Street (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 235120-03, 04, 05, and 06), indicated on Exhibit 1.

SECTION 2: The Zoning Map of the City of Tracy is hereby amended to reclassify the following property from Light Industrial (M-1) to Medium Density Residential (MDR):

Two lots: 205 and 207 E. Third Street, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 235-120-01 and 02, indicated on Exhibit 1.

SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after final passage and adoption.

SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within 15 days from and after its final passage and adoption. * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ordinance 1326

The foregoing Ordinance 1326 was introduced at a regular meeting of the Tracy City Council held on the 15th day of February, 2022, and finally adopted on the ____ day of ___ 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________

CITY CLERK
Exhibit 1 – Property Rezoned from Light Industrial to Medium Density Cluster and Medium Density Residential

March 1, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 1.F

REQUEST
ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE INITIATIVE 21-0042A1: STATE BALLOT MEASURE RESTRICTING VOTERS’ INPUT AND LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2018, the “Tax Fairness, Transparency and Accountability Act” or (AG# 17-0050 Amdt. #1) , was being circulated to qualify for the November 2018 ballot. This initiative would have drastically
limited local revenue authority. Through the successful work and advocacy of the League of California Cities and its coalition, the measure’s proponents withdrew the initiative from the ballot in June 2018.

On Jan.
4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the Taxpayer Protection and Government
Accountability Act or AG# 21-0042A1. This measure is far more detrimental to cities than the measure filed in 2018, because it would decimate vital local and state services to the benefit of wealthy corporations.

Cal
Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders,
infrastructure advocates, and businesses, strongly oppose this initiative. Staff recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution to oppose initiative 21-0042A 1:

State ballot measure
restricting voters’ input and local taxing authority.

DISCUSSION

SUMMARY
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act limits voters’ authority, adopts
new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and makes it more difficult to hold violators
of state and local laws accountable.

WHAT WOULD THIS MEASURE SPECIFICALLY DO?
1) Limit voter authority and accountability
• Limits voter
input. Prohibits local voters from providing direction on how local tax
dollars should be spent by prohibiting local advisory measures. • Invalidates the Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes. Taxes proposed by the Initiative are subject to the same rules as
taxes placed on the ballot by a city council. All measures passed between January 2022 and November 2022 would be invalidated unless reenacted within
12 months.
2) Restrict local fee authority to provide local services • Impacts franchise fees. Sets new standard for fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property. The standard may significantly restrict
the amount oil companies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable companies, and other corporations pay for the use of local public
property. Rental and sale of local government property must be “reasonable” which must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.” • Except
for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges may not exceed
the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” The burden to prove the fee or charge does not exceed “actual cost” is changed to “clear and convincing” evidence.

Agenda Item 1.F
March 1, 2022

3) Restrict authority of state and local governments to issue fines and penalties for violations of law
• Requires voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners
that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process
is used to impose the fines and penalties.
4) Restrict l
ocal tax authority to provide local services
• Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes (e.g., UUT, use tax, TOT) to
new territory (e.g., annexation) or expanding the base (e.g., new utility service).
• City
charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee.
• New taxes can be imposed only for a specific time period. • Taxes adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted.
• All state taxes require majority voter approval.
• Prohibits any surcharge on property tax rate and allocation of property tax to state.
5) Other c
hanges
• No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This agenda item supports Governance Strategic Goal 3: Ensure Short and Long-term Financial Sustainability.

FISCAL IMPACT
If Initiative 21-0042A1 is placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it will result in:
o Billions of local government fee and charge revenues placed at heightened legal peril.

Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for transportation, and public
facility use.
o Hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax and bond measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and November 9, 2022 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative. o Indeterminable legal
and administrative burdens and costs on local government from
new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements.
o The delay
and deterrence of municipal annexations and associated impacts on housing and
commercial development.
o Service and infrastructure
impacts including in fire and emergency response, law
enforcement,
public health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public
schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention and mental health services.

Agenda Item 1.F
March 1, 2022

ATTACHMENTS
A. Legal Analysis from League of California Cities
B. Fiscal Analysis from League of California Cities
C. Letter of Opposition from League of California Cities Prepared by: Karin Schnaider, Finance Director
Reviewed by: Midori
Lichtwardt, Assistant City Manager
Approved by:

Michael Rogers, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to oppose initiative 21-0042
A1: State ballot measure restricting voters’ input and local taxing authority and forward the resolution to the
League of California Cities.

The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Initiative No. 21-0042A1
January 21, 2022
Summary: The measure limits the voters’ input, adopts new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and makes it more difficult to hold state and local law violators accountable.

Limiting Voter Authority and Accountability
• Limits voter input. Prohibits local voters from providing direction on how local tax dollars should be spent by prohibiting local advisory measures. • Invalidates Upland decision that allows majority of local voters to pass special taxes. Taxes proposed by the Initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council. All measures passed between January 2022 and November 2022 would be invalidated unless reenacted within 12 months.

Restricting Local Fee Authority to Provide Local Services • Franchise fees. Sets new standard for fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property. The standard may significantly restrict the amount oil companies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable companies, and other corporations pay for the use of local public property. Rental and sale of local government property must be “reasonable” which must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.”
• Except for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” The burden to prove the fee or charge does not exceed “actual cost” is changed to “clear and convincing” evidence.

Restricting Authority of State and Local Governments to Issue Fines and Penalties for Violations of Law.
• Requires voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties.

ATTACHMENT A
Restricting Local Tax Authority to Provide Local Services • Expanding existing taxes (e.g., UUT, use tax, TOT) to new territory (e.g., annexation) or expanding the base (e.g., new utility service) requires voter approval.
• City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee. • New taxes can be imposed only for a specific time period. • Taxes adopted after January 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted.
• All state taxes require majority voter approval.
• Prohibits any surcharge on property tax rate and allocation of property tax to state.

Other Changes
• No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.

CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Fiscal and Program Effects of
Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments
If Initiative 21-0042A1 is placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it will result in:
 Billions of local government fee and charge revenues placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for transportation, and public facility use.  Hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax and bond measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and November 9, 2022 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative.
 Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on local government from new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements.  The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations and associated impacts on housing and commercial development.
 Service and infrastructure impacts including in fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention and mental health services.

1. Local Government Taxes and Services Threatened
With regard to taxes, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Prohibits advisory, non-binding measures as to use of tax proceeds on the same ballot. o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against measures.  Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by citizen initiative to be enacted by majority voter approval (Upland).
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxes approved by majority vote (Upland) is so recent, it is unknown how common these sorts of measures might be in the future. This initiative would prohibit such measures after the effective date of the initiative. Any such measures adopted after January 1, 2022 through November 8, 2022 would be void after November 9, 2023.
 Requires that tax measures include a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed. This seems to require that all tax increases or extensions contain a sunset (end date). o This would require additional tax measures to extend previously approved taxes at additional cost to taxpayers.
 Requires that a tax or bond measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative (November 9, 2022) that was not adopted in accordance with the measure be readopted in compliance with the measure or will be void twelve months after the effective date of the initiative (November 9, 2023).
o If past election patterns are an indication, dozens of tax and bond measures approving hundreds of millions of annual revenues may not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment.

Most will be taxes without a specific end date. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, measures not in compliance would need to be placed on a special election ballot for approval before November 9, 2023 or the tax will be void after that date. General tax measures would require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Rev. January 7, 2022

ATTACHMENT B
– 2 – r e v J a n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 2
CaliforniaCityFinance.
com
 Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new terri tory (annexations). This would require additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land de velopment in cities. o If a tax is "extended" to an annexed area without a vote after January 1, 2022, it will be void 12 months later until brought into compliance. Because there is no regularly scheduled electi on within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, such extensions for general taxes would, under current law, each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void after November 9, 20 23.

1.a. Number of Meas
ures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk1
In 2020, voters in California approved 293 local tax and bond measures for cities, counties, special districts and schools (95 in March and 198 in November). The approved measures enacted $3.85 billion in new annual taxes including $1.3 billion for cities, $302 mil lion for counties, $208 million for special districts (fire, wastewater, open space and transit districts), and $2.037 billion for schools (including for school bonds).

Most tax measures go to the ballot during a presidential or gub ernatorial primary or general election in an even year. However, some tax measures are decided at other times. During 2019, there were 45 approved tax and bond measures (24 city, 14 special district, 7 school) adopting $154.0 million in new annual taxes ($124.0 million city, $10.5 million special district and $19.2 million school).

Most tax and bond measures comply with the new rules in Initiat ive 21-0042Amdt#1 except:
 Dozens of taxes would require end dates. This would require ad ditional measures in future years to extend the taxes further. Very few extensions of existing local taxes fail.  Majority vote general tax measures could not be accompanied on the same ballot with an advisory, non-binding measure as to use of tax proceeds.  Special taxes placed on the ballot via citizen initiative woul d require two-thirds voter approval.

Bond measures have fixed terms. Historically, about 20 percent of other tax measures have included specific durations (i.e. sunsets). Advisory measures as to use of revenues are uncommon. I do not expect the provisions of 21-0042A1 to have any substantial effect on passage rates. However, some 2022 approved measures would likely have to put back on the ballot.

Based on history, a reasonable estimate of the annualized tax revenues estimated to be approved by 1 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices.

– 3 – r e v J a n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 2
CaliforniaCityFi
nance.com
voters in 2022 and placed at risk by this initiative is at least $1.5 billion, including $1.0 billion from cities and $500 million from counties and special districts.2

1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions In addition to service delays and disruption due to new tax revenues placed at greater legal risk, there will be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The deterrence of taxes for annexations will delay and deter municipal annexations.

2. “Exempt Charges” (fees and charges that are not taxes) and Services Threatened With regard to fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2022, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Subjects new fees and charges for a product or service to a new "actual cost” test defined as “(i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service to the payor, and (ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In addition, subjects these same charges to a new, undefined, “reasonable” standard.
 Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test.  Subjects a challenged fee or charge to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.  Prohibits a levy, charge or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled, imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.

2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk3 Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies and increases in those fees simply to accommodate inflation, the amount of local government fee and charge revenue placed at risk is about $1 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of this $1 billion, about $570 million is for special districts, $450 million is cities, and $260 million is counties.4
Major examples of affected fees and charges are:

1. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.

2. Commercial franchise fees.

3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.

4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.

5. Document processing and duplication fees.

6. Transit fees, tolls, parking f ees, public airport and harbor use fees.

7. Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services , garbage disposal tipping fees.

In addition to fees and charges, the measure puts fines and penalties assessed for the violation of state and 2 This does not include citizen initiative special tax approved by majority but not two-thirds. Because this approach is new, th e number of these measures and amount of revenue involved cannot be estimated. 3 Source: California State Controller Annual Reports of Financial Transactions concerning cities, counties and special districts , summarized with an assumed growth due to fee rate increases (not population) of 2 percent annually. 4 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison. – 4 – r e v J a n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 2
CaliforniaCityFinance.
com
local law at risk, making them taxes subject to voter approval under certain circumstances.

2.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Fee/Charge Provisions In addition to service delays and disruptions due to fee and charge revenues placed at greater legal risk, there would be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The risk to fees and charges will make infrastructure financing more difficult and will deter new residential and commercial development. ***********
mc
Stop the Corporate Loopholes Scheme
Deceptive Proposition Allows Major Corporations to Avoid Paying their Fair Share and Evade Enforcement when they Violate Environmental, Health & Safety Laws An association representing California’s wealthiest corporations — including oil, insurance, banks and drug companies — is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot. Their measure would create major new loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities; while also allowing corporations to evade enforcement when they violate environmental, health, safety and other state and local laws. Here’s why a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses oppose the Corporate Loophole Scheme:

Gives Wealthy Corporations a Major Loophole to Avoid Paying their Fair Share - Forcing Local Residents and Taxpayers to Pay More • The measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources – shifting the burden and making individual taxpayers pay more.

Allows Corporations to Dodge Enforcement When They Violate Environmental, Health, Public Safety and Other Laws
• The deceptive scheme creates new loopholes that makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods.

Jeopardizes Vital Local and State Services
• This far-reaching measure puts at risk billions of dollars currently dedicated to critical state and local services.
• It could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services and more. • It would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, utilities and more.

Opens the Door for Frivolous Lawsuits, Bureaucracy and Red Tape that Will Cost Taxpayers and Hurt Our Communities
• The measure will encourage frivolous lawsuits, bureaucracy and red tape that will cost local taxpayers millions — while significantly delaying and stopping investments in infrastructure and vital services.

ATTACHMENT C
Underm
ines Voter Rights, Transparency, and Accountability
• This misleading measure changes our constitution to make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and local infrastructure.
• It also includes a hidden provision that would retroactively cancel measures that were passed by local voters — effectively undermining the rights of voters to decide for themselves what their communities need.
• It would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures, where voters provide direction to politicians on how they want their local tax dollars spent.

RESOLUTION 2022- ______TO OPPOSE INITIATIVE 21-0042A1
WHEREAS, An association representing California’s wealthiest corporations is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot; and WHEREAS, The measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources; and WHEREAS, The measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local
voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local
tax dollars spent; and
WHEREAS, The measure makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, The measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to state and local services at risk
, and could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and
WHEREAS, the measure would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public trans
portation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, and utilities.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Council of the City of Tracy does hereby authorize, opposes Initiative 21-0042A1, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Council of the City of Tracy does hereby join the NO on
Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute to email a copy of this adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at [email protected].

The foregoing Resolution 2022-________ was adopted by Tracy City C ouncil on the 1st day of
March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN:

COUNCIL MEMBERS: ___________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST
___________________________________

CITY CLERK
**************
March 1, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 1.G

REQUEST

REJECT ALL BID

S FOR THE LINCOLN BOULEVARD SEWER MAIN AND
LATERAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CIP 74163, AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO RE-

ADVERTISE THE PROJECT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Request City
Council reject all bids and authorize City staff to modify and re-bid the project.

DISCUSSION
On December
7, 2021, Council approved the CIP 74163, the Lincoln Boulevard Sewer Main and Lateral Replacement Project, with an appropriation of $320,000, as part of the Quarter 1 Budget Update, amending the 2021-2022 Budget with Resolution No. 2021- 180.

Engineering staf
f prepared the plans and specifications and advertised the Project for competitive bids on January 21, 2022 and January 28, 2022.

Bids were recei
ved and publicly opened at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 22, 2022, with the following results:

The bid exceeds the
available funding. Staff believes that the required items of work should be revised to ensure each item is correctly quantified and described in the project bid documents to ensure competitive bids and that it is in the best interest of the City to reject all bids, modify the project bid documents and then re-bid the project.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This agenda item supports the City of Tracy’s Quality of Life Strategic Priority.

The available budget for this project is $320,000 (Wastewater Capital Improvements Fund 523).

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council, by resolution, reject the bid from California Trenchless, Inc.
for the Lincoln Boulevard Sewer Main and Lateral Replacement Project, CIP 74163, and authorize staff to re-advertise the Project.

Contractor Total Base Bid
California Trenchless, Inc., Hayward, CA $374,500

FISCAL IMPACT
Agenda Item 1.G
March 1, 2022

Prepared by: Ilene Macintire, PE, Senior Civil Engineer Jaspreet Mangat, PE, Associate Engineer
Reviewed by: Robert Armijo, PE, City Engineer / Assistant Development Services Director William
Dean, Interim Development Services Director
Karin Schnaider, Finance Director
Midori Lichtwardt, Assistant City Manager
Approv
ed by: Michael Rogers, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS
Att
achment A – Location Map

LOWEL L
c:i a::
:it
� 0
::c
....I <
a:: a:: 0
(.)
LA RC H RD.

KAVA NAGH
3 ID

GRANT LINE
AVE.
g ....I ID
>­
(.)
<
I!:
11TH

PROJECT
SITE
g ....I ID
>­
(.)
<
I!:
� <
a:: w � a:: <
a.

AVE.
a::
0 >-....I ....I 0
::c
RD.
.,.:
....I
I-
a:: 0 a.
....I w
.,.:

Vl
I­
V)
< w

LOCATION MAP

NOT TO SCALE
a::
0 a:: ::::,
� a:: <
(.)
< :::!:

I - 205
PESCADERO A VE. a:: 1-------
0 a:: ::::,
� a:: <
0 0 :::!:

RD.

Attachment A
RESOLUTION 2022-_____

REJECTIN

G ALL BIDS FOR THE LINCOLN BOULEVARD SEWER MAIN AND LATERAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CIP 74163, AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO RE-ADVERTISE

THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, The project was advertised for competitive bids on January 21, 2022 and January 28, 2022, one bid was received and publicly opened at 2:00 p.m., on February 22, 2022, and
WHEREAS, The bid received substantially exceeds available funds, and WHEREAS, The required items of work will be revised to ensure that each item is correctly quantified and described in the project bid documents, to ensure competitive bidding.

NOW,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Council of the City of Tracy hereby rejects all bids for the Lincoln Boulevard Sewer Main and Lateral Replacement Project, CIP 74163
, and authorizes City staff to modify and re-advertise the project . * * * * *
* * * * * * *
The foregoi
ng Resolution 2022-_____ was adopted by the Tracy City Council on the 1st day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL
MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________
MAYOR
AT
TEST:
_______________________
CITY
CLERK
March 1, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 3.A

REQUEST

RECEIVE THE PR

OPERTY OWNERS REVISED LAND USE PLAN FOR THE

WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (FORMERLY TRACY GATEWAY) AND

PROVIDE DIRECTION TO CITY STAFF

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 17,
2021, the City Council received public input on the proposed Westside Specific Plan, focused on two land use plan alternatives in the “panhandle” area:

Business Park Industrial vs Residential. No City Council consensus was reached and the property owners are now proposing a combination of Mixed Use Commercial on the northern portion of the panhandle and Business Park Industrial on the southern part.

The City Council is asked to decide if this is an acceptable land use plan to include in the development of the Westside Specific Plan.

DISCUSSION
Background
The 538-acre Wes
tside Specific Plan Project area (formerly Tracy Gateway), annexed to the City in 2002, is located southwest of the intersection of Eleventh Street and Lammers Road (Attachment A). Following annexation, no development applications were submitted for the approved plan’s business park, office buildings, retail, golf course, or other improvements. Property ownership changed, some lenders foreclosed on property loans, and the lack of progress contributed to a sense that the plan is out of step with current market conditions.

In 2018, the
City Council awarded a contract, in an amount not to exceed $500,000, to Kimley-Horn Associates (KHA) to help property owners and the City re-evaluate the land use assumptions of the project and to develop a new Specific Plan for the property. The process began with a real estate market analysis forecast, continued with multiple property-owner meetings, and evaluation of land use plan alternatives and infrastructure solutions. The $500,000 seed money provided by the City was spent by June 2021 and subsequent City consultant costs have been paid by the Westside Specific Plan property owners. The initial $500,000 provided by the City is expected to be reimbursed to the City through a Specific Plan fee to be set up through adoption of the Specific Plan. Prior to Specific Plan adoption, an agreement between the City and property owners will be drafted to conclude the reimbursement arrangement.

The City Counc
il received an update on the project on March 5, 2019 and was presented with the property owners’ preferred land use plan. Work commenced on the Draft Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) until, in 2020, some property owners expressed an interest in changing their preferred land use designations from their 2019 preferences. Specifically, owners no longer wished to pursue a college campus or senior housing over a significant portion of the project area.

Agenda Item 3.A
March 1, 2022

Consequently,
on April 6, 2021, the City Council received an update on the status of the Westside Specific Plan Project, including a revised land use plan from that which the Council endorsed on March 5, 2019. During the meeting, the City Council directed staff to seek community input on future development of the Westside Specific Plan area, including the property owners’ revised preferred land use plan alternatives. To that end, a Westside Community meeting was held on July 22, 2021.

On August 17,
2021, the City Council received results of the public input. Attachment B, the Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report, contains a summary of the public input presented on August 17
h. Public input was focused on two property owner
alternative land use plans, Attachments C and D. The difference between the two alternatives is the proposed land use designation of the “panhandle”, the approximately 120-acre area within the northwest portion of the project. Alternative 1 (Attachment C) includes the Business Park Industrial option and Alternative 2 (Attachment D) is the Residential option.

The City Counci
l did not reach a consensus regarding a preferred land use plan on August 17, 2021.

Property Owners’ Proposal
Attachment
E is the property owners’ current proposed land use plan. The only change from the August 17, 2021 alternatives is that the “panhandle” area is proposed to be a combination of Mixed Use Commercial on the northern, approximately 575 feet (along Eleventh Street and I-205), and Business Park Industrial for the southern portion of the panhandle, approximately 2,100 feet wide. The zone districts, of course, are not yet adopted for the Specific Plan area. But the Mixed Use Commercial designation is anticipated to provide for such uses as offices, retail, consumer services, restaurants, and multi-family residential development. The Industrial designation would accommodate uses such as manufacturing, warehouse/distribution, and other industrial uses.

The property owner
ship group will present more details related to their land use proposal during the March 1, 2022 City Council meeting.

Next Steps
Following to
night’s Council meeting, City staff will incorporate direction from the City Council in working with KHA and the property owners to develop a Draft Specific Plan and a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for public review.

The Draft Speci
fic Plan and EIR could be ready for public review later this year. Once the Draft Specific Plan is prepared, City staff anticipates approximately two months of public review, followed by public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to final adoption. If significant policy or land-use changes are proposed or warrant City Council review prior to the normal project hearings, additional updates or direction from City Council will be scheduled.

Agenda Item 3.A
March 1, 2022

STRATEGIC PLANS
This proje
ct is related to the City Council’s Economic Development Strategy Goal Number 6.3: Rezone Tracy Westside (Gateway) property for mix of land uses to attract businesses, future hospital, and various types of assisted and independent/senior living.

FISCAL IMPACT
In the 2017/18
fiscal year, the City budgeted $500,000 to initiate this Specific Plan effort and entered into contract with KHA. Kimley-Horn Associates’ initial work was financed through a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) approved by the City Council on May 1, 2018, Resolution Number 2018-081 for a not-to-exceed amount of $500,000. The $500,000 has been spent and is expected to be reimbursed to the City through a Specific Plan fee to be set up through adoption of the Specific Plan. Prior to Specific Plan adoption, an agreement between the City and property owners will be drafted to conclude the reimbursement arrangement. Consultant costs beyond the initial $500,000 to develop the Specific Plan through adoption are estimated at over $300,000, which will be borne by the Westside Specific Plan property owners. The property owners have already begun paying these expenses and are expected to pay all KHA and other City consultant costs incurred for this project.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff re
commends that the City Council receive the Westside Specific Plan property owner input and provide direction to City staff.

Prepared by: A
lan Bell, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: B
ill Dean, Interim Development Services Director
Karin Schnaider, Finance Director
Midori Lichtwardt, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Mi
chael Rogers, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS
Attachm
ent A – Tracy Gateway Project Area
Attachment B – Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Attachment C – August 17, 2021 Property Owners’ Land Use Plan Alternative 1 (Business Park Industrial)
Attachment D – August 17, 2021 Property Owners’ Land Use Plan Alternative 2 (Residential) Attachment E – Property Owners’ Current Proposed Land Use Plan

Westside Specific Plan
Community Engagement Report
Attachment B
City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Community Engagement Process 1
Engagement Participation 3
Westside Community Engagement Website 3
Preference Survey 5
Community Meeting 6
Summary of Findings 7
Land Use Alternatives 7
Summary of Land Use and Design Features Survey Preferences 8 Written Comments 9
Community Meeting 10

Appendices
A: Land Use Alternatives Written Responses
B: Preference Survey Response to Questions
C: Preference Survey Written Responses
D: Westside Submitted Written Comments

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report

8/12/2021 Page 1
Introduction
City of Tracy is preparing a Specific Plan for the 536-acre Westside site (the Plan Area), located in western Tracy. A previous Tracy Gateway General Plan Amendment and Concept Development Plan was originally approved along with annexation to the City in 2002. However, due to challenging market conditions, requirements related to scope and phasing of infrastructure, economic feasibility and other factors, development of the Tracy Gateway Project did not occur.

The City has been working with property owners to reanalyze and reimagine the Plan Area and facilitate implementation of a new, and feasible, development project. If adopted, the Westside Specific Plan would establish a planning framework for the future development of a mixture of uses including commercial, retail, medical, institutional, and residential uses.

In response to City Council direction in March 2019, the City began preparing a Specific Plan (which included a draft land use plan) and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In late 2020, property owners provided feedback on the City’s preliminary draft Specific Plan and expressed a preference to redesignate approximately 180 acres of the Plan Area from institutional and assisted living to either industrial or residential land uses. The property owners presented two alternatives to the draft land use plan.

In April of 2021, the City Council directed staff to reach out to the community to obtain community feedback on these two alternatives as well as receive general comments about the project.

Community Engagement Process
The community engagement process included the following:
 Preparation of a flyer to advertise and solicit community input (see below).  Posting and announcement on the home page of the City of Tracy’s website and all of the City’s social media platforms.
 Emailed notification directly to the Tracy Press, Chamber of Commerce, City business license holders, seniors groups, for-profit and non-profit builders, Westside property owners, and interested parties who have addressed the City Council or otherwise expressed interest in this project area.
 Creating a Westside Community Engagement website hosted by Social Pinpoint, a community engagement web “platform”. This website provided background information about the project, a mapping tool that enabled the public to post comments directly on the two land use alternatives, and links to a survey and community meeting (described below).
 A preference survey (using Survey Monkey), linked from the website.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report

8/12/2021 Page 2
 A Westside Community Meeting which was held both virtually (via Zoom) and in-person on Thursday, July 22nd.

Westside Community Engagement Flyer

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report

8/12/2021 Page 3
Engagement Participation
Community engagement was exceptionally very high, which is a testament to the strong interest the community has in the project.

Westside Community Engagement Website
The Westside Community Engagement website was “visited” nearly 5,000 times by 1,337 unique users. Of these, 91 individuals (Unique Stakeholders) provided 158 comments on the land use alternatives maps.

Comments were provided on three maps using pull-down icons organized by four categories.

An example for Alternative A is shown below.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report

8/12/2021 Page 4
The comments were fairly evenly distributed at 25% for each category.

Written responses for each category as shown in Appendix A: Land Use Alternatives Written Responses.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report

8/12/2021 Page 5
Preference Survey
The Westside Community Engagement Website included a link to a Preference Survey using Survey Monkey. A total of 421 surveys were collected. The survey included 35 questions in which respondents were asked to comment on the two land use alternatives, as well as a series of questions indicating their preferences regarding various planning and design issues such as land use densities, design features, and amenities. An example question is shown below.

The survey also included an open-ended question where respondents were asked to provide written comments regarding future development at Westside, in which 198 comments were received. A summary of the survey responses is described in the Survey Findings, below. Charts related to each response are shown in Appendix B: Preference Survey Response to Questions.

Written responses are shown in Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report

8/12/2021 Page 6
Community Meeting
A Westside Community Meeting was held both virtually (via Zoom) and at City Hall on Thursday, July 22 from 7:00 to 9:00 PM. In addition to City staff, 24 members of the public attended the in-person meeting and 37 individuals attended via Zoom.

City staff and consultants provided a presentation about the project including background and context, and the two land use alternatives. Discussion followed before closing with a presentation regarding next steps.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report

8/12/2021 Page 7
Summary of Findings
Land Use Alternatives
A key aspect of the community engagement process was to identify the public’s preference between two land use alternatives, namely Alternative A: Business Park Industrial and Alternative B: Residential – Medium High. As shown below, the difference between the two alternatives focuses on the approximately 120 acre “panhandle” located in the northwestern corner of the Specific Plan area.

Based on the survey results to Question 1 shown below, 50% of the respondents were in favor of Alternative A: Business Park Industrial, 19% were in favor of Alternative B: Residential – Medium High, and 31% were in favor of “Other”.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report

8/12/2021 Page 8
To further clarify community preferences on the two alternatives, two additional questions were asked regarding their preference as to “appropriateness” of both Business Park Industrial and Residential--Medium Density in the panhandle. These, and subsequent preference questions used a rating scale of Strongly Disagree (-3) to Strongly Agree (+3).

As shown below, for Alternative A: Business Park Industrial, respondents were generally divided between strongly disagree (35%) and strongly agree (35%). For Alternative B: Residential – Medium High, a majority of respondents (53%) strongly disagreed.

Summary of Land Use and Design Features Survey Preferences Following is a summary of preferences regarding the “appropriateness” of other land uses and design features:
 Single-family residential – 42% strongly disagreed (-3)  Secondary units (i.e., accessory dwelling units) – 48% strongly disagreed (-3)  Duplexes – 51% strongly disagreed (-3)
 Townhomes and condominiums – 51% strongly disagreed (-3)  Multi-family – 54% strongly disagreed (-3)
 Active “main Street” retail – 50% strongly agreed (+3)

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report

8/12/2021 Page 9
 Public gathering spaces for events and social activities – 50% strongly agreed (+3)  A hospital and associated medical office buildings, labs, clinics, etc. – 45% strongly agreed (+3)
 Large-format distribution facilities – 59% strongly disagreed (-3)  Warehouse/distribution facilities should incorporate architectural design features and landscaping to minimize their visual impact – 31% strongly disagreed (-3) and 31% strongly agreed (+3)
 A business park that allows flexible light industrial and manufacturing designed for multiple tenants – 35% strongly disagreed (-3) and 18% strongly agreed (+3)  Buildings setbacks from I-205 and incorporate landscape screening to minimize their visual impact – 45% strongly agreed (+3)
 Incorporation of roundabout at appropriate intersections – 26% strongly disagreed (-3), 22% neutral (0), and 21% strongly agreed (+3)
 Incorporation of multi-use pedestrian/bicycle trails – 59% strongly agreed (+3)

Written Comments
Written comments were received from both the Westside Community Engagement Website (via the land use alternatives mapping application) and the preference survey. A complete list of these comments are found in Appendix A: Land Use Alternatives Written Responses and Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses. Written comments from two individuals were also submitted to City staff. A copy of these comments can be found in Appendix D:

Westside Submitted Written Comments.

Following is a high-level summary of these comments. Readers are encouraged to read the complete set of comments and draw their own conclusions and observations.

Provide more high-quality retail that serves the Tracy community Many respondents commented on the lack of higher-quality retail in Tracy and the fact that they have to travel to other cities (e.g. Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, and Manteca). There was also a particular focus on the need for better grocery stores (e.g., Trader Joes, Sprouts, etc.) Create opportunities to attract higher-paying jobs
When development was supported, respondents expressed a strong desire for land uses that provide higher-paying jobs (e.g., Information Technology), They also expressed a desire for education opportunities that support training for technology and business.

Provide more entertainment venues, trails, and recreation opportunities, particularly ones that are family-friendly
A significant number of respondents expressed a desire for more family-friendly activities such as skateparks, trails, sports park, etc. A number of people suggested creating a community City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report

8/12/2021 Page 10
gathering place (e.g., “main street”) that supports community events and entrainment, as well as retail activity.

Warehouses and housing
Many people stated that they did not want housing or warehouses. When addressing only warehouses, most respondents were not in favor of more large-format industrial warehouse space. Additionally, many commenters were in favor of smaller-scale business parks, particularly that supported small business and manufacturing.

When addressing only housing, may respondents expressed the need for more affordable housing, both rental and ownership.

Infrastructure and water supply
When addressed, respondents were concerned about adequate infrastructure and water.

Traffic congestion was a consistent issue.

Strong support for a new hospital and associated medical services Nearly everyone who commented on this topic was in favor of a new hospital and associated medical services. Some noted capacity issues associated with current growth as well as the need to drive to other communities for certain services.

Community Meeting
A broad range of comments at the Community Meeting were provided, which are summarized as follows:
 Generally, most participants were not in favor of more large-format industrial warehouse buildings.
 There was a request to close Hansen Road due to existing truck traffic affecting the Lammers residential neighborhood to the north.
 Many people expressed concerns regarding adequate infrastructure and traffic congestion, particularly if new development is planned. People asked where traffic will be routed and how truck traffic will affect the area, particularly heading east to Lammers Road.
 A person asked about conversations the City is having with Sutter and to confirm their interest in the project.
 There was a request to include educational and training opportunities, particularly as they relate to health care and opportunities for coordination with John C. Kimball High School.
 A number of people asked that there more recreation opportunities, particularly bikes and trails, parks, and other recreation facilitates.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report

8/12/2021 Page 11
 A person asked for clarification about what constitutes “industrial” and “business park industrial”.
 A number of people asked what happened to the senior living land use designation.  A person asked about the buildout timing of Cordes Ranch and the timing of the Wellness Park.
 A person asked for clarification about the timing of the project and when initial development is anticipated.
 A number of people emphasized the need to retain higher-paying jobs and employment opportunities.
 One person asked about residential development in this area relative to the City’s Growth Management Ordinance.
 Mike Souza, representing the property owners, noted that all of the property owners are in support of both land use alternatives and appreciate the public’s comments.

Their goal is to create an economically viable project based on a combination of land uses.
 Some people expressed the need to create a memorable entrance to Tracy that is attractive, particularly when viewed from I-205.
 One person suggested that any residential development should include a variety of housing types and densities, including affordable housing.  One person asked about the environmental review process to be sure that all potential impacts are analyzed so that the public can make more informed decisions, particularly with respect to issues such as water, infrastructure, traffic, etc.  One person suggested we should use our imagination to explore options beyond warehouses and single-family homes. Why rush? Let’s step back and think more long- term.
 A person, representing Prologis, talked about the benefits that their warehouse facilities bring to Tracy including jobs, tax revenues, recreation, etc.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix B: Preference Survey Response to Questions

Appendix B: Preference Survey Response to Questions

Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
1 / 18
Q1 Which land use do you prefer in the "panhandle" as shown in the blue box.

Answered: 418 Skipped: 3
Alternative A:

Business Par...

Alternative B:

Residential ...

Other (please
specify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
50%
19%
31%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
2 / 18
Q2 I believe that Business Park Industrial is an appropriate land use in the "panhandle".

Answered: 404 Skipped: 17
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
535%
9%
7 777%
7 777%
%%4%
2%
5 535%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
3 / 18
Q3 I believe that Residential Medium Density is an appropriate land use in the "panhandle".

Answered: 393 Skipped: 28
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
10%
7 777%
666%
%
%13%
%4%
666%
%
%53%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
4 / 18
Q4 Single-family residential is an appropriate land use for Westside.

Answered: 391 Skipped: 30
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
%%14%
77%
8%
5 515%
7 77%
6 6 %6%
% %
%42%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
5 / 18
Q5 Secondary units (also known as accessory dwelling units) are an appropriate land use for Westside.

Answered: 390 Skipped: 31
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
66%
%5%
9%
6616%
8%
7 77%
48%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
6 / 18
Q6 Duplexes are an ap propriate land use for Westside.

Answered: 390 Skipped: 31
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
777%
6 66%
9%
%%13%
7 77%
6 66%
51%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
7 / 18
Q7 Townhomes and condominiums are an appropriate land use for Westside.

Answered: 389 Skipped: 32
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
10%
8%
9%
12%
% %4%
%% %5%
51%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
8 / 18
Q8 Multi-family apartments are an appropriate land use for Westside.

Answered: 386 Skipped: 35
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
8%
%5%
7 777%
%%15%
66%
%5%
4 4 %54%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
9 / 18
Q9 Active “main street” retail is an app ropriate land use for Westside.

Answered: 389 Skipped: 32
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
50%
% %13%
10%
6%
3%
3%
5 %%15%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
10 / 18
Q10 Public gathering spaces for events and social activities are an ap
propriate land use for Westside.

Answered: 388 Skipped: 33
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
50%
13%
12%
777%
3%
3%
% %
% %13%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
11 / 18
Q11 A hospital and associated medical office buildings, labs, clinics, etc. are an appropriate land use for Westside.

Answered: 388 Skipped: 33
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
5 545%
515%
%%13%
7 77%
2%
%4%
%
%13%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
12 / 18
Q12 Large-format distribution facilities are an appropriate land use for Westside.

Answered: 388 Skipped: 33
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
18%
3%
%% %5%
%%5%
%5%
%% %5%
59%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
13 / 18
Q13 Warehouse/distribution facilities should incorporate architectural design features and landscaping to minimize their visual impact.

Answered: 388 Skipped: 33
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
31%
7 777%
9%
1 6
1 616%
2%
3%
31%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
14 / 18
Q14 A business park that allows flexible light industrial and manufacturing designed for multiple tenants is an appropriate land use in Westside.

Answered: 388 Skipped: 33
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
18%
% %13%
11%
10%
777%
66%
5 535%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
15 / 18
Q15 Buildings should be setback from I-205 and incorporate landscape screening to minimize their visual impact.

Answered: 388 Skipped: 33
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
545%
12%
11%
20%
3%
2%
7 777%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
16 / 18
Q16 Roundabouts should be incorporated at appropriate intersections in Westside.

Answered: 387 Skipped: 34
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
21%
9%
12%
%%22%
6%
% %4%
2 226%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
17 / 18
Q17 Multi-use pedestrian/bicycle trails should be incorporated throughout Westside.

Answered: 387 Skipped: 34
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
59%
11%
% %13%
9%
1%
1%
%%5%
Westside Specific Plan Survey SurveyMonkey
18 / 18
Q18 Please share any other comments you have regarding future development at Westside
Answered: 198 Skipped: 223
City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-1
Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses
Question 18: Please share any other comments you have regarding future development at Westside.

1. Tracy needs a hospital. There should be no debate. Sutter is great but we have simply outgrown a community hospital model. It’s time to address this and not keep kicking the can down the road. With Tracy and mtn house using our local small facility it’s not equipped and cannot provide the services we as citizens deserve.

2. The area needs more affordable housing and a more community atmosphere.

3. Kids and teens recreation like skateboarding, dirt bike track, bike trails, and #kidszania is excellent!

4. Why Rush? Prime Area- only hospital should be approved at this time until the right vision is aligned with the community - should be a special area. Been in Tracy 30yrs. to many warehouses and NO TECH high Paying jobs. Why add or approve for low income housing because the land owners couldn't get approved in the last measure. This area should be preserved for something special. Sutter already made a joke out of Tracy by not building here years ago- the land was given to them- they just updated a still outdated hospital. Joke was on city. We go over the hill for all our medical and shopping even after 30yrs- sad.

5. Westside along with other areas of Tracy needs to incorporate MORE infrastructure (non-warehouse businesses, roads, etc.) to increase jobs and revenue. Tracy already has more than enough homes and not enough businesses to supply jobs where people can work and (afford to) live in the same town!

6. Improve overall traffic flow infrastructure before adding any population load.

7. Although warehouse/industrial zoning would allow certain tech companies as tenants, focus on education and local employment of medical employees should be a high priority. Prologis type WellFit amenities IF tech companies are interested as tenants should be encouraged/required. Signature and significant amenities to convey the COT community image/brand as a growing, prosperous, fun & healthy place to live-work- play-shop-dine-and-bike-hike inside the triangle!

8. NO, Industrial, No Warehouses. Only mix commercial with retail, nice breakfast place, hospital, amenities.

9. Responsible development - of many types - is appropriate for this area of Tracy. Clearly, the Westside's proximity to the San Francisco / Silicon Valley may lend itself to possible business & industrial uses that serve that larger regional population base (not necessarily Tracy-centric). However, this does provide jobs for Tracy residents - always a priority. But as the entrance to Tracy (from the West), and near major current housing, like Mountain House, a variety of mixed uses would also be appropriate - retail that serves current and new residents, medical, new housing, and other uses for our growing City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-2
community. Very dense rental or for-sale housing is (my opinion) likely better positioned near more active/frequent public transit nodes. Some less/medium dense residential may work here, recognizing the practical reality that most residents choosing this location will likely have automobiles, for years to come. Any absolute prohibition of uses that are currently in demand in Tracy could spell another two decades of fallow land, and no development. That serves no one, except the idealogues that support free parks, free services, and any variety of other free/non-economic uses. Unless (free) public funds are used - which I trust most residents vehemently oppose - private market investors have to economically-justify their developments. Absent this, nothing will happen. Tradeoffs may be politically unpopular, as will be inevitably vocalized by any number of well-organized group of opponents (from both the left AND right political spectrums). But the silent majority of residents - I truly believe the vast majority merely want responsible development that makes their lives better, offering both personal & professional services and opportunities.

10. Tracy does not need any more warehouses or residential neighborhoods. We need businesses that are beneficial to our town & residents. Such as open area businesses, Trader Joe’s, old navy, new restaurants, small stores. Also family entertainment areas, parks, water areas, etc. Please listen to us residents!!!

11. No new development should be done until the infrastructure has been upgraded. Roads must be expanded to support the current traffic before any new development is allowed

12. Ample space should be left from the road to allow for future expansion. I'd strongly prefer to see road improvements before the construction of new residences. I'd strongly prefer if they are not given a traffic light - this way traffic can be free flowing on Schulte.

I would not be opposed to the road being widened to give them a left turn lane. I'm strongly against high density in Tracy. Our new apartments are among the most expensive in the region and they don't provide affordable housing. The cost of an older house here is comparable to a new apartment. Apartments create high density on roads that struggle to accommodate it. We need more 4-6 lane roads in the region - with additional lanes for turns at intersections.

13. Please NO More Warehouses.

14. We need more essential retail and amusement amenities in Tracy. Manteca is doing a better job with restaurants and stores than Tracy.

15. There needs to be a reason for people to be in Tracy. Warehousing and “cheap” housing aren’t enough.

16. We need more businesses in town that can provide professional level job opportunities so that Tracy residents can work in the triangle as opposed to commuting to bay area.

Additional residences are NOT needed until the city can support existing residents with regards to infrastructure, entertainment, services and water.

17. More trees, build a forest!
City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-3

18. PLEASE no more houses or warehouses. Our town has lost its homey, cozy, feel. We have to drive out of town to go to retail and grocery stores that we should have HERE in our own town. We already cannot support the traffic congestion. My husband and I chose to buy a home in Tracy rather than the bay where we were living and are regretting that decision. My husband commutes to Union City every day and the traffic over the Altamont has greatly increased causing him so much stress which then trickles down in our household. If we had known that there was going to be so many thousands of new homes built here and no fix to the freeway congestion, we would have stayed in the bay. PLEASE give us more retail shops, trails for families to get out on together and things to do. We are becoming known as a town with all the warehouse buildings. Tracy is not somewhere my child is going to want to plant roots in 10 yrs. when he is ready to start his own life as an adult.

19. Please make sure to update the adequate infrastructure to accommodate these new builds.

20. I think jobs should be a strong focus, not just doctors and lawyers , but employment for a broad range of local skills for both young an older folks from the valley. Some of the companies already in the community are examples of the strong and durable employers we should encourage to come here when this property is developed.

21. Tracy needs a beautiful nature park!! NO MORE HOUSES!!!! NO MORE WAREHOUSES!!!!

22. PLEASE IF YOU GUYS ASK THE PEOPLE OF CITY TO SHARE THEY OPINION PLEASE DO TAKE NOTE OF THEIR COMMENTS NOT FOR THE SAKE OF ASKING ONLY. TRACY IS A

BEAUTIFUL CITY BUT WE NEED RECREATIONS/ACTIVITIES/HIKING/PARKS AND MORE COMMERCIAL AND BRING IN MORE TECH COMPANIES. WE DO NOT NEED ANYMORE LOW END PAY WAREHOUSING JOBS HERE. HIGH END PAY JOBS PLEASE. WE HAVE MORE

PEOPLE FROM BAY AREAS MOVING HERE SO WE NEED MORE DIVERSIFIED AND BETTER JOBS HERE. THANKS.

23. Any type of construction moving forward should address the Construction workforce who are building the project, Developers should ensure a local workforce is utilized, career pathways that include State approved construction apprenticeship programs, and pathways for veterans exiting the military.

24. We need local construction jobs, the men and women who are building the projects should live in the area. There should also be standards that provide access to career opportunities such as apprenticeships.

25. Don’t develop anything, turn the space into a large nature park.

26. City Council, please require special art or community focus at the SW corner of Lammers and 11th, surrounded by high-quality offices or multi-family development, or possibly retail or restaurants. Not gas station, fast food, and car wash!

27. Please consider medical offices, hospitals, or "main street" with shops such as Trader Joe's, Sprouts, Entertainment for the Westside. Warehouses off the freeway entering City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-4
Tracy looks tacky and gives an industrial feel to the community. We should welcome people to city with shops or build a new hospital.

28. Tracy needs jobs. Residential development does not create jobs. Industrial and office development does. The City is broke. Residential development does not generate sales tax and adds additional burden on our schools. Tracy also needs amenities to support the residential development we already have.

29. Projects that provide a strong property and sales tax base for the City should be given preference. Projects such as dense housing that require a lot of services with no sales tax income should be discouraged.

30. Alternative A would keep land uses consistent in the region, bring jobs, revenue for the City, and reduce congestion compared to residential uses. I think landscaping and a traffic plan for alternative A will be important from an aesthetics standpoint, like various industrial developments in Livermore.

31. No more houses. We need more retail and dining places.

32. Think Long-term Council. In the future we will need proper space for Class A businesses.

The panhandle should be set aside for this long-term use.

33. Please do not build anymore warehouses!!! There are enough in the Central Valley.

34. Leave a large enough space for a medical college or university!

35. No more warehouses.

36. An area for family entertainment.

37. Land use and how buildings look should be entirely up to land owners, not government.

That said, my preference would be that this area remains open fields or orchards.

38. There is too much housing being built in Tracy and not enough infrastructure for Tracy residents! Give us something to do other than travel to and from work. I hate having to go outside of town for things.

39. High tech companies.

40. Tracy is becoming a skeletal, walking-dead community. We need something that will let our citizens breath - green space, trails, bike paths.

41. Please bring more amenities to Tracy! We’d love to spend our money here in town instead of leaving each weekend to a better-planned city for activities. More retail, movie theaters, activity spaces and even a Kaiser hospital would be great.

42. Tracy strongly needs to take care of what we have rather that planning additional building, people, traffic etc. We do not have the infrastructure to support the amount of people that are already here. Have any of you traveled out to Costco on any given afternoon? Grantline is a traffic jam. You don't even have to go to Costco. Go anywhere in Tracy around 3 to 5pm. Our roads in a lot of residential areas are filled with potholes not to speak of the main roads in town. When is that going to be addressed? We have warehouses upon warehouses and from what I can see, a lot of the space is still empty.

Let's talk a bit about the crime element. More people, more crime. This is not a nice City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-5
town anymore. I don't feel safe taking a walk in the evening. What the blotter in the paper shows on a weekly basis, doesn't even start to cover the crimes. I hear gun shots on a regular basis. Please start to clean up what we have before you bring more congestion into this town.

43. Actually LISTEN to Tracy residents' input instead of lining your own pockets. And city officials wonder why the youth are leaving Tracy faster than we can pack our bags.

44. We would like to minimal traffic impact on Lammers and no more industrial. There are plenty of other areas over there that can still be utilized without being so close to other residential The property values will be brought down if any industrial is allowed so close to residential developments.

45. Definitely a roller rink.

46. We need indoor sports facilities for soccer and tennis when the weather gets too hot.

47. Give Tracy a big park with lots of trees. Bring some of nature back. All the warehouses give the city a bad look.

48. You’ve got to fix the traffic congestion problem before you create more.

49. Better more advanced medical facilities. A big Kaiser or a bigger Sutter.

50. Stop this pay to play game here. The city is very corrupted.

51. Tracy is a hot mess. Too many houses and no infrastructure. Nothing to do and roads are like washboards. Stop building without proper planning.

52. Why can’t we have a shopping center like Blackhawk plaza? Why do we have to leave the city we live in to shop and eat? Obviously we have the land for all these new projects, why not come up with something beneficial for the residents? Something that also entices you to stay in the city you live in, that looks good too. No more warehouses and fast food restaurants! We need to take notice of other cities otherwise we will look like San Jose or Stockton in their industrial area. We need trails and bike baths, place where we can walk and feel safe. Shaded areas to eat outside, water features to keep us cool when it’s 110 outside. Let Tracy be the forefront for innovation and design, let’s make it a place the residents are proud to call home. I hate having to drive to downtown Livermore or Pleasanton, when I could be spending my money in town. Let’s get some Real designs for this area, instead of warehouses and homes. We can do better Tracy!!!!!

53. No more development until all the problems facing us are resolved.

54. Tracy should not have more warehouses. Period.

55. Please, please, please don’t build more warehouses.

56. Please - no more warehouses in that area! The city needs to diversify the business base.

If housing is built, it should be multi-use, not single family, We need more housing options for young adults, young families and mixed income residents.

57. Stop building homes without the infrastructure to support it.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-6

58. Please, no more warehouses. We need a four year college, jobs that pay head of household wages, nicer restaurants, walking trails, and stores that carry office attire - nice dresses/suits. Most of us have to leave town to shop for something to wear. I like the idea of a hospital and supporting services. Also, get rid of the weeds and make things look nicer. Would also like to see a Trader Joe’s and a furniture store such as Ethan Allen, Macy’s, Lazy Boys, etc. Bottom line, we pay lots of taxes but don’t get much for it. We need higher paying jobs and amenities.

59. Biking friendly and resident friendly. We don’t need more homes on tiny lots. We need more upscale communities or retail to keep folks in Tracy.

60. I would really like to see the city do more to keep the money spent by residents in Tracy.

Right now for shopping we have to go to other places, which takes money/taxes away from where we live. I would much rather keep all of that close to home, but we need to improve what is offered in the area. Better grocery stores (TJ/Whole Foods), more diverse grocery stores (99 Ranch, H-Mart, Mitsuwa), outdoor shopping with better restaurants. The last thing we need is more warehouses, or more housing for the already crowded pass and main roads around here.

61. I do not want to see any residential in any form. We as a city cannot long term support housing. We are projecting to run out of water in the next 20 years. Traffic is horrific as it is. We already have or are in process of building apartments, senior homes, and single family homes throughout Tracy. No more houses. We need a higher levels of restaurants, shopping, and grocery to support the needs of residents in our area. We also are in need of a new hospital.

62. Not enough parks west side . This could be our little “Central Park” or “Golden Gate Park” kind of thing. It’s good to have nature close to the people.

63. Dog friendly areas.

64. We need stuff for our families to do.

65. No more warehouses! No more homes! We need family entertainment.

66. We need recreational activities for our kids and families! Things like boomers, driving range, escape rooms, ice skating, roller skating, rock climbing gym, indoor sports, swimming pools, laser tag and more! We have very little to do in Tracy and we are missing out on income offering entertainment for our own residents. My family of seven always has to leave Tracy to spend money having fun. Also, being that the HS is across the street some food options would be good. Fast food but also healthier options. Please don't just fill the space with houses and warehouses.

67. As noted by many, the homeless problem in the region has become an epidemic. The lack of mental health facilities exacerbates the problem. A 1,000 + bed facility should be developed. The jobs supporting this facility are typically high paying and would bring economic stimulus to the local businesses.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-7

68. I would prefer high-end retail such as whole food or park open space. High-end corporate buildings or a hospital that bring well-paying jobs would be welcome as well.

69. Enough of concrete in Tracy please. We do not want anymore.

70. Tracy does not need more warehouse buildings. It needs higher paying jobs which in turn will help support and build the city.

71. Is so ugly coming into Tracy from point pls make it more attractive!

72. Tracy has a TON of commercial space already. Tracy has a lot of open lands. We citizens enjoy the open land vs. concrete and buildings. Citizens long for the good old day so Tracy. Not becoming a super fast-growing mega-metropolis. We know Tracy is the extended east bay now and rapid population growth is happening (along with TRAFFIC).

Less commercial, less housing, and more open space.

73. Please no more housing!

74. This is the gateway to Tracy and frankly it looks like crap. Nothing but cement blocks and horrendous truck traffic on the west side. Mixed use, such as mixed residential, retail, medical center, light industrial and business offices would be preferable to more warehouses. Parks, trails, bike paths please.

75. NO MORE WAREHOUSES!

76. Businesses and retail would be more desirable in this area mixed with residential, please no more warehouses!!!

77. The deep pocket developers like Sandhu is up to some tricks up his sleeve which will benefit his deep pocket.

78. Build office spaces and buildings to attract bay area corporations.

79. I love the bike trails idea. Also, please no more warehouses. I know warehousing brings jobs but those jobs are not good jobs. If building more housing please ensure is below market rate housing. We’re drowning here. Thanks!

80. Why do we have to build out now? It seems that in this record-breaking drought year, with no extra water retention sites even close to being approved at the state level, with the probability of future droughts (man-caused, granted - b/c of no increase in water storage state-wide!) why are we building more and more projects that will tax our water systems AND contribute to the nightmare commute? Can't we wait and fix the other problems first?

81. We need facilities like New Hospitals, Tech Businesses, Restaurants, etc., to serve the increasing city's population.

82. Tracy badly needs facilities for family fun activities, most have them have to drive to Livermore/Dublin to avail those activities. We need to build those facilities in Tracy.

83. Tracy badly needs places to go to for adults and kids of all ages. Currently many Tracy residents find themselves visiting Livermore/Dublin and other places over week-ends for recreational activities. We need to create facilities/places to visit in Tracy.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-8

84. We need more retail and restaurants in our city. With so many new housing developments, there are not enough amenities for the residents. If not retail or restaurants, please consider more another medical facility.

85. Tracy is developing to be more residential than ever and we need good locations to hang out with kids as family rather warehouses.

86. Stop building warehouses! Stop building more houses! Improve infrastructure/roads to handle the growth over the past decade! Attract better retail, high tech companies, entertainment venues for families like K1 Speed Go-Karting, Top Golf, Dave & Busters, BJ's, Trader Joes, Bowling. I would love spend my money here in Tracy instead of in cities like Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, Manteca. Wake up Tracy!

87. No more warehouses! No low income houses. Great an open space for running and nature walks and parks for families to enjoy.

88. We are over populated now - no more housing until all roads and infrastructure are capable of handling current population.

89. City center, dining, entertainment, parks ( like central park in Mountain house ) & updated library. Where younger generation have some activities & don't run away to other towns for the same.

90. Having more shops, Restraints and Actives such as Dave and Busters as well as Training schools for technology/ business that are more in demand jobs now a days. Would bring more jobs to the area, more funding from having Retail Store and restraints available for the community and those from out of town that Commute. If we could have more Low income housing as well for ages 20-40 years of age that would be great. More section 8 housing as well units.

91. I enjoyed your asking for input. This has been an eyesore and need for near 16 years! Planning is great, asking for input is great. Our youth are not adults and leaving!!! Can this become a reality with intentional phased and timely realities with an 2022 start (plan accepted and adopted) and in place before we age out! A 2-5 year project with results?

92. NO WAREHOUSES; ROAD DEVELOPMENT.

93. Tracy needs MORE retail and family things to do. Why live here if there's nothing to do or have to travel outside the area to shop?

94. More restaurants and entertainment centers.

95. we need coffee shops/restaurants/bike trails for student who go to high school. Right now Kimball high school doesn't have anything nearby. We moved to Tracy hoping city will take care of bad roads, incomplete infrastructure. The road near Kimball high is not bike friendly for student to walk or bike . So many times I have seen kids walking through mud or narrow pass ways.

96. If you are considering round-a-bouts, please make sure they are designed well. The round-a-bout at 11th and Grant Line is a poor example!
City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-9

97. Retail not homes or industrial.

98. Several builders are already building residential. We need support services for these families, and infrastructure to retain them by inviting family oriented businesses.

Schools, daycare centers, tutoring centers, theme parks, concert halls, petting zoo, etc.

99. Need to develop a sports park with skate park and other activities for youth/community to use ,(like Pleasanton). Also, really need to attract a university and high technology manufacturers. IT, professional companies and associated jobs. 100. There should be an area where there are events for the community to be able to gather and enjoy.
101. It needs to be about community not money.
102. Build more homes.
103. High-end shopping is needed in the Tracy area. Lots of people moving from the Bay and there’s no good shopping on this side of the Altamont. Create a central valley go-to spot for shopping, restaurants, spas.
104. We need more recreational facilities as the city is explaining. Pls plan some. 105. With the number of transplants from The Bay area with 6 figure salaries, we need more upscale amenities.
106. Do no build any more industrial stuff in Tracy! We have enough. Build things for the betterment of the citizens!
107. It would be nice if we had shops that appeal to our residents. Think streets of Brentwood type use.
108. No more houses or apartments. Traffic is horrible and crime is getting worse. 109. Stop building. We don’t have enough water for the amount of people that are here.

There are already enough buildings that are empty.
110. Focus on GOOD paying JOBS JOBS JOBS.
111. It would be an odd condition to have semi-trucks and residential drivers share the same roadway especially during commuting hours. This is a consideration when deciding what is implemented. Additionally, as I am new to area, but many people who have lived here for some time wish that there was more investment in businesses to shop at versus bringing in more warehouses. There can be a mix of bringing in more restaurants, shops and Whole Foods/Trader Joe’s and Chick-Fil-A.
112. Bring some retail to town. Affordable housing and apartments duplex. Build one story homes. Manteca builds a ton. STOP BRING THE WAREHOUSE TO TOWN!!! Bring something for the teen and kids of this this town we have nothing for them!!!!!!!!! Build Dog Parks. Walking and biking paths. When I moved to Tracy 23 years ago I did not realized it would grow in all the wrong areas!!!!!!!! I only shop for food in town because we have no other retail stores. My money goes to all other retail stores in surrounding areas. It is really sad to know that I cannot shop any decent retail stores in a town of 90,000 plus people. Manteca has it right maybe we need to see what they are doing and City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-10
get some ideas. I shop there a lot as well as Livermore Dublin, Pleasanton and Brentwood. it time to stop building warehouse and think about the people that live in this town and what they want. I did a survey a couple of years ago about what I wanted to see come to Tracy sad thing is who know what happened with that never saw any feedback on it. And I know of only one thing that I mentioned that is finally coming here and that is Hobby Lobby. But it is still so far away. To say I am disappointed in what Tracy City Council or planning committee has done for this town is an understatement it show you care about the people that live in this town you just want your warehouses. 113. We need a regional park for the well beings of all Tracy residents. 114. We do not need more houses. We do need a new hospital (although I know that Sutter of Kaiser would have to want to build one). Shopping like Trader Joe’s and food areas would also be appreciated.
115. Bike trails and a bike park/pump track and a new skate park would be awesome. 116. We need affordable housing in Tracy It has been impossible for our family to buy in the current market The only way to increase affordability is to increase inventory. 117. No warehouses. No apartments or condos.
118. Please create walking/running trails.
119. We need more retail and food gathering places for Tracy residents. Maybe small office buildings with retails and food places mixed. Similar to downtown Livermore, Pleasanton, and Martinez.
120. Outdoor or indoor recreational options.
121. This area should be used to provide areas for small to medium businesses. There is a shortage of 1500-4000 sq. ft spaces in this area. The large warehouses are great but we need to attract more businesses.
122. There should be a Magical Bridge Playground installed, this would be a majorly inclusive area, and also have a bigger water feature installed for the kids. Make this an area residents want to go and spend money in, let this town finally start getting revenue from taxes. As of now a majority of people I know, myself included go outside of Tracy to shop or we order online. I'd like to see the city start thriving and being as amazing as it has the potential to be.
123. We need a new hospital, more restaurants, more retail. Bring in Whole Foods at the mall, maybe a Dave & Buster’s there too. Fix our roads. Install more cellular towers. 124. No more warehouses.
125. More services for current residents so we don’t have to spend our money in the Bay Area! Improve roads like Valpico, Corral Hollow and completing the water park and amenities for current residents. Revitalize the mall or tear it down. Improve downtown and look for business to come to Tracy not Manteca. Tracy is a distribution center hell with too many residents and no services to make want us to spend our money in town.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-11
126. A large outdoor recreation area that includes a skate / bike park, roller skating/ outdoor amphitheater and trails. A multi-use outdoor recreation area. 127. Things and places to shop and eat for all the new residents of Tracy. Tracy is building so many new homes, but nothing as far as entertainment or activities for the residents.

Please make Tracy a place we're we want to spend our time and money. 128. We need better infrastructure before more homes are built. Our city/town can’t handle the number of people we have now - building more houses doesn’t solve the problem. It just makes houses for Bay Area residents to move into and keep their business/spending/working in the Bay Area. We need jobs to support people who live here to work here and less traffic for people who just come here to live. Better roads and planning (stop light timing, etc.) need to be figured out before you add hundreds of houses and hundreds more cars into our city that’s already busting at the seams. Use the land for recreational opportunities.
129. UC-Tracy.
130. Until the city fixes our city streets, (all of them) and until we have a police dept. that enforces traffic laws on a daily basis, I will vote NO on any residential building. 131. Please stop adding more housing until you upgrade the city's infrastructure. 132. Look at Hacienda business park in Pleasanton then add more leisure areas and anchor restaurants and activities like disk golf course and outdoor movies or drive in, skating rink or Top golf etc.
133. Tracy simply needs leadership that is willing to do the hard work of bringing businesses other than warehouses. It’s astonishing that this city council feels they need to ask the community these questions. The community has spoken about this issue at nauseum.

They simply do not want more warehouses. Enough. Please keep the original plan and do the hard work required to get it executed.
134. Stop building homes, you already have us on water restrictions so why would you want to add more? We need a modern hospital.
135. Make sure infrastructure and water can handle. Parks would also be good. 136. Stop turning Tracy into the Bay Area/ Dublin/ Pleasanton. It’s sad. Respect the generational agricultural families. Respect and stay true to the small town roots. The valley will too soon lose its charm. SO SAD.
137. We don’t need any more warehouses there. Tracy is all warehouses and almond orchards now. Enough is enough!
138. Stop it with the warehouses and logistics already! We need better amenities within the city so we don't have to go to the tri-valley area.
139. We need areas for families to enjoy the outdoors and recreation! 140. Please bring in more attractive building, retail, restaurants, tired of spending my money outside of Tracy. Enough with the hideous warehouses!
141. Make it appealing so Tracy doesn’t look like a second class city.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-12
142. Please stop the warehouses and distribution centers. Also please no more apartments! If you insist on residential please make them low density homes for purchase. There is too much building going on here given lack of road infrastructure in this town and also the continuing water shortage in this valley.
143. Either way it goes, you MUST look at traffic flow and add another on/off ramp.

Commercial trucks mixed with typical commuters is a nightmare right now - this will only get worse! It's currently a disaster every morning. You need to fix that first then look at adding additional structures.
144. We need road infrastructure before we need more homes. This is a commuter town and not many freeway on ramps.
145. Please stop adding warehouses and housing. We need places that will improve life of the current residents. Look around to Manteca and Livermore for ideas. Tracy is so behind in retail and entertainment.
146. Tracy is in desperate need of multi-unit family housing. I think Westside is a good area for this.
147. Please add bike, walking, multi-use trails with trees. Also lakes. We need space to enjoy the outdoors while exercising.
148. Lammersville area residents will oppose any more growth without proper traffic planning for Hansen road. City should support closing Hansen road north of 205. 149. Bike trail and designated bike park, please.
150. Strongly feel you need to make the entrance enticing not industrial. 151. The idea of making warehouses or homes the “Face of Tracy” is laughable. There is such a high need for medical facilities and entertainment/retail that attracts dollars to come to Tracy and stay here in Tracy. Downtown is great but we need something to rival the attention Manteca gets for BLD and Wolf Lodge or Ripon gets for its burgeoning retail/entertainment options or anything like the Bay Area has. Warehouse jobs don’t facilitate incomes needed to live comfortably and more homes don’t solve the long term issues we have with money being spent outside of Tracy due to a lack of choices. Please, for once, let’s actually put the future of this town ahead of developer wants. 152. PJ is the right man for this, looking forward to this development! 153. A safe space for recreation, gatherings, events. Festivals, music and community. No more warehouse stuff, but adding business park offices and recreation similar to bishop ranch would be amazing.
154. Please no more housing. Tracy needs restaurants, shopping, etc. A new hospital would be nice too.
155. No more warehouses or housing sprawl in Tracy! Have you tried to drive in or out of this commuter hellhole during the workweek? I have. For 20 years. Bring white collar office jobs to this town and stop whoring yourself out to every warehouse owner and real estate developer.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-13
156. Please focus on business buildings/parks instead of warehouses. 157. I think before Tracy tries to add more of anything it addresses the rapid growth that has occurred in the last decade or two. Roads, congestion, homelessness, making use of properties already in Tracy (mall, outlet mall) and many other items should be addressed first. Just leave the land as it is. No new building until Tracy is able to successfully deal with what is already there.
158. Mixed use retail, residential.
159. By the time Prologis has built the rest of their warehouses adjacent to this “west side” area any Tracy warehouse workers will have plenty of opportunities for employment.

Give other workers a chance to work at other professions; i.e. office, medical, retail, technical etc. Good paying jobs are needed in Tracy not more warehouses! 160. Good paying job opportunities through business and medical offices and retail . No more large warehousing parks.
161. Consider using the area for an office business park similar to Bishop Ranch in San Ramon, CA. With so many commuting, Tracy should develop a business park hub for Bay Area business where they can have space for their Central Valley employees. Rent is high in Bay Area and Tracy could be the next office/retail business park. Many companies are leaving CA for cheaper office space and pay. Central Valley could be an answer with the right facilities!! Less housing and more office space and retail for those of us already here and in surrounding areas.
162. The existing HWY 205 and 580 infrastructure does not support options that result in population expansion or distribution based business. The focus should be on attracting quality consumer services to the area.
163. Let's have mom & pop businesses together with professional businesses. let's try to keep people working in Tracy and not commuting to the bay area and adding to the already crazy traffic in 205 & 580.
164. One single Costco , Walmart, target is not enough for this population. Population is growing and everybody needs these business in affordable distance. Please plan only business.
165. Tracy needs in town and county small businesses that city and county residents can utilize. Too many homes are being built yet the roads are not being adjusted for the additional automotive traffic. Why put money in surrounding cities pockets just because more people are "sleeping" in Tracy or working at warehouses. Has anyone with "Westside" taken the above into consideration. Also, I live in an area that is continually bombarded with semi-truck traffic and "commuter" traffic heading to and from the Prologis Park project that is the big brother neighbor to this project, our roads, homes and wells are taking a big hit due to the semi-truck traffic and speeding commuters speed at speeds well over 75, crossing over double yellow lines while thumbing their noses at obeying the posted speed of 35. Development of open land needs to take City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-14
everything into consideration, not just a fringe of what people want and how much money is being banked.
166. We don’t need more houses!!!!! It just contributes to the awful traffic. Tracy Hills and Mountain House has taken care of that. We need more restaurants and retail options!!! We need more schools and medical offices.
167. Please no more residential! We need more opportunities for business development, as well as local career level job opportunities for current Tracy residents. 168. If residential buildings are built please take into consideration the impact on school populations and tie it into contract that the build a school. 169. No high density homes. We need large homes, on large sites. Enough Homes on postage, tiny sites that will turn into rentals and have high crime rates. Look at Danville and Blackhawk as a model.
170. Please do not disappoint the residents of Tracy anymore. We are tired and fed up with the city’s lack of taking care of the people and providing the infrastructure and amenities needed for Tracy’s growth. It feels as if the city has interests in residential buildings. Please be aware that Tracy’s demographic is changing. You are getting energized, driven people who are ready for change and will start organizing to make radical change unless the city takes care of the needs that people are expressing. Do right and use this space for small retail businesses and amenities that your current residents of the city can enjoy.
171. Bring more business, and things were big crowds can gather. Tracy is in need of this more than anything. The market is getting ready to crash worse than before. Not a good time to build living spaces. Thank you for the chance for input. 172. Close down Hanson Drive to through traffic.
173. I believe we should provide low-income/affordable housing because we are pricing out many of our residents. Activities for families are on short supply. 174. No more housing! We are in a drought and over populated for our small downtown that has most spaces on central closed. Buildings that bring businesses that support higher pay to keep money in Tracy instead of people coming her just to live and commute daily to afford to live here. Decrease traffic on the highways, make areas that want to grow places our community will enjoy and benefit from.
175. Since our town is growing rapidly, we need more parks and places to gather so our children don't play in the streets.
176. Tracy needs more of modern today stores to accommodate to the new bay area buyers moving in to town, better shopping mall stores, sprouts, Whole Foods, better restaurants.
177. No more industrial parks. Anywhere along I205 and 580, all we see are warehouses. City planners have been myopic, absolutely visionless in thinking about what kind of facade we should have when we see this monster buildings from the freeway. Why can't we City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-15
imagine the look of a European or Spanish city or other unique facade with warehouses or other buildings? What are we leaving behind for next generation? Just ugly concrete flat facades? Shameless. While there is empty space between buildings and freeway, license is given to ugly parking lots which are seen from the freeway. (Example in nearby Dublin - Kaiser Hospital building has ugly parking lot seen from the freeway with a nice building in the back. Why not trees and gardens in front? Reimagine, Reimagine. Think China, Dubai architectures! As builders to hire top architects for look and feel! Come on Tracy, let's be creative and demanding of developers. Demand buildings that do rain water harvesting, solar, less heat generating outer walls and only Green certified buildings with self-cooling systems.
178. No more houses, no more warehouses. Please utilize this land to make usable space and resources for current residents.
179. Medical and hospital is very much needed to support the Tracy and Mountain House communities. Please get the new hospital here.
180. We need more entertainment, another hospital more than building any more homes in this town!
181. No low income, high crime housing please. I cannot currently afford a nice single family home in Tracy but let's not ruin the city for everyone. 182. Light small industrial retail is needed on the west south side. 183. More emphasis on retail businesses, and non-manufacturing/distribution businesses are needed in this area- focus less on housing. Tracy needs more retail and jobs to help bring more income to the city and to keep our residents spending money within our City.
184. I was told that the area was to be used for a new hospital. I am fine with that. Build an outstanding hospital, as at this point my husband had to go to Valley Care for his specialists, so it needs to support a lot of needs and testing capabilities. If this is what's going to be, then let it be the hospital and medical offices. If not, in addition to my comment on question #1, you can incorporate residential, but do it above the stores, like in Emeryville or Santana Row. As part of the general entertainment idea, an outdoor amphitheater would be a great place for gatherings and such the city could sponsor for concerts, movies, Farmer's Market, Fairs/festivals, etc. 185. CA cities have basically 4 funding sources: grants, sales tax, building fees, and property taxes. Due to these funding sources, cities are naturally encouraged to grow [even if cities are not required to plan to grow]. New annexations and developments with their building fee payments as well as higher property tax assessments allow city general funds to grow to address growing expenses. But eventually, without a constant turn- over of existing homes, property tax assessments tend to decrease over time and eventually they do not contribute to the general fund as greatly. Thus commercial [in general] has been overwhelmingly the preferred zoning due to potential sales tax City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Report Appendix C: Preference Survey Written Responses

8/12/2021 Page C-16
increases. For Tracy, a large number of the ‘missing middle’ would allow young families to enter home ownership and with these smaller homes, they would eventually sell to move-up to the next size home. This would allow units to be reassessed. 186. The City of Tracy is severely lacking appealing retail shopping experiences. No to warehouses at the gateway of our city. No To increase truck traffic, especially near the high school. Horrible infrastructure, poor planning, special interest that favor developers is the ruining this city.
187. Would like to see the site stay as an open green space as possible. 188. More warehouses is not what Tracy needs. A business park for office space might be nice, but not another warehouse. Invite businesses to have their offices here and Tracy residents won't have to commute over the hill. I love the idea of having bike paths, but if you add more warehouses, that would be a dangerous move. A hospital, stores for shopping and either townhouses or condos would be okay with the bike paths. Bringing stores to the area would invite shopping to the area. Once people see that there is bike paths, it gives a cute community feeling. Please don't make Tracy the city of warehouses and over the hill commuters.
189. Need to incorporate features attractions that will encourage residents to stay and spend dollars in Tracy (e.g. IKEA, Trader Joe's, family entertainment, Higher end restaurants and Shopping, etc.).
190. Putting residential that costs the City money next to an Industrial park seems like a really bad idea. Don't we have a growth restricting ordinance approved by voters? 191. The city of Tracy lacks trails , pathways , and a recreation are for bicyclists , there are MANY cyclists here in Tracy and is growing rapidly , city streets are not as safe as we would like it to be , some motorists are very intolerant about bikes using city streets but we have NO amenities for cyclists so we must use what is available , which at times is not very safe. Thank you.
192. Industrial park will bring many jobs to those who need them and already live in the area. 193. Glad the city is engaging in this area finally.
194. Long term jobs and revenue generation should be the focus at this site. We have plenty of residential in other areas and need more jobs so we don't have to go to the Bay Area. 195. Large parks and biking/running trails that all connect. Some place to have community events. Trees and landscaping please.
196. Please don't build homes on this land.

City of Tracy Westside Specific Plan Community Engagement Appendix D: Westside Submitted Written Comments

Appendix D: Westside Submitted Written Comments

March
1, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 3.B

REQUEST

APPOINT TWO APPLICANTS TO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF APPEALS, TWO APPLICANTS TO SERVE ON THE MEASURE V RESIDENTS’ OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE, AND THREE APPLICANTS TO SERVE ON THE PLANNING

COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 28, 2022, terms for two board members on the Board of Appeals will expire. On August 17, 2021, a vacancy occurred on the Measure V Residents’ Oversight Committee and terms for two committee members will expire on February 28, 2022, one of which has been filled in a prior recruitment in January 2022. On March 31, 2022, terms for three Planning Commissioners will expire. Recruitments and interviews were conducted, and appointments need to be made to fill those positions.

DISCUSSION
On February 28, 2022 terms for two board members on the Board of Appeals will expire.

On August 17, 2021, a vacancy occurred on the Measure V Residents’ Oversight Committee and on February 28, 2022, terms for two committee members will also expire, of which one term expiration has been filled in a prior recruitment in January 2022.

Additionally, on March 31, 2022, terms for three Planning Commissioners will expire.

A recr
uitment for the Board of Appeals was opened on January 6, 2022 and closed on January 27, 2022, during which time four applications were received. A second recruitment for the Measure V Residents’ Oversight Committee was opened on January 24, 2022, and closed on February 14, 2022, during which time two applications were received. A recruitment for the Planning Commission was opened on January 13, 2022, and ended on February 3, 2022, during which time twenty applications were received.

On Februar
y 17, 2022, a Council Subcommittee consisting of Council Member Arriola and Council Member Davis interviewed three applicants for the Board of Appeals, one applicant was unable to participate due to illness. On February 22, 2022, a Council Subcommittee consisting of Mayor Young and Council Member Davis interviewed two applicants for the Measure V Residents’ Oversight Committee. On February 23, 2022, a Council Subcommittee consisting of Council Member Bedolla and Mayor Pro Tem Vargas interviewed seventeen applicants for the Planning Commission, two applicants were unable to participate as they did not meet the residency requirement of living within the City limits and one applicant cancelled. In accordance with Resolution No. 2021-200, the Council subcommittees will recommend two candidates for appointment to the Board of Appeals, two candidates for appointment to the Measure V Residents’ Oversight Committee and three candidates for appointment to the Planning Commission.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This item is a routine operational item and does not relate to any of the Council’s Strategic Plans.

Agenda Item 3.B
March 1, 2022

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.

RECOMMENDATION
That Council, by motion, approve the following subcommittee’s recommendations:
• Reappoint Ge
rald Yerian and Hossein Ebrahimi to the Board of Appeals to serve a 4-year term beginning March 1, 2022 and ending on February 28, 2026. • Appoint Dan Evans to the Measure V Residents’ Oversight Committee to serve the remainder of a vacated term commencing on March 2, 2022 and ending on February 28, 2023, and Jayden Sangha to serve a term commencing on March 2, 2022 and ending on February 25, 2025.
• Appoint Julius Augustus, Nasir Boakye-Boateng and reappoint Joseph Orcutt to the Planning Commission to serve a 4-year term beginning on April 1, 2022 and ending on March 31, 2026. The following candidates were placed on the 12- month eligibility list for the Planning Commission: Cynthia Lopez, Sabah Shaikh and Chad Wood.

Prepared
by: Adrianne Richardson, City Clerk
Review
ed by: Midori Lichtwardt, Assistant City Manager
Approved
by: Michael Rogers, City Manager
Att
achment A: Resolution 2021-200
Tx. Y A> t[] f i6Z I7

ADOPTING A COUNCIL POLICY ESTABLISHING A SELECTION PROCESS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY BODIES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2021- 131
WHEREAS, On September 7, 2021, the Tracy City Council adopted Resolution 2021- 131 establishing a policy for the selection process for appointments to City advisory Bodies and repealing Resolution 2020-009;
WHEREAS, The current policy states that Council shall appoint two Council Members to serve on a subcommittee to review applications, interview applicants and recommend a candidate for appointment to the board, commission or committee, and WHEREAS, Council wishes to amend the language of Section 2 ( D)( 1) to state that Council shall appoint two members and an alternate to serve on a subcommittee to review applications, interview applicants and recommend a candidate for appointment to the board, commission or committee.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Tracy hereby adopts the Council Policy Establishing a Selection Process for Appointments to City Advisory Bodies, attached as Exhibit A, and thereby repeals and supersedes Resolution No. 2021- 131.

The foregoing Resolution 2021- 200 was passed and adopted by the Tracy City Council on the 21 st day of December, 2021, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ARRIOLA, BEDOLLA, DAVIS, VARGAS, YOUNG NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
YO, L ( 0.

MAYOR
ATTEST:
l

CITY CLERK

ATTACHMENT A

COUNCIL POLICY ESTABLISHING A SELECTION PROCESS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO

CITY ADVISORY BODIES
Exhibit " A" to Resolution No. 2021- 200)
SECTION 1: PURPOSE
To establish a selection process for appointments to City advisory bodies including defining residency requirements, in accordance with Government Code sections 54970 et seq.

SECTION 2: SELECTION PROCESS FOR APPOINTEE BODIES
A. On or before December 31st of each year, the City Clerk shall prepare an appointment list of all regularandongoingboards, commissionsandcommitteesthat areappointedby the City Council of the City of Tracy. The list shall contain the following information:

1. A list of all appointee terms which will expire during the next calendar year, with the name of the incumbent appointee, the date of the appointment, the date the term expires and the necessary qualifications for the position.

2. A list of all boards, commissions and committees whose members serve at the pleasure of the Council and the necessary qualifications of each position.

3. The list of appointments shall be made available to the public for a reasonable fee that shall not exceed actual cost of production. The Tracy Public Library shall receive a copy of the list.

B. Whenevera vacancyoccursin any board, commissionor committee, whetherdueto expiration of an appointee' s term, resignation, death, termination or other causes, a special notice shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk, The Tracy Public Library, the City website, and in other places as directed within twenty ( 20) days after the vacancy occurs.

Final appointment to the board, commission or committee shall not be made by the City Council for at least ten (10) working days after the posting of the notice in the Clerk's office.

If Council finds an emergency exists, the Council may fill the unscheduled vacancy immediately.

C. Appointments shall be made for the remainder of the term created by the vacancy except as follows:

1. If appointee will fill an un -expired term with six months or less remaining, the appointment shall be deemed to be for the new term.

2. If the vacancy is filled by an emergency appointment the appointee shall serve only on an acting basis until the final appointment is made pursuant to section 2.

D. The Council shall use the following selection process to provide an equal opportunity for appointment to a board, commission or committee:

1. Council shall appoint two Council members and an alternate to serve on a subcommittee to review applications, interview applicants and recommend a candidate for appointment to the board, commission or committee.

2. If the Council subcommittee determines there are multiple qualified candidates, the subcommittee may recommend the Council establish an eligibility list that will be used to fill vacancies that occur in the following twelve (12) months.

3. At the Council subcommittee' s discretion, the chair ( or designee) of the board, committee or commission for which a member will be appointed, can participate in the interviews.

E. An individualalreadyservingon a Cityof Tracyboard, committeeor commissionmaynotbe appointed to serve on an additional City of Tracy board, committee, or commission concurrently.

SECTION 3: DEFINITION OF RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
A. Thefollowingdefinitionsshallbe usedto determinewhetherresidencyrequirementsare met for boards and commissions to which the Tracy City Council appoints members:

1. TracyPlanningArea meansthegeographicalareadefinedinthe Cityof TracyGeneral Plan and any amendments thereto.

2. City of Tracy means within the city limits of the City of Tracy.

3. Citizen means a resident of the City of Tracy.

4. TracySchoolDistrictmeansthe geographicalareaservedbythe TracyUnifiedSchool District.

5. Sphereof Influenceshallbethe geographicalareaapprovedbythe LocalAgency Formation Commission (LAFCo) of San Joaquin County and any amendments thereto.

B. Residency, as defined above and as set forth in the applicable bylaws for each board or commission, shall be verified annually by the City Clerk. The residency must be verifiable by any of the following means:

1. Voter registration,

2. Current California Driver' s License or Identification,

3. Utility bill information ( phone, water, cable, etc.),

4. Federal or State tax returns.
2 C. Members of boards or commissions shall notify the City Clerk in writing within thirty (30) days of any change in residency. If the change in residency results in the board member or commissioner no longer meeting the residency requirements, the member shall tender their resignation!to the City Clerk who shall forward it to the City Council. 3 March 1, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 3.C

REQUEST

APPOINTM

ENT OF CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE AND AN ALTERNATE TO

INTERVIEW APPLICANTS TO FILL TWO TERM EXPIRATIONS ON THE

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This
item requests that Council appoint two members and an alternate to a subcommittee to interview applicants to fill two term expirations on the Transportation Advisory Commission.

DISCUSSION
On Ap
ril 30, 2022, terms for two of the Transportation Advisory Commission members will expire. A recruitment was opened on February 14, 2022 and will end on March 8, 2022.

In accordanc
e with Resolution No. 2021-200, a two-member subcommittee and an alternate need to be appointed to interview the applicants and make a recommendation to the full Council.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This i
tem is a routine operational item and does not relate to any of the Council’s strategic plans.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

RECOMMENDATION
It
is recommended that Council appoint, by motion, a two-member subcommittee and one alternate to interview applicants to fill two term expirations on the Transportation Advisory Commission.

Prepared
by: Adrianne Richardson, City Clerk
Revie
wed by: Midori Lichtwardt, Assistant City Manager
Approved
by: Michael Rogers, City Manager
ATTAC
HMENT
A – Resolution No. 2021-200
Tx. Y A> t[] f i6Z I7

ADOPTING A COUNCIL POLICY ESTABLISHING A SELECTION PROCESS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY BODIES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2021- 131
WHEREAS, On September 7, 2021, the Tracy City Council adopted Resolution 2021- 131 establishing a policy for the selection process for appointments to City advisory Bodies and repealing Resolution 2020-009;
WHEREAS, The current policy states that Council shall appoint two Council Members to serve on a subcommittee to review applications, interview applicants and recommend a candidate for appointment to the board, commission or committee, and WHEREAS, Council wishes to amend the language of Section 2 ( D)( 1) to state that Council shall appoint two members and an alternate to serve on a subcommittee to review applications, interview applicants and recommend a candidate for appointment to the board, commission or committee.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Tracy hereby adopts the Council Policy Establishing a Selection Process for Appointments to City Advisory Bodies, attached as Exhibit A, and thereby repeals and supersedes Resolution No. 2021- 131.

The foregoing Resolution 2021- 200 was passed and adopted by the Tracy City Council on the 21 st day of December, 2021, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ARRIOLA, BEDOLLA, DAVIS, VARGAS, YOUNG NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
YO, L ( 0.

MAYOR
ATTEST:
l

CITY CLERK

ATTACHMENT A

COUNCIL POLICY ESTABLISHING A SELECTION PROCESS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO

CITY ADVISORY BODIES
Exhibit " A" to Resolution No. 2021- 200)
SECTION 1: PURPOSE
To establish a selection process for appointments to City advisory bodies including defining residency requirements, in accordance with Government Code sections 54970 et seq.

SECTION 2: SELECTION PROCESS FOR APPOINTEE BODIES
A. On or before December 31st of each year, the City Clerk shall prepare an appointment list of all regularandongoingboards, commissionsandcommitteesthat areappointedby the City Council of the City of Tracy. The list shall contain the following information:

1. A list of all appointee terms which will expire during the next calendar year, with the name of the incumbent appointee, the date of the appointment, the date the term expires and the necessary qualifications for the position.

2. A list of all boards, commissions and committees whose members serve at the pleasure of the Council and the necessary qualifications of each position.

3. The list of appointments shall be made available to the public for a reasonable fee that shall not exceed actual cost of production. The Tracy Public Library shall receive a copy of the list.

B. Whenevera vacancyoccursin any board, commissionor committee, whetherdueto expiration of an appointee' s term, resignation, death, termination or other causes, a special notice shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk, The Tracy Public Library, the City website, and in other places as directed within twenty ( 20) days after the vacancy occurs.

Final appointment to the board, commission or committee shall not be made by the City Council for at least ten (10) working days after the posting of the notice in the Clerk's office.

If Council finds an emergency exists, the Council may fill the unscheduled vacancy immediately.

C. Appointments shall be made for the remainder of the term created by the vacancy except as follows:

1. If appointee will fill an un -expired term with six months or less remaining, the appointment shall be deemed to be for the new term.

2. If the vacancy is filled by an emergency appointment the appointee shall serve only on an acting basis until the final appointment is made pursuant to section 2.

D. The Council shall use the following selection process to provide an equal opportunity for appointment to a board, commission or committee:

1. Council shall appoint two Council members and an alternate to serve on a subcommittee to review applications, interview applicants and recommend a candidate for appointment to the board, commission or committee.

2. If the Council subcommittee determines there are multiple qualified candidates, the subcommittee may recommend the Council establish an eligibility list that will be used to fill vacancies that occur in the following twelve (12) months.

3. At the Council subcommittee' s discretion, the chair ( or designee) of the board, committee or commission for which a member will be appointed, can participate in the interviews.

E. An individualalreadyservingon a Cityof Tracyboard, committeeor commissionmaynotbe appointed to serve on an additional City of Tracy board, committee, or commission concurrently.

SECTION 3: DEFINITION OF RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
A. Thefollowingdefinitionsshallbe usedto determinewhetherresidencyrequirementsare met for boards and commissions to which the Tracy City Council appoints members:

1. TracyPlanningArea meansthegeographicalareadefinedinthe Cityof TracyGeneral Plan and any amendments thereto.

2. City of Tracy means within the city limits of the City of Tracy.

3. Citizen means a resident of the City of Tracy.

4. TracySchoolDistrictmeansthe geographicalareaservedbythe TracyUnifiedSchool District.

5. Sphereof Influenceshallbethe geographicalareaapprovedbythe LocalAgency Formation Commission (LAFCo) of San Joaquin County and any amendments thereto.

B. Residency, as defined above and as set forth in the applicable bylaws for each board or commission, shall be verified annually by the City Clerk. The residency must be verifiable by any of the following means:

1. Voter registration,

2. Current California Driver' s License or Identification,

3. Utility bill information ( phone, water, cable, etc.),

4. Federal or State tax returns.
2 C. Members of boards or commissions shall notify the City Clerk in writing within thirty (30) days of any change in residency. If the change in residency results in the board member or commissioner no longer meeting the residency requirements, the member shall tender their resignation!to the City Clerk who shall forward it to the City Council. 3