Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're going to call our regular meeting of Kalamazoo City Council to order. Today is Monday, July 20th, 6 p.m. Welcome, everybody. Thank you for coming. We are going to start with our roll call, please, City Clerk.

Council Member Cundiff?

Here.

Council Member Garcia?

Here.

Council Member Molina? Here.

Council Member Molina is present, technologically present. There she is, okay.

Please make this work. Mayor Pro Tem Manley? Here. And Mayor Cervantes?

Here. And for the record, our City Manager Cobol is present, City Attorney Flower here, our City Clerk Gerdes, Finance Director Reed, our Community Development Director Lucia, Public Works Maintenance Superintendent, Coney, our City Engineer Thornton, our Interim Fire Chief, welcome, first meeting, Paul Lindy, and our Sheriff Captain Escobar. Welcome, everybody. Thank you for being here. I have asked our Mayor Pro Tem if he would do us the honor in leading us in the pledge today.

So if you would please stand.

Ready? Begin.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with justice for all. Thank you all. So we've had some technological innovations here to our meeting. And so I've been advised to read a blurb about that. So please bear with me as I state this for the record. And those to whom it is relevant, please take note. And if it's not relevant, Maybe it will be in the future. All right, so communications from the public. This is an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the council on any item not on the agenda within the council subject matter jurisdiction. This is also the time to speak on any item on the consent calendar. Members of the public may provide comment in person at the podium. verbally via Zoom, this is our new innovation here, application by clicking raise hand or by phone bridge by pressing star nine to raise their hand. So the opportunity to register and enter the speaker queue for non-agenda items will remain open in real time until the public comment period for this item is officially closed by the mayor. Council members are limited to asking questions for clarification or making a referral to staff for factual information to be reported back to the council at a later meeting. Please direct your comments to the council, not to staff or the audience. There's a three minute time limit per speaker. So please respect that time constraint. So at this point, do we have any communications from the public?

Yes, we do, we have one, and that is Maddie Bogue from SoCal Edison.

Okay, please step forward, Ms. Bogue.

Hello, hello. Good evening, everyone. My name is Maddie Bogue. I am your new Southern California Edison rep for the city of Cala Mesa. I'm here tonight just to give a brief overview on public safety power shutoffs, also known as PSPS. So wildfire conditions continue to intensify across Southern California. Hotter temperatures, drier conditions, and an early start to fire seasons mean that customers may experience more frequent and longer PSPS events in 2026. When fire conditions, including strong winds, dry vegetation, and low humidity, put our communities at risk, we may need to temporarily shut off power. We are regularly updating our PSPS criteria to better protect your residents and our customers. My goal is to ensure that we are aligned, informed, and ready should these conditions require these safety measures. Outages are challenging and a hardship for everyone, especially for residents who depend on electricity for medical needs. Most medical baseline customers qualify for a fully subsidized backup battery, and customers in PSPS-prone areas like Cala Mesa can receive rebates for portable batteries and generators. As you know, PSPS is a tool of last resort, but we want to encourage folks to prepare for all types of emergency, including power outages. I've brought flyers for the community and the council with information on resources to help customers prepare. I've left them at the front entrance. All this information can also be found at sce.com slash PSPS. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Vogue. Any other communications from the public, general in nature?

Looks like we do have one online, Joyce McIntyre.

Okay, Ms. McIntyre. Ms. McIntyre, you're recognized.

Thank you, I'm trying to figure this new format out. Thank you very much, I'm just here to attend.

Okay, you do not have a comment or question on the agenda?

No.

Okay, well thank you for being here. All right, any other communications from the public? No, okay. If you do have a public comment or would like to make public comment on any item on the public hearing, please do so by submitting a speaker slip to our city clerk. Okay, that brings us to the approval of our agenda, consent calendar, and the waiver of full reading of ordinances. Before I ask council for any modifications or needing to pull, I'm gonna ask staff, are there any changes to the agenda, items that need to be pulled, or revisions?

Yes, Mayor, thank you. The city attorney does have a proposed addition to the agenda, but before we get to that, I would just like to remind you and the city council that since Council Member Molina is joining us remotely, all votes of the City Council will need to be done by roll call vote. So just keep that in mind when calling for votes tonight. And so now with that, I will hand it to the City Attorney with the proposed addition to the agenda.

Thank you, Mr. City Manager. Mr. Mayor, tonight we are requesting that the City Council add an additional item to the closed session portion of the agenda for conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation. under Section 54956.9 of the Brown Act to discuss the matter of City of Calamesa v. Everest Reinsurance Company, case number 25-735, pending in the United States Ninth Court of Appeals. Pursuant to Section 54954.2 of the Brown Act, The city council may add this item to the agenda if two-thirds of the council votes to find that it came to their attention after the agenda was posted and requires immediate action. Those findings can be made in this case because the court issued an order in this case after the agenda for this meeting was published requesting the parties in the case provide additional briefing on legal issues before July 30th, which is before the council's next regularly scheduled meeting. So if the council agrees that these findings are appropriate, the motion would be A motion to add an item to the closed session agenda to confer with legal counsel in the matter of City of Cala Mesa versus Evers Reinsurance on the basis that immediate action is needed due to a court order that came out after the agenda was published. And you could simply say what he said. Okay. Just one last point. Just after the motion is acted on, if it passes, you can just proceed as normal to approve the consent calendar. and the agenda as amended in way forward. Okay.

So the recommendation for council is to add an item to closed session. It would be agenda item 22 under closed session. So do I have a motion to that effect? So moved. Okay. So we need a roll call vote here? So we need a second.

Second.

Second. Roll call vote please, city clerk.

Council member Cundiff.

Yeah.

Council member Garcia.

Yes.

Council member Molina. Yeah. Council member. Yeah. Mayor Protan Manley. Yes. Mayor Cervantes.

Yes. That is five zero. We'll add item number 22 to close session. Okay. Council, are there any items on the consent calendar or agenda that you would like to pull or need clarification at this point?

Mr. Mayor, item number 13 on our consent calendar, due to the fact that I live within Singleton Heights, I will need to recuse myself from voting on that particular item.

Thank you, council member. That also applies to me. So I will also be recusing myself from item 13.

And for me, for item number 15 as well, with the rest of my two colleagues, I have to remove myself based on the summer wind trails that I live in the community.

Okay, so council member Garcia is recusing himself from item 15. Any other items? All right, so with that, we are going to I need a motion to approve the consent calendar and agenda for waiving of ordinances with those recusals in mind. So moved.

Make the motion. This is Linda Molina. To approve as discussed.

OK. I'll acknowledge Councilmember Molina as a motion. Second. Second. All in favor? Roll call, please.

Council Member Cundiff?

Yes.

Council Member Garcia?

Yes.

Council Member Molina?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Manley? Yes. Mayor Cervantes?

Yes. So that also passes 5-0. Okay. Does that work for us, any attorney? Okay, good. Excellent. So at this time, I'm going to invite our Calamasa Chamber of Commerce representative to give us a report.

Good evening, Mayor, council members, and staff. Stacey Boisvert with the Calamasa Chamber of Commerce. And I'm here to share with the report. With our new staff structure, we've initiated a full outreach effort to past and current members to update our current information that was a bit lacking. changed a lot with our website, and you can do things online now, it's pretty neat. This has been a very successful, and members can now renew or reapply directly through the Chamber website, significantly improving efficiency and engagement. Currently we have got 16 new members within the past week and four renewals through our website which we're very excited again our chamber breakfast was july 14th and it was very successful we had a great turnout we were honored to have chris markarian from mccarrion law group as our speaker and as you know he tells great stories so that was wonderful our state of the city is september 17th The date has been confirmed at Plantation on the Lakes, 5 to 9 p.m. We are fully booked. We've gone live on our website. We've started getting invitations in already and we're mailing out the live invitations actually this week. We're looking forward to collaborating closely with the city and ensure a strong and well-executed event. The News Mirror quarterly ads, we're still running those. The Chamber continues its quarterly page advertisements in the News Mirror. Our feature highlights our newest members, Chamber and local events. This past month's features were Blue Zones, the Chamber Breakfast, Plantation Summer Market that we just had this past Saturday, which was a lot of fun, and the Lutheran Braille. And our events committee is actively developing new community events to engage the community and generate revenue for local business and chamber, including our new Calamasa Farmers Market. So we're going into our third one. And it's been pretty hot, but we're hoping that it gets a lot bigger. And we would love for all of you to come out and visit us. It's the last Wednesday every month. And that's it. Thank you so much.

Wonderful. Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome.

Any questions on anything?

Any questions from council? No?

Okay, well, thank you so much.

Appreciate you being here.

Thank you.

Okay, at this time, we will move on to our public hearing items. We have four of them. So I will open public hearing. Do that a little better here, more official. And I'm going to, we're gonna begin with item 17. This is a special assessments of delinquent refusal fees. Our staff report will be given by our city clerk. um darling gertis but before i hand it over to you i'm just going to read the blurb under here as well i've been advised to do so so if any members of the public are participating on zoom and wish to address the city council on this item raise your hand by clicking on the raised hand in the zoom app or by pressing star 9 if you are calling in We will hear in-person speakers first, then move on to remote speakers. If you are participating remotely, the city clerk will state when your three minutes are up and then you will be muted. Okay, with that, I will now hand it over to our city clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. This is our annual public hearing for delinquent trash fees by various residents. I work with CRNR to make sure that that list is up to date. So this list that I have so far is up to date as of the 14th of July. So, as you know, the city is in compliance with AB 939 by having mandatory trash collection, which was implemented citywide in 1996. And we entered into an agreement with Cherry Valley Sanitation Service at that time, who has now been bought out and is CRNR, who is our trash hauler. Our franchise agreement. allows for annual assessments to be placed on property roles for delinquent trash, and so that's why we are here tonight. We have a hundred and, let me find my amount here, I believe it was 146 parcels, 145 accounts that were delinquent. Any of those that come in after today's date and before I send it off to the county will be removed. CRNR always sends me an updated list following the public hearing. So any of those that have paid will be removed from that list. Otherwise, those will be put on the list for the county, Riverside County assessor's roles. There is an administrative fee for the city, which is now $61, and then there is an administrative fee for CRNR, which is $80.70. So those are added to each of the delinquent amounts. With that, happy to answer any questions.

I'm not sure if Alex or anyone is here.

Oh, hey, Barbara's here, from CRNR to answer any questions as well.

Okay, so we had our staff presentation. Is that gonna be our applicant presentation, or that is not? Okay, yeah, so we're gonna move on to public testimony.

I do have two speakers who would like to speak on this item. First, we have Donald McCurdy. If you can come up and speak at the podium, please.

Hi, my name's Donald McCurdy. I'm a resident here of right on Candlelight Road. Been here since 2005, love the community. Just a little reminder, I think I'm here a little late, though, because I was gone for six months. I guess this has already been made mandatory. Even though it's been mandatory for a long time, I used to be able to get a pass on it because I'm not here all the time, and I do everything I can to not generate much trash and stuff. Now I'm stuck with this bill that I can't pay that I'm living off of a very slim retirement on, and I can't pay it. to make it mandatory with no other option to drive price down is basically government mandated monopoly. That shouldn't be that way. There should be a waiver, there should be a way out. I understand the arguments for cleaning up around the community. and you guys could all give me a hand and a bow because the kids I've raised have kept the little hot rods out of here and the street closures, and they have turned it all into a bunch of redneck hicks that go out four-wheeling, and once a month they go around and they clean up all these areas around the schools out here, down back, what the heck's that school, Mason View, and stuff like that. I mean, I could have cried the first time I saw it. It's not even something I made them do. It's something they took on their own, and they'll be the ones coming up. If there is an option to opt out of this, which there should be, then I'd like to know about it. If not, then, like I said, I'm probably too late. I should have been here when it originally got passed or something. But I just noticed when I was gone for six months, I came back and I had three months of CR&R bills and trash cans sitting in my yard that I'd never ordered. One other thing. CR&R. Before whatever happened, if you called them and needed a trash can, they would have a truck back there within 10, 15 minutes. This happened a month ago when UPS was parked out in front of my house, and the trash truck went by. I went down, caught the trash truck, told them to go back. They ignored me, so I called CRNR. They told me they'd get taken care of. That trash can sat there. Six phone calls later, it sat there until the next pickup cycle. Our customer service, when you make it mandatory, goes right out the window. That's no longer the motivating factor for customers. getting somebody's business. They're mandated. Now they can just go drop trash cans on every property there is and start accumulating it on the property taxes and getting their fee and stuff like that. I just think it's a bad idea. It takes your bargaining away to compel them to do anything. Once you make it law, they don't have to listen to you no more. Everybody owns every property around here. Dump trash cans on it, and if they don't pay the bill, we'll put it against their taxes. That's a great way to expand your business. Not a way to expand your community. You guys remember Black Lives Matter, the stuff that was going around, except it was Cala Mesa that had homeowners on their roofs with guns. Those were homeowners ready to defend this property. When you do stuff like this, you start making it, instead of our community, you start making it feel like us against them. And you're them. We don't like that. This is the best town, I mean, I've been all over this United States. This is where I stopped to raise my kids in 2005.

Your time is up. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Thank you guys.

Yes, thank you. Thank you for being here. Is it accurate that there's no recourse for gentlemen at this point or?

Yeah, mandatory trash is state law. Okay. Yeah.

Yeah.

It has to have trash pickup.

All right. So you said we have another?

Yes, I have one more speaker. Ernest Ingalls.

Mr. Mayor, City Council, thank you. I'm hopeful that I can shed some fresh perspective on what's going on between myself and CRNR. My wife and I are residents of Sharondell Homeowners Association right out here off of Singleton Road. We recently purchased a second property and the house was in distress. It took 16 months for it to close. That in and of itself is quite a story. Before we, it's not occupiable, it was a house in distress. It turns out that we got bills from CRNR for trash pickup and the problem was there were no refuse containers there And we know the residents in the area because we're already residents of Sharon Del Mesa Owners Association. We live on Sharon Way. The property in question is 9435 Del Mesa. So when I called CRNR, they informed me, well, that curbside pickup is mandatory. Well, I'm a retired Washington State General Contractor and King County implements the same thing. I'm not unfamiliar with that. That's not so much the issue, the problem was I'm being asked to pay for something that I never received. They've never picked up, I don't have the refuse containers, and whenever I've called CRNR, pleasant bunch of people, but it seems like the proverbial left hand doesn't know the right hand, It got so dated and aged that I came here, talked to a very nice young lady in the front office here, Patrice, and she directed me to, I think, if I pronounce it correctly, Mary Shakir. And she, in turn, kind of took up the banner and contacted Barbara Hermanez at CRNR. Now, she called me back and said that she had spoke with Barbara, all the charges would be dropped. In the meantime, I had sent videos, emails, pictures, he wanted statements from Southern California Edison Natural Gas, proving that I owned the property, complied with all of that, and the debt continued to grow. Well, then when Mary stepped in, she called me back and said, okay, I've talked with Barbara, they're dropping all of the charges, and they will not do any service until they hear from you. Wife and I go on vacation in North Carolina, just came back. I've got a door knocker placard hanging on my gate that new service is going to start. Now I've got a second account number, it's in arrears, I've got a notice for that, You got 30 seconds. Oh, thank you very much. So the property that I purchased was formerly owned by Helen Puckett. We've got two account numbers and ongoing billing for her. My problem is this. If CR&R does not get satisfied and their ace in the hole is to lien the property, what's gonna become when Helen Puckett, who has been dead now for over four years, when they start pursuing liening her property, that's my property. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Barbara is here from CRNR and she might be able to enlighten us on this issue.

Yeah, I would like to invite Barbara to the podium. Maybe you can address some of those concerns. Yeah, thank you.

Good evening, honorable mayor, city council, and city staff. Yes, my name is Barbara Jimenez, and I'm with CRNR, and I can help both these gentlemen. I do remember you, sir, talking with Marie. We can take care of that. The houses, we get that information from Riverside County. So whoever's registered to that house is the name of the person that's getting the bill. So that's how that works. But we can, since you weren't there, we can figure that out. If you want to follow me out afterwards, we can rectify that.

Thank you. I appreciate you being here.

Yeah, any other questions?

Helping our residents.

No, go ahead.

I was going to ask the representative if the hauler is willing to have these properties removed from the list before adoption then?

Absolutely. All right.

So can we get those properties identified for purposes of removing them?

Yeah, if they would like to go out with me, I can give you my card and we can get them removed. You have until July 30th before it goes to.

We have to vote on this, though, so we need some sort of.

But again, though, the list gets updated, though, before the rolls are actually sent. Correct. So, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you. Council Member Cundiff.

Thank you, Barbara, for being here and for working with our citizens. So the question I have, it seems like there's going to be possibly more of these type of situations. Is CNR have something in place to work with as far as a cost monthly, knowing that they have to have the refuge cans out there, but possibly a smaller can or something that's a lighter expense for some folks?

I believe we do have senior discounts. We do have the smaller cards, I believe the 60 and the 90 gallon. When they do leave the green tags that were left behind, there is a phone number to call in and once they do call in, we can set up the service or find out what the issue is in the event of what happened here. they should have been told, well, if you don't live there, then we can remove it. But it's just about communication. Sometimes we get communication, sometimes we don't, and most of the time it just gets ignored. That's when the letters start and that's when it goes on tax roll. But in these situations, once we find out, we definitely will take care of it.

Yeah, you guys have always been pretty good at working with our citizens. We try. I understand the comments, especially as it's a state mandated law. These things are frustrating. to say the least. Well, unfortunately, not any longer. It's not an option any longer, unfortunately, but it's what the state law has done to us. But thank you for your comments and for working with our citizens on that. Thank you.

Yeah, just to clarify, just the particular bill that we're talking about that updated, that is SB 1383, there was a number of mandates that went, and that was one of them, yeah.

Yes, definitely.

Thank you. Okay, any other questions from council?

Yes, Council Member Garcia. Ashley, Barbara, before you leave.

Ms. Jimenez, can you come back? I had a question from Council Member Garcia for you.

Just got a question over how your system works with reaching out to our residents when there's letters going out besides letters. Do you guys reach out by phone or does somebody go in person and knock at the door to make sure that there's somebody residing at the residence?

Yes, so they do an actual physical audit, and if the house is empty, you can kind of tell, but sometimes you can't tell. So we do leave the green tag, and then we do ask them to call in. It's what we call a P8, meaning that once upon a time, there was a house that somebody was living there that had an account, and now no longer. So that's why we're reaching out to them to ask them to call in to either set up the account or to let us know what's going on.

Okay.

And then we do send a letter 30 days after.

30 days after, okay. So after, what amount of letters would trigger, like this is your first warning, your second warning, what's the process for that for our residents?

Yeah, good question. So after we leave the green tag, then we contact by letter 30 days later, and then you will start getting bills. So they get bills every 90 days. So there's lots of repetition. Every 90 days, you get another letter, you get a delinquency letter, then you get a warning that it's going to go on tax. So there's a lot of communication, a lot of correspondence.

All right, perfect. Thank you so much for that.

If I may, let me ask Council Member Molina, do you have any questions, comments on this item? no thank you very much thank you for your presentations good and good information thank you thank you thank you thank you for being here okay at this point i'm going to close the public hearing and any additional items to discuss from council on this no okay so i'm going to ask for a roll call vote

I'll make a motion first.

I'll make a motion to adopt Resolution 202633, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Calamace, California, confirming the report of charges to be placed on special assessments for delinquent refuge fees.

Second.

Roll call, please.

Council Member Cundiff?

Yes.

Council Member Garcia?

Yes.

Council Member Molina? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Manley? Yes. Mayor Cervantes?

Yes. That is 5-0 for item 17. All right, we'll now move on to public hearing item number 18. I'm gonna again open the public hearing for item 18. It's approval of the final annual engineer's report for the city of Cala Mesa citywide landscaping and lighting maintenance district number 91-1. This is gonna be handled by our city engineer, Mike Thornton. Before you do so, I'm gonna read this blurb one more time for the record. If any members of the public are participating on Zoom and wish to address the city council on this item, raise your hand by clicking the raise hand in the Zoom app or by pressing star nine if you are calling in. We will hear in-person speakers first, then move on to remote speakers. If you are participating remotely, the city clerk will state when your three minutes are up and you will be muted. City Engineer.

Good evening, Council. This is a very brief report. Cala Mesa annually levies and collects special assessments in order to pay for annual maintenance of landscaping, public lighting, and open space. On June 16th this year, Council set a public hearing for tonight to take public testimony regarding the assessments. There are no increases proposed. The fee is $21.50 per equivalent dwelling unit. So why I say equivalent dwelling units is if it's not a single family residential home, there is a calculation done to make it into an equivalent dwelling unit so that that property is assessed, same as single family residential would be. Approximately 4,466 parcels will be assessed with this approval. and the city would receive $109,276.38 by adopting the assessment. Staff recommends that the council adopt resolution number 2026-35 and approve the final engineer's report for the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 91-1, fiscal year 26-27. If you have any questions, I'm available to answer

And I would just add that the rate of $21.50 is the same as it was when it was adopted in 1991. $21.50.

All right, so public testimony on this item.

I do not have any in-person speakers and none online.

Okay. Councilmember's questions for our city engineer? Councilmember Molina?

None, thank you.

Okay.

None, thank you.

I'm gonna close public hearing on item 18. Any further discussion on item 18, council? No?

If I can get a motion, please. I'll make a motion we adopt resolution number 2026-35, resolution of the City Council of the City of Cala Mesa to approve the final engineer's report for landscaping and lighting and maintenance district number 91-1 for fiscal year 2026 slash 2027.

So I'll second. And can I get a roll call vote?

Council Member Cundiff? Yes. Council Member Garcia? Yes. Council Member Molina? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Manley?

Yes. Mayor Cervantes? Yes. So that is also 5-0 for item 18. Moves on to public hearing item number 19. I'm gonna open the public hearing for item 19. This public hearing has to do with environmental assessment number 25-02, zone text amendment number 25-03, major development plan review number 25-01, conditional use permit number 25-01, and tentative parcel map number 39386 relating to the construction and operation of a new 362 square foot quick quack car wash facility within the shops at Cala Mesa to handle this. It's our staff report, but before we do so, do I need to read the blurb again?

I think people are catching on, they think by now, so I think we're good.

Thank you, all right. No longer have to read the blurb, that's a win. Sorry. All right, at this point, if we could,

Thank you. Yes. Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. Thank you for being here tonight. Item number 19 is a public hearing for a proposed quick car wash located at 1168 Cala Mesa Boulevard. The applications presented before you this evening, as you mentioned, are zone text amendment 25-03, a development plan review 25-01, conditional use permit 25-01, tentative parcel map 39386, and environmental assessment 25-02. Okay, so for the project location, as I mentioned, it is located at 1168 Calamasa Boulevard. It is generally within the northwestern area of the city, and it is located within an existing commercial retail shopping center known as The Shops at Calamasa. As you can see here, it is adjacent to the I-10 freeway and Calamasa Boulevard. The shopping center does contain an underutilized pet area that has remained vacant since the shopping center was constructed back in 2009. Okay, so jumping into zoning and surrounding land uses, this project site is zoned downtown neighborhood commercial, and it is within the downtown business district. So a couple of the surrounding land uses, to the north, we have a vacant site, also within the DNC zone. To the south, we have a commercial use that is a Walgreens, also within the DNC zone. To the east, some more commercial, that is the Stata Brothers. Also within the DNC and to the west we have the I-10 freeway corridor. So as you can see here, many of the surrounding land uses are commercial uses. Okay, so to give you guys a little bit of background, this shopping center was originally approved back in 2008 under separate entitlement applications. Those approvals did allow for a subdivision of 9.37 acres into five parcels. It allowed approximately 90,000 square feet of commercial uses, and it established a shopping center with two drive-thru uses and alcohol beverage sales. So some of those existing tenants out there, again, we have a Walgreens, Starbucks, Carl's Jr., and a Dollar Tree. Okay, so this proposal does consist of five related applications that together would allow the development of the quick rack car wash. Before I get into detail on every application, I did want to give a brief overview. So again, we have a zone text amendment. This is to amend the permitted uses table within our downtown business district. We have a development plan review application. This is for site design and architecture. We have a CUP for operation of the use, a tentative parcel map to create a separate legal parcel and environmental assessment for a CEQA addendum. Did want to briefly note that although some of these applications will not typically be presented before the council, because this project does include a request for a zone tax amendment, it is being brought together for consideration for the council. Okay, so we'll start with the zone tax amendment. Again, this is requesting approval to amend the permitted uses table within our downtown business district. This would change automotive washing, automated self-service from a prohibited use to now a conditionally permitted use within the downtown neighborhood commercial zone only. So they would be subject to approval of a conditional use permit. This amendment would also add a corresponding definition for this land use to the municipal code. Staff has determined that the proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan and the intent of the downtown business district by providing flexibility for commercial uses while also maintaining the city's ability to evaluate potential impacts through the CUP process. Okay, now getting into the development plan review. This is a request to construct a 3,362 square foot automated express car wash tunnel. It includes a three lane vehicle queuing area, 30 vacuum stations. It can be structure, trash enclosure, parking, landscaping, and related site improvements. So because this project is within our downtown business district, it is required to comply with the city's downtown business district design guidelines. Staff finds that the proposed design is consistent with those guidelines and would enhance the overall appearance of the shopping center. Because it is subject to those guidelines, the applicant did incorporate masonry accents, metal roofing elements, and architectural tower elements. Okay, so moving on to the CUP, this would authorize the operation of the car wash use. The automated car wash facility is proposing to operate daily between the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. and will employ approximately 18 individuals. Staff believes this use is appropriate for the site due to its location within an existing commercial center, access to major aerial roadways, and its separation from residential neighborhoods. So as you can see here on the screen, the nearest residential site is approximately 1,000 feet away of the project site. Okay, so moving on to the tentative parcel map. This would subdivide approximately 5.24 gross acres into two legal parcels. This subdivision would create a separate legal parcel for the proposed quick car wash, while also maintaining the existing shopping center on the remainder parcel. Okay, and finally we have our environmental assessment. Sorry, one moment. The environmental assessment consists of an addendum to the previously adopted ISM&D prepared for the approved shopping center. The addendum evaluates the proposed quick car wash and included an analysis of updated tech studies for air quality, noise, and traffic. Overall, it was determined based on the analysis that the project remains consistent with the impacts previously analyzed in the adopted ISM&D. So for planning commission recommendation, the planning commission did hold a duly notice public hearing on June 8th, 2026 and voted five zero recommending that the city council approved this project. Finally, staff is making the recommendation that you adopt CC resolution 202640, approving environmental assessment, introduce and waive the first reading ordinance number 421, approving the zone text amendment, and adopt CC resolutions 202641 and 202642, approving the map, the development plan review, and the conditional use permit subject to conditions of approval. This does conclude my presentation. If the council has any questions, I am available. The rep from the Fountainhead Development applicant is also present this evening.

Thank you, Celine. Very thorough, helpful overview. At this point, I'll invite the applicant to come forward.

Here.

Thank you. Did you have any comments or additional information for us?

Oh, no, I'm sorry. Good evening, Council Members. I just want to say my name is Francis Chu. I'm with Fountainhead Development. We're the one that's been looking at this site since 2020 to get a quality tenant on the site. And fortunately, we were able to get them on site early last year. I also want to say thankfully for the city staff, Celine, Kelly, Mike, and Travis, for guiding us through the environmental process and the entitlement process as well. It wasn't that easy because, as you know, we're dealing with the county and the environmental issue habitat issue. So I'm really here just to answer any questions. Unfortunately, the operator is not able to make it tonight. I didn't realize we had the Zoom capability tonight. Otherwise, I would have arranged that. But I'll try to answer any questions to my best.

Well, thank you for being here. Appreciate that. Do we have any public testimony?

I do not have any speakers here or online.

Okay. So council questions on this item for staff or the applicant? Yeah, Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mayor. I do have one question as far as it relates to the stacking of the vehicles that are waiting there. I know I saw one slide. You kind of had a picture of it. I think I saw the number was 24. I was just trying to confirm how they were counting from as far as this number that would actually fit in there, how many cars were waiting. I just want to make sure I'm not backing up into impacting the existing businesses.

Sit on, oh, sorry. So our municipal code requires eight vehicles to be, a queuing of eight vehicles, so this more than complies with that. As far as how they oriented or designed it, that would be the applicant to answer that.

Okay, this is the applicant. I was just curious on where the number, I guess, I thought it said 24 in there.

It is 24, because if you look at the site plan, there's the operations such that there's like daily users versus memberships. And the kiosk is at the kind of entrance point to the tunnel. And if you look at the site plan right now, all the cars stacked within the three links, those are 24 security until we reach the checkpoint, which is the entrance or pay fees.

So you're counting, okay, because it looks like there's maybe a little more than that, I guess. So you're starting to count after the people that are paying.

Yeah, the bottom line is the main drive to the shopping center common driveway, but the curing lane is actually outside of that driveway, so it's the entirety of the common traffic lane area.

Okay, I understand. All right, thank you for the clarification.

Other council members? Council Member Garcia?

I got a question. Based on the entrance of the vehicles going into the car wash, will there be a designated area for them to make a left or make a right just based on the parking spaces outside of the designated area so it won't hold up traffic or block any traffic going inside?

Sorry, I missed that part about the left turn.

Yes, so you know at the bottom of the picture, it looks like, are those parking spaces?

Are those the entrance, right?

Yeah, okay. So when the cars are entering the car wash, will there be a designated entrance for them to either make a left or a right? To just more of a controlled traffic?

That area, what you're seeing there is entrance only. There's no left or right. Did I answer your question?

Okay, so the parking spaces are at the bottom, right? So if I'm entering the parking space, would there be a designated area where you have to follow to enter the car wash?

Oh, yeah. I mean, the regular signage.

We will be. OK. So there won't be any cars blocking any of the parking spaces, correct? No.

OK. Mike can also touch on the circulation that was analyzed.

I think that would be helpful, Mike, if you could run us through the circulation, how this is going to work in that. existing stalls and businesses?

So the aisle that will serve the parking area that's kind of toward the bottom of the screen here will be open. And traffic can go both ways. It turns into car wash in the area where it stacks there as shown, would work its way through the exterior car wash, and then to the left of the exhibit is where vacuums would They'd stop and vacuum before they discharge and leave the facility. The site plan has been reviewed and approved by the city's traffic engineer, so the circulation does work.

Does that answer your question, Council Member Garcia?

Yeah, it does. I just want to make sure no one's being blocked into their parking spaces when they're trying to exit. So I just want to make sure there's enough traffic flow going around to enter the car wash.

I also want to mention that there's two types of uses. One is the single use customers. The other one is membership customers. The gates are controlled by cameras, so they recognize the driver's license, I mean the car license, and then it's just automatically open. So there's not really a waiting time per se.

So is the exit going to be right where the subway is essentially now?

So yeah, so we're kind of just to the left, the right of center where it curves to the right where the stacking starts. The cars go through there. There's a gate right there where it's pointing right there. Then once they go through the gate, they go around. and into the car wash right there. They go through the car wash, and then they come out this way to the vacuum, and then they vacuum their cars, and then once they do, they go out to the left there, and that's where they exit.

That's the flow. Okay, and they use the exit that's existing by Starbucks, and is that going to be the exit that they use?

No, it'll actually be next to Subway. So there's the...

There'll be an exit there, but then their, their main arterial that they'll get to come back to Cal makes the Boulevard will be that it'll be, it'll yeah.

So it'll, it'll, I don't know if it quite lines up with the C you could see it right there. So yeah. So you can kind of see the whole, the whole center there. So there's a little, there's going to be a gap between the end of the existing built like strip mall part, which is where subway is and a couple other businesses. That's where they'll come out. So it'll be like, it'll be on the Carl's junior side actually more, more or less.

We're going to lose some stalls right there. Parking stalls.

No, this is all on the, this is all in the unapproved area.

Okay.

And no blind spots as well when they're exiting by subway in Starbucks, when the cars are exiting a car wash?

No, there's a clearance, like 35 feet triangular, fishing triangle, more than that.

Okay. All right, thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Council Member Molina?

No, thank you.

Thank you.

No, thank you.

Any other items to discuss, council? Any further questions, concerns?

All right. Let's have some comments. Please.

Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and then Mayor Pro Tem, please.

Thank you, Mayor. I think one of my concerns, like I mentioned, being the backing up of the vehicles, it looks like it's pretty adequate as far as them queuing up. I know it moves pretty quick, the model here, so definitely I think there's more than enough space there to address that issue. They mentioned the separation from the residential area, so I think it's a good separation as far as location up against the freeway. So I think that part will be an issue. And given the existing businesses that are there, I think it's pretty consistent with what's going on over there. And I think it could potentially add maybe a boost there, some extra foot traffic. to fill out the rest of that complex there, maybe get some more foot traffic in there, maybe improve business there. So those are my thoughts, so I'm in favor of it for those reasons.

Thank you, sir. Any additional comments, questions?

Mayor?

Yes, please, Council Member Molina.

I just wanted to say how pleased I am that we have another business in our city. I'm happy that this business concern is coming in. I think it's giving employment and functionality. So I'm very happy that this has come forward. Thank you.

Thank you for that. So if there's no further comments or questions, there are several resolutions that need to be adopted. So can I get a motion?

I want to make a resolution to adopt CC resolution number 2026-44, environmental assessment number 25-02. approving an addendum to the previously adopted initial study medicated negative declaration IS-MND in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA guideline section 15162. and 15164 finding that the previously adopted IS-MND adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and that no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required. Two, introduce ordinance number 421, approving zone tax amendment number 25-03. Three, adopt CC resolution number 2026-41, approving tentative parcel map number 39386. for adopt CC resolution number 2026-42 approving development plan review number 25-01 and conditional use permit number 25-01 for the operation and development of a Kwik Kwik car wash facility subject to the condition of approval.

Thank you for taking one for the team and reading that. I appreciate that.

Second.

Good practice. All right, roll call vote please.

Council Member Cundiff.

Yay.

Council Member Garcia.

Yes.

Council Member Molina. I apologize. Yes, thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Manley. Yes. Mayor Cervantes.

Yes. Item 19. Okay. Passes 5-0.

Yeah. Before moving on, I'll read the full title of the ordinance. Ordinance number 421, an ordinance of the City of Cala Mesa adopting zone text amendment number 25-03. amending Cala Mesa municipal code table 18.39.050 of chapter 18.39 downtown business district to allow automotive washing automated self-service as a conditionally permitted use subject to approval of a conditionally used permit and find the zone text amendment exempt from the California environmental quality act pursuant to sequel guidelines section 15061 . Thank you.

All right, we're now moving on to public hearing item number 20. I'm gonna open public hearing for item 20. And our wonderful Public Works Director, Kelly Lucia will take this.

Community Development. Community Development, sorry.

That's right, that's right, that's right. Community Development. Public Works Director is not here. Right here. Community Development Director.

Thank you, good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council, members of the public, thank you for being here this evening. This item is for the Cala Mesa Annexation Project. Before we cover the discretionary actions that are associated with these applications, I'd like to cover a couple of terms that you'll be hearing throughout the presentation, and those terms are LAFCO, annexation, and sphere of influence, so I'll cover those briefly now. Okay, so what is a Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO? LAFCOs are state mandated regulatory agencies established by the legislature back in 1963. They were originally created in response to rapid post-World War II population growth and disorganized development. Modern state laws, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, which deals with annexations, detachments, and reorganizations of jurisdictions. and special agencies. The core legislative goals of the act are to discourage urban sprawl and promote orderly growth, preserve open space and agricultural lands, and ensure the efficient delivery of government utility services. So that's what LAFCOs are. What is an annexation? An annexation in California is the administrative process by which an incorporated city expands its boundary to absorb adjacent unincorporated county land Once the process is complete, the newly absorbed area falls under the city's jurisdiction, making residents subject to city taxes, laws, and zoning ordinances in exchange for city services. And finally, last term, what is a sphere of influence? It is a, or also known as an SOI. It's a planning tool used by California's LAFCOs to define the probable physical boundaries and ultimate service area of a city or special district. It identifies where an agency is expected to grow and provide services in the future. Okay, so if we just get the lay of the land here, the existing city of Cala Mesa boundary is shown here, kind of an orangish red area there around the city boundary. And our existing sphere of influence is off to the, what I'll call the northwest area of the city in light orange. So those are our existing boundaries and our existing SOI. There is some historical context also to the applications you'll be considering, so I'll go over those briefly now as well. So in 1993, Riverside County LAFCO considered an annexation and sphere of influence expansion for approximately 244 acres. LAFCO originally approved that proposal, and those acreages are shown there in blue and purple on the screen in the kind of southeast corner of the city, again, back in 1993. That was approved. However, in 1996, that approval was rescinded following a successful legal challenge on the grounds that the environmental review failed to properly analyze more intense land uses on the territory that was meant to be annexed. That was probably an appropriate action to take because north of Cherry Valley Boulevard, there was a proposal to increase development potential to include about 500 additional residential units. So back in the 90s, the city was looking at annexing these areas But the appropriate environmental analysis did not occur at that time is what a court found. And again, that approval was rescinded. Okay, a little more historical context back to 2007. City records also include this exhibit here shown on the screen. This exhibit shows a proposed SOI and annexation exhibit dated June 13, 2007. The record's not entirely clear about its official submittal status, but this proposal did not move forward. So just wanted to provide some additional context for the council and members of the public that there has been a long history of interest in annexation of these lands in one form or another since the early 90s. Okay, now onto our bundle of discretionary actions. First we're going to be going over annexation 25-1 and we'll move on after that. So the current request is a landowner initiated annexation request. The applicant is ITEM Logistics owner LLC on behalf of Brookfield. It's a jurisdictional boundary adjustment only. The northern annexation area is comprised of about 234 acres and the southern annexation area is about 79.4 acres. Existing development is to remain unchanged and there is no new development proposed as part of this annexation application. Okay, so here you see the northern annexation area, shown here in blue, contains the two existing logistics buildings north of Cherry Valley Boulevard. And in purple, the southern annexation area that was added as a requirement of LAFCO, being that you can't create an quote unquote island of incorporated area. So when jurisdictional boundaries are determined, LAFCO does their job, they look at who serves what where, and if there are any of these islands or kind of holes or pockets, however you want to describe it, of unincorporated area that would create challenges for providing service. And so when the application was first submitted to the city, it was only for the area shown here in blue, but through the application process, it was identified to the city and the applicant that the area in purple, south of Cherry Valley Boulevard, needed to be incorporated into one jurisdiction or another because of this inability to create an island. Okay, this slide gets a little busy, so I'll go through it quickly. I wanted to show the council and members of the public the property ownership kind of makeup here and what we have going on. So there are three owners north of Cherry Valley Boulevard, that's I-10 Logistics, owner on behalf of Brookfield, shown in blue, We have Yucaipa Valley Water District owns some water tanks there in dark blue. And then at the top of the screen, there's a private owner that owns some acreages there at the top. So those are the owners to the north. To the south, there are seven owners, and I'll go through these quickly. Again, it's a number of combination of LLCs and individuals that own these parcels. So there's one ownership there shown in pink, another in orange, another yet in yellow. fourth in gray, got another owner shown in green, one in purple, and one in red. So the purpose of this slide is just to show the council kind of the acreage and ownership breakdown for the various annexation areas, both north and south of Cherry Valley Boulevard. Okay, so earlier in the presentation, I said that existing development would remain, and so you may be asking yourself, what is out there today? So there are two industrial buildings shown there in blue, at about 800,000 square foot industrial building to the west, and at about a million square foot building shown there to the east. Those are to remain under this proposal with no revisions proposed in any way for operation or use. There in the corner of the screen in that kind of orange or yellow color, there is a static face billboard that exists, and it also has a co-located telecommunications facility on top of it, which I have an image of later in the presentation. And then there in yellow, some members of the council and community may be familiar with the bona fide truck repair facility, also sometimes commonly called Luther's. So all of these facilities exist today, and this proposal will not affect them in terms of continued use of the properties. And again, I'll continue to reiterate, no new development is proposed. Okay, here's just some street-level views of the existing development. There to the top left of the screen, that's one of the industrial buildings. To the right is that static billboard with the co-located telecommunication facility there at the top. And then at the bottom of the screen you can kind of see a bonafide truck repair in the foreground and then the industrial buildings there in the background. Okay, moving right along. Next we're gonna cover the proposed general plan amendment, the pre-zoning request, and the zone text amendment for the warehouse overlay zone. Right here for general plan amendment 25-2 to the left of the screen. This is the existing Riverside County general plan designation So you'll see a combination of open space residential light industrial very low residential development and commercial designations Which you'll see to the right of the scene screen are the proposed general plan designations for the Cala Mesa general plan They're not identical, but there was a very concerted effort to make them as close as possible to just bring over the zoning and general plan designations that exist in the county to bring those over to the city of Calame. So there was a thorough review done and a concerted effort to implement a like-for-like general plan designation. There's the general plan. The county of Riverside has a two-map system, so their general plan map is different from their zoning map. The city of Calamesa has a one-map system, so we have the same. So the last slide was general plan. This is zoning. Under Riverside County, there's a combination of industrial park, controlled development, what they call RA, residential agriculture, and commercial uses. And what you'll see on the proposed Calamesa zoning Again, industrial park, transfers to light industrial, open space, and controlled development. So again, an attempt was made to create very similar or identical zoning designations. That's not the case for all of the properties, and I wanna touch briefly on that. And if you'll turn your attention to the area south of Cherry Valley Boulevard, those are the residential areas. Residentially zoned parcels. So I just wanted to highlight those here. So first here in green is the second East Second Street property which is about 24 acres owned by the Taylor family and to the east of that is about 35 acres and purple owned by the on family and So these are the two instances where we didn't have exact like for like zoning. We weren't able to just exactly match that. So under the counting designation, these parcels currently have one acre lot minimums and under the proposed and closest possible Calamisa designations, it would be residential estate with five acre lot minimums. And I think the council has received some communication from the property owners providing their opinion on this proposed change. And what I wanted to make sure that the council was clear about is that although this application that's before you tonight seeks to change the zoning of these properties, the intention was to not create environmental impacts as part of these bundle of application. And if in the future, should the council approve this application and should LAFCO ultimately approve and if these parcels come into the city, the city stands willing and ready to confer with the property owners to discuss their intended use of the properties and to have discussions regarding whatever zoning they may like to apply in the future, apply for in the future with the related environmental analysis that would need to go along with that.

And Kelly, can I just point out too that they have the option to do that within the county. So whether it's in the county, the city of Cal Mesa, the city of Beaumont, the landowner has the ability to do that with any of those agencies. So changing the agency that they're within wouldn't change that option for them.

Thank you, Will. Okay, moving right along to the zone text amendment. So there is a component of this application, the ordinance that's in your packet, that includes a creation of a new warehouse overlay zone district. The purpose of that district, and it changes a number of tables and development standards in the municipal code, would be to conditionally permit warehouse buildings no larger than 1.1 million square feet in size. And you might ask yourself, why should we do that? Well, the reason is we have these two buildings that are requesting to come into the city, and it is not desirable to have what's known as a legal non-conforming land use for a number of reasons, for property ownership's perspective, including insurance considerations, resale, and whatnot. And so the intention was that if this application comes into the city, it would these buildings would be fully conforming to the zoning district, which as the council is aware and the community may be aware, we have a 250,000 square foot maximum restriction on industrial buildings in the city. And so these buildings don't meet that restriction, hence the need for the overlay zone district, which would fully legalize them. And happy to answer any questions that the council may have regarding that district. Okay, so we have got two conditional use permits, so consistent with other zoning restrictions that we have in the city, industrial uses are subject to conditional use permits, and so that overlay zone district would allow the buildings to remain subject to these two conditional use permits. And there are a number of conditions here in the packet, I won't go through every single one, but they're related to ongoing maintenance, future tenant requirements, fire requirements, and whatnot. And these CUPs would only apply to the two industrial buildings that are shown here on the screen. So finally, all of these applications were collectively analyzed under one environmental document, the whole of the project under CEQA. This is EA25-8, in which a negative declaration was prepared. The project is comprised of an administrative adjustment to the boundaries of the city, and two CUPs for the existing industrial buildings. So the analysis, excuse me, went through all 20 resource areas shown on the screen, including aesthetics, air quality, biology, tribal cultural resources, land use and planning, and so forth. And the analysis concluded that there would be no impacts to the environment. Reason being, there are no physical changes associated with this bundle of applications. Only administrative in nature, and no new development is proposed. So negative declaration was prepared and a revised final negative declaration is attached to the staff report for your consideration. The notice of intent for the negative declaration was circulated for public review from April 17th, 2026 to May 18th, 2026. There were a number of written comments that were received from the following agencies and organizations during the review period. Copies of all public comment letters that the city received are attached to the staff report. They include letters from the City of Beaumont, Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, the Yucaipa Valley Water District, a legal firm that goes by SAFER, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern California Gas Company, and Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. All right, so at the June 22nd Planning Commission meeting, comments were made in reference to the negative declarations discussion of Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District's sphere of influence in the southern annexation area. The negative declaration was modified and updated to accurately represent the current municipal wet utility and sphere of influence boundaries in the northern and southern annexation areas. And pursuant to CEQA guidelines, recirculation was not required. Okay, so we've heard a lot of discussion about municipal and utility boundaries. So you might be wondering to yourself, well, who decides? So here's the city's jurisdictional boundary and SOI here. but utilities, who decides? LAFCO. So I just wanted to be very clear to everybody watching that who ultimately provides utility services to these properties is not determined here by the city council, it's determined by LAFCO. With that, I'll pass it off for a few slides for our city manager to cover.

Thank you, Kelly. So the first thing when we look at fiscal impacts is we look at when an area is being annexed is the property tax distribution. So I've discussed this in previous presentations with the council during budget time. So this is the particular breakdown based on Prop 13 and subsequent state legislative actions that govern the distribution of property taxes. So the table shows the current distribution on the left. with those in red showing impacts of the shift from the county to the city itself. So the first two at the top are governed by a master property tax transfer agreement between the city and county, which was adopted in 1992. And this calls for 75% of the county general share to be retained by the county, and 25% of that share shifts to the city. So that ends up being 3.31%. In addition, under that agreement, fire services are shifted 100% from the county to the city. So we get the entire 5.19% to take over for fire services. So the reason for the VLF ERAFT shift at the bottom there, Has to do with how much is taken from various agencies to ERAF. So the county under state law must share a larger portion of their property tax with the ERAF, which is the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund. So some of those funds come back to the city. It lowers the amount of ERAF and those funds are then shifted to the city. So that's why you have an additional 3.57% that comes to the city out of that ERAF shift. So because the, just as an aside, the larger ERAF shift from the county is one of the reasons that the county has been reluctant to negotiate a different annexation split. I know that's been a big issue in the county for a number of years, but that is one of the reasons why they're reluctant to do that. So the three areas that are in purple, that's CSA 27, Beaumont Library, and Beaumont Cherry Valley Recreation Park District. Those are other agencies that are impacted by the annexation as a result of the city assuming responsibility for the particular areas of interest for those agencies. So all of those amounts that are highlighted in yellow on this slide are shown in the table to the right just to kind of give you a sum total. So the result of this would be the city would have just under 19% of the ad valorem property tax coming to the city. And there's one important note here. The annexation does not result in any changes to taxes. It just changes how the property taxes that are already being paid, how they're distributed. So if they pay the exact same tax bill, it's the 1% ad valorem tax at the top of the, there's other types of assessments, but those are other agencies. So it doesn't change the amount of taxes, it just changes where those taxes go. So next slide, please. So now this just shows you post-annexation, I know it's kind of small, but this just shows the breakdown after annexation, the approximate dollar amount to each entity. So just for frame of reference, the northern annexation area, the taxable value is just under $523 million, and the southern annexation is about $4.5 million, so they get you about a total taxable value of $527 million and change. So you take 1% of that, and that is the property tax that is collected for that particular area. So you can see that it total adds up to about $5.27 million. And of that, the city would be allocated about $1 million of that. Next slide, please. Also impacted by this is the property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees. So basically this shows the calculation, but the way it breaks down really is it just is however much your assessed value changes from year to year, they apply that percentage to your previously amount received. So this is kind of a complicated way to get there, but that's essentially in a nutshell what it does. So the result would be a 31% increase in the city's overall assessed value, which would be a corresponding 31% increase in the city's property tax in lieu of VLF, which would be about $532,000 of additional revenue. Next slide. So as part of the application and in conjunction with this, again, as Kelly had mentioned, this is a landowner-led annexation. And so how that works with protests is based on land value. So I-10 Logistics has proposed an annexation project agreement. The term of this agreement is 15 years. Contingent annual payments to I-10 Logistics are calculated based only on the base property tax generated by the industrial properties of the annexation and the share that comes to the city. And so they're contingent because there's a minimum amount of property taxes that must be collected by the city before any payment becomes due. There's also several community benefits included in the agreement. In year one, there's a $450,000 contribution towards the city's ladder truck that we acquired a couple years ago to offset some of the cost of that. Starting in year two, annual contributions of $115,000 to public services and $10,000 to Cala Mesa nonprofit organizations. And there is a total not to exceed cap on this of $12.5 million. So that is the maximum that can be paid over the life of the agreement to I-10 logistics. Next slide, please. So this just shows kind of a breakdown of the estimated tax revenue and how that breaks down. So the column in orange are the three columns to the right or to the left of that added up together to show how much comes to the city. And so as you can see here for I-10 logistics, the total is $12.5 million and that is reached in year 14. Next slide. So the net fiscal impact on this, in year one, ongoing revenues would increase by a net amount of about $583,000. Again, ongoing revenues, so that's deducting out that $450,000, because that's a one-time payment. In year two, that amount would go up to $719,000 due to the annual community benefits. And again, those are annual, so that is ongoing revenue. In year 14, when we reached that $12.5 million max share, the city's net revenue goes up to $1,647,000. And then post-agreement, we're looking at just over $2 million, and that would increase by 2% annually based on Prop 13. On the expenditure side, we don't see a lot of impacts here initially. So the biggest impact will be on Willoughby Road and right-of-way maintenance as well as stormwater catch basin maintenance. And keep in mind that the city, part of the reason that this is proposed and the staff is recommending approval is that the city already does see some of the impacts of these, right? Because they have to drive through Cala Mesa for truck traffic related to or any warehouse activity has to go to Cherry Valley Boulevard and get on the freeway. So we're seeing those impacts. The city is leading the charge to get that interchange improved. We're almost through design on that. We're aggressively pursuing federal and state funding to fund that project. So the city is already seeing the impacts of this. So the revenue, it only makes sense that this revenue comes in to help us offset those type of impacts. But as far as ongoing maintenance, estimate um conservatively even considering an amortization of um things like pavement management over over a period of time to be on average about 200 000 a year so that's that that includes setting aside some some money to maintain roads that are specific to the annexed area Most of the southern annexation areas Kellyanne mentioned is undeveloped, so there may be future costs if and when development occurs there. But that would be likely offset by increased assessed values on that end as development happens. and a possible other revenue generation, the areas on the western part of that southern annexation area are commercial areas. So those have potential to generate sales tax as well that could also offset the cost of providing services to those properties.

With that, I will hand it back to Kelly.

Oh, that's actually a good point. So I did want to mention that one of the actions that the council is taking is, You did not see the agreement on the agenda So we're just giving you we're just presenting the deal points at a full disclosure as you make as you consider this we will bring back the We plan on bringing back the agreement for final approval at the next meeting along with the second reading of the ordinance if the council approves the actions tonight um but we are still working on some of the legal points on that so the deal points have been agreed to in principle for presentation of the City Council but we just want to make sure that the agreement is is tied up so that both both parties are protected um in that agreement as we before we bring it forward thank you just so the council knows on June 22nd 2026 the Planning Commission voted 4-0 with one excused absence recommending the City Council approve the project as presented

And with that, there's a number of recommendations here before you, including a number of resolutions and introduction of one ordinance. And with that, myself, the city manager, city attorney, and city engineer are available for any questions you may have.

All right, thanks to our community development director and our city manager for that outstanding overview, very thorough presentation. So at this time, is it relevant to have an applicant presentation or any additional?

If the applicant would like to say words, this would be the time to do it.

Please. I'm Bill Shopoff, president of Shopoff Realty Investments and I-10 logistics owner. I actually don't have anything to present other than to say thank you to Will and to the planning director and appreciate working with your staff and we're excited to be part of your city.

Thank you for being here. Appreciate that.

Any questions, I'm available.

Thank you. At this time, we're going to see if we have any public testimony. City Clerk?

We have about six here. So first we have Mark Swanson.

Mr. Swanson. You could also state your name for the record and who you represent. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Mark Swanson. I'm Director of Engineering, Monterey Valley Water District. I want to state that yes, BCVDD has submitted a letter. They both submitted this afternoon. I believe everybody received a copy of that. BCWD does not object to the northern parcels. It's not our sphere. I guess it's not our issue to take on any of that stuff. We understand that Yucaipa Valley is able to serve that, and they have a tank over there. They have everything they need to do to take care of that. What we have issue with or what we want to talk about tonight here is the southern parcels below Cherry Valley Boulevard, so those nine or so parcels down there. Those are in BCVWD's existing sphere of influence. I believe the prior document stated it was not, but after Planning Commission that has been updated. I want to make sure that if we could get a further update on that is that it's potable and non-potable service that the Water District does provide. I believe it only states potable at this time. um but but that is in our sphere it is not yet annexed into beaumont cherry valley water district so again terms you've you're going to hear tonight but we would be the entity to serve those southern parcels and so where this gets a little tricky is is that we've had in our master plan we've had a plan to serve these areas or at least the southern below cherry valley boulevard for many years we would be the appropriate agency to provide that potable non-potable service our master plan does have wells and pipelines that run through Cherry Valley Boulevard. Wells would be on the southern parcels. Down on the south side there, a lot of that area is undeveloped. And so unfortunately, with the north side applicant driven, it does create an island. But LAFCO needs to kind of be aware of how that works. Not all islands are created equal. I've dealt with LAFCO many times myself with our district. And unfortunately, LAFCO does say, hey, there's an island. but they need to be made aware of why that island would be left. And this is undeveloped. I think Bonafide's the one that's there. What was Luther's? I think that's really the one that's there, but doesn't take service from anybody. So when development occurs, maybe that's what warrants the need for annexation. Yucaipa Valley does have a bundled service policy, so if Yucaipa Valley were to be an entity to serve sewer, their bundling policy does require that they serve all of it. And so as was stated at the Planning Commission, is there potential for that to be unwound a little bit? City of Beaumont has expressed interest in the sewer and annexing also. And so with that being said, We wanna avoid a governance issue, duplication of service, et cetera. So we're asking that maybe this, at least the southern half be considered, looked at before the full annexation be taken to understand who's gonna do what to the southern area. With that, I appreciate it. Thank you.

Next we have Dan Jaggers.

All right, certainly. Dan Jaggers, Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District General Manager. As I sit here tonight and hear again the presentation, what I heard said was the city went to annex in the northerly portions of the areas in question above Cherry Valley Boulevard. And LAFCO directed the city to include the southerly portions, even though there's no project for you there. I've heard it twice now. I heard it at the Planning Commission on June 22nd, and I heard it again tonight. That concerns me because LAFCO is basically telling you to annex. We had an issue in Cala Mesa with another property that was actually in our service area boundary that was taken out of that. are service area-bound and provided to UKIPA because of the bundling policy. So what you should know tonight is the city of Beaumont passed a resolution in September of 2025 to take steps to annex in the southerly portion in question tonight that we're really speaking to for our district, the one that's within our sphere of influence. And that process is in motion. Now when We call AFCO to talk about this to them. They say, well, nobody's brought it to us, so we're not ready to talk about it. But in fact, it sounds to us like they're dictating that you do this work. So we take issue with that. We take significant issue with our planned facilities, a particular well, extraction wells, especially with some of the activities that are happening in other areas. And so we need to protect our sphere of influence and our service area boundary because of our continued investment in master plan facilities down through these corridors. And I think we've got pipelines, I believe, to the city of Calamas' current boundary. And so those elements are really concerning, because what happened last time is you decided to annex the Reidman property in. We went to LAFCO, and our district got run over. So we're here tonight to provide comment to the city council that, indeed, the bundling policy at Yucaipa Valley Water District creates a condition for our sphere of influence of inverse condemnation is how I see it. That's my personal opinion. But if you annex in and the city of Beaumont's unwilling to provide sewer service, you do have some extra territorial agreements with them for some areas in Cala Mesa, which could be an option. It really provides an opportunity for you adversely affecting our planned facilities and so I ask that you cautiously understand that and make sure you see that as an impact to us. I see Mr. Zobis in the audience so I'm sure he'll enlighten you on his thoughts on this. I want to say thank you for letting me speak. I've got a whole list of things to articulate. I think we may articulate it in another letter to you. We're really good at writing letters, but would rather just kind of get it all said if we can.

Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Next, we have Joe Zoba.

Excuse me.

Good evening.

My name's Joe Zoba, general manager of Yucaipa Valley Water District. We are here to talk about that lower triangle of service. Back in 2008, the Yucaipa Valley Water District adopted our sustainability plan. We created it out of whole cloth. We wanted to do what was right for the community. We took in the aspects of the drinking water treatment plant, the surface water from Oakland, groundwater, recycled water, brine line. We put it all together to come up with a sustainability plan for the Yucaipa Valley. City of Cala Mesa, City of Yucaipa. In that sustainability plan was our first goal at bundled services because we recognized that bundled services are the way of the future, quite honestly. If we were to start a city out in the middle of the desert, we wouldn't have two agencies, one for sewer, one for water. We'd have one agency. They would do drinking water, recycled water, and sewer service. That would be the most efficient way to go. Earlier, excuse me, fall of last year, I had a conference. I had a call with folks in Texas. They were asking the question of how did you do what you did? The water plant, the sewer plant, the brine line, the reverse osmosis, now injection wells. And I told them that the key is that you bundle your services. That's what makes a difference. And you'll see a lot of communities that aren't able to do what we did because they offer different services and they have institutional barriers that aren't, readily evident, but it actually exists where you can't get that far. So we're here to promote good policy. I tend to think good policy is that policy that benefits grandchildren and people that we will never know. Convenient policy makes headlines. And we're not here to make headlines. We're here to do what's right for the community today and the community tomorrow. Happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Sorry, next we have Chris Taylor.

Good evening, Chris Taylor. I am the manager of East 2nd Street, the 24 acres in question there. Kind of interestingly, we found out about this application in a public meeting notice, not that the city came to us. So it was the notice, just strictly the notice part. So we have had this property for quite some time. In fact, Mary and Ashley had assured us that there was a designation for a community commercial designation for the overall area when they did the update to their Riverside County general plan back in, I think it was 2002 or 2003. So they put us in a holding zone, but they had a special provision for community commercial, community center around the interchange. So if you look at the plan here, residential estates makes no sense whatsoever. between a master plan of whatever's going on in the city of Beaumont and the community commercial, regional commercial that is represented by the other triangle. That community regional commercial is not big enough. So even if you're just going with a planning policy, you would say no, you'd wanna have 50, 60, 70 acres in there, which would take our area and that's what you would be looking at. So, you know, we have a, have filed an application with the city of Beaumont, but we ended up in the same problem that apparently your staff is running into, which that little triangle on the tail of us would have created an island, and so LAFCO got to just shut us down because we couldn't get that guy to go along. That's the way LAFCO works. So I know that you guys may press forward with this, but LAFCO is kind of handcuffed in that they can't do it if the applicant is not willing. So that is just a different animal than your more regular stuff. So dig into that a little bit further, and we would say that we are all for I'm just absolutely happy to see Shopoff did his deal on the north there. I had that in escrow at one point, and so it was good to see somebody else being successful. I want us all to be successful. It would seem to me with your staff that they would have crawled to us and said, we want to talk to you about coming to the city of Cala Mesa and doing a nice commercial development that feeds us property tax revenue. and yet we get crickets because there's some other train in the station right now. So we are registering as opposed. We look forward to productive discussions going forward. I know both of these water districts and I'm sure that we can work something out. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Does that conclude our public testimony?

No, we have one more. Okay. Tim Lynch.

We are fellow council members and staff. My name is Tim Lynch. We're the Wimpey landowners on the east side of Cherry Valley Boulevard, directly adjacent to the truck repair business. And we have two lots there. And we're just in support of dealing with the city of Calamasa because we've had a miserable time dealing with Riverside County. or hopefully that will be annexed and we can have a more beneficial relationship. And we appreciate your time. Thank you. Any questions? Thanks for being here. Any answers? Okay, thank you. Yes.

Okay, we do have Mr. David Ahn with his hand up to speak online.

Okay. What was the last name?

Ahn.

Ahn. Mr. Ahn, you're recognized. You may speak.

hi can you hear me yes sir okay great thank you yeah it'll be brief um i represent my father who is uh unable to attend the meeting um and we're one of the property owners on the southern end uh next to the taylor property and you know yeah we just want to reiterate that We're not opposed to this activity. We were just never properly engaged. And we did have one call or conference call with Shop Off just to understand what the process was. And we were never really followed up with afterwards. And so this was something that was sprung on us about two months ago. And although our properties are small compared to, you know, obviously the applicants, you know, as it stands now, you know, our property is being essentially devalued, right? We're getting de-zoned, if that's the right word. So, you know, this is something that we would like to have further discussions with the applicant, understand, you know, uh what you know is is the process for us to make sure that our property rights are protected um and we just have not had proper time to really flush that out you know we've I've tried to have I've had conversations with Kelly and she's been fantastic. And again, we I think overall would be in support, but we just want to have further discussions on what the impact is for us. You know, my father's owned this property for 40 plus years. has plans or would like to develop or would like to see some value from the investment that he made. And so it's just something that we would like to further explore before this thing gets approved. So that's our comment.

Thank you, sir. Any additional comments from the public? Okay. At this point, we're gonna take council questions to staff or the applicant. Do we have to close public comment? Not yet.

No, the public comment is closed, but we still, staff questions are before the public hearing is closed, and then we close the public hearing and it just goes to the dais.

Council questions for staff or applicant? Yes, Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mayor. I do have a question for Kelly, thank you. So I wanted to talk about the two properties you already highlighted, and then we had our two speakers for tonight, so that East 2nd Street, and then for the on property. So the way I'm understanding it, those are really the two properties that there's a tweak to the zoning essentially, but I'm understanding from what I heard from the speakers. If you can just kind of elaborate on, how that change would affect them. It sounds like if they were to change zoning, right, for a more intense use in the future, if they so chose to do that, how this reduction in housing units, how that could help or how that plays into it if they were to want to try to change it to some different use.

Sure. So currently, as shown on the screen, the property shown in green and purple have one acre lot minimum. So you can do the math on the roughly 24 and 35 acre parcels, I believe they are. And under the Cala Mesa proposed designation, there's a five acre lot minimum. So we've had some discussions with these property owners who seem to be generally interested in potentially applying for future zone change applications. Of course, nothing has been submitted to the city, but there have been preliminary discussions about could this be commercial acreage, could this be higher density residential, could this maybe even be industrial. Again, the intention for this bundle of applications is to bring forward the closest possible available residential designation that matches. And since we don't have a one acre lot minimum, Without creating additional environmental impacts the only available option to us was the five acre lot minimum We've also had discussions preliminary discussions regarding SB 330 Requirements and no net loss and I think that may be what you're alluding to so under SB 330 and Stephen flowers the attorney can jump in at any time if I misspeak but there are provisions in state law that say because of the state housing crisis, which the governor has had come forward with a number of years ago, you can't take properties that are zoned residential and turn them into something that's not residential without accounting for those units somewhere in the jurisdiction where they are. And so to the extent that these owners may be interested in a non-residential designation in the future, this actually benefits them because if there are less units that need to be accounted for, that's less administrative headache for them, to try to understand or create an area in the city where those units may have to be placed. Steven, anything additional? No net loss?

No, I agree with what you said. I'll just add that we also consider the issue of no net loss in the context of the city's own housing element and whether or not the rules which require the city to consider whether or not change in zoning designation to a less tense residential use hurts our arena ability to meet arena obligations. But this land's not currently part of our arena obligation because it's not part of the city. So from a no net loss, from the city's perspective, know that loss, it's not, because this is new territory and we're already meeting our obligations.

So bottom line, should these applicants choose to apply for a zone change in the future, having fewer units assigned to this acreage is actually a benefit to them.

Thank you, thank you very much, appreciate it. That's all I have, Mayor, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Yeah, Council Member Condu.

Just to go over a couple points, Kelly, that you mentioned earlier, just to make sure. So there was no new development planned for any of these properties that are going to possibly be annexed within our city, is that correct?

Correct, there are no applications on file.

Okay, and then after what you just said, I think this next question, I just have to say it though, but working with those landowners, it sounds like the city is very open to doing that. if and when they decide to do something with their land. Is that correct?

Very much so. It's literally my full-time job, sir.

Okay, perfect. And then for Will, city manager, earlier you said tax would not change. Just wanna make sure that those that are being possibly incorporated into our city, there's not gonna be any crazy hidden costs or any crazy tax that we're gonna impose on them if this happens.

No, we're not. So the application, number one, doesn't change property taxes, like I said earlier. We don't, and we're also not annexing them into any assessment districts. So any districts that they are in today, that would continue. So almost every property tax bill has a little contribution to Metropolitan Water District, those kind of things remain. There's no additional things that will be added to any tax bill.

Super, thank you, that's all I had. Great questions, thank you. Anyone else? Yes, Council Member Garcia.

I think my colleagues actually asked all the questions right, just it sounds like The questions from David was probably already answered, which is good news and Tim as well too. Looking forward with this project and in supporting the communities and the new residents hopefully in the future that will be part of Calumet as well too. Thanks.

Thank you, sir. Anything from Council Member Molina?

my my concerns have been already addressed by my colleagues as well thank you very much thank you okay mr mayor before you close the public hearing i did want to just clarify one thing for the record um something that mr jaggers had actually mentioned um regarding um you know the direction for regarding the island that could be possibly created um i think we need to clarify because we talk about lafco and it's county it's county stuff and The Riverside County LAFCO is an independent organization. It is separate from the county. And this originally came up, and just full disclosure, in a discussion with the county. And they said, well, you understand this will create an island. We have a policy against that. And generally speaking, and we're talking about organization of services, LAFCO law, the law from 2000, does discourage the creation of islands as well. To his point, doesn't mean that they strictly prohibit them, because they certainly exist all throughout the state. Most of them are kind of legacy things from prior law. So the 2000 law kind of cleaned some of that up. But I did just want to clarify, it wasn't LAFCO that's giving direction on something like that. They're just advising us of it's discouraged by state law and policy. And the county is the one that actually told us that it is also against their policy. So it would be difficult for them to support as well. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

Understood, it's important clarification. Anything else before we close public hearing? All right, close public hearing. Any final remarks, comments from council?

I'd just like to say that I think this is a good project. I think this is a good thing for our city and LAFCO will take care of the issue as it pertains to services and look forward to this running smoothly so we can have that annexation completed.

Thank you, sir. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mayor. I do want to agree with Council Member Cundiff. I mean, I understand the Bombacherry Valley being here and defending their sphere. I totally understand their perspective on that. So I respect them for being here and giving us their take on it. And we understand that it's something that's going to be kind of sorted out later. And this doesn't move forward without a complete annexation, in my opinion. My biggest concern for tonight are those kind of two properties where there were a zone change, so I'm glad that they were, those properties, those people representing those properties were here to speak, so we can clarify kind of what their take is, but I think we adequately addressed it, at least to my satisfaction, for those property owners where there was actually, you know, a small impact. So I'm satisfied with where we're heading, so I'm in support. That's all I have.

Thank you, sir.

And Council Member Garcia. Just echo what my colleagues stated as well, too. I believe that the residents from those two lots, with their questions being answered, and as well with the developer as well, too, by moving forward, will be part of our city of Cali Mesa, so thanks.

Council Member Molina, any final comments?

Yes, I just wanted to say that this is probably good timing and makes good business sense for our city and those property owners. This has been hanging on for quite a while. And I think we should be, I think we all work together and this would be profitable for all of us. And I look forward to a new business venture in our city. And also taking care of the property owners that are affected here. So I'm very favorable of this action coming forward and look forward to seeing it to fruition. Thank you.

Thank you. I have nothing further to add to that. I think my colleagues have said it well. Thanks to everyone who was here from various organizations and members of the public. We will do our best to take all of your interests into considerations. Of course, this is something that the City of Calamity has been trying to do in one form or another Was it 1993? 1993, that's right. 1993. So many decades, this has been in the making, so should be a surprise to no one. So with that, if I could get a motion.

I'll make a motion that we adopt CC resolution 2026-28, approving environmental assessment number EA-25-8, adopting negative declaration number two, adopt CC resolution 2026-29, approving the general plan amendment number GPA-25-2. Three, adopt CC resolution 2026-30, approving annexation number ANNX-25-1. Introduce ordinance number 423, approving pre-zoning application number ZC-25-2 and zone text amendment number ZTA-25-4. Adopt CC Resolution 2026-31, approving Conditional Use Permit Number CUP-25-4, and Adopt CC Resolution 2026-32, approving Conditional Use Permit Number CUP-25-5. Second.

Mayor, I'll second. Thank you.

All right, we have a second from Mayor Pro Tem first. A motion from Council Member McUnduff and a second from Mayor Pro Tem. All right, roll call vote, please.

Council Member Cundiff?

Yes.

Council Member Garcia?

Yes.

Council Member Molina?

Definitely yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Manley? Yes. Mayor Cervantes?

Yes, so that is 5-0. Item.

Mr. Mayor, if you'll allow me to read the full title of the ordinance. Council's action included introduction of ordinance number 423, an ordinance of the city of Cala Mesa, California, approving zone text amendment 25-04. amending title 18 of the municipal code to establish a new warehouse overlay zone and zone change 25-2 amending the city zoning map to pre-zone approximately 314.4 acres located east of the city and north of the 110 freeway i'm sorry i-10 freeway in connection It's a different place. In connection with its annexation by the city, including application of the new warehouse overlay zone to the approximately 138.7 acres of the annexation area that are currently developed with two warehouse buildings. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Okay. finish lines in sight here. At this point, mayor and council members are gonna provide a brief report on the county and regional meetings or general comments. So we'll begin with council member Garcia.

First and foremost, I wanna say thank you for the city staff and everybody that was in support and helping out our developer and our land residents as well too. So thank you so much for all the support that you guys have done to have this agenda item 20 to move forward with our next steps.

Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Council Member Cundey.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, I'd like to say, I know they're all shuffling out and leaving, but thank you to Mayor Venable, who was here, and some of our other electeds from the region, and also to those that participated from the water agencies that came and spoke, so appreciate them being here and giving that. As far as, and staff, absolutely to staff, you guys always do a great job, and thank you for the time and the hard work that you put into this. As far as meetings, on 6-18-26, I attended the WRCOG General Assembly, which some of us on the council were all there, and staff, and it was more of a end of the fiscal year, so not really a whole lot to report from that. And then on 6-22-26, I attended the Tumpf Past Zone meeting, and we'll have some additional information to follow from that. And of course, the rest of the meetings were dark for July, so. we'll pick back up in August. And that's all I have. Thank you, sir.

Council Member Molina.

Thank you. First of all, I'd like to personally thank everyone who attended our meeting tonight. I'm sorry that I couldn't be there in person. I have a medical condition right now that prohibits that. But I'm so happy to hear of all the participation we had tonight. This is a very important action. But more importantly, it's great relationships that we have with our other business partners. And I'd like to thank the staff for all the hard work. This has been quite a lot of time consumed in this. And I think we're making a good business decision. And I'm just sorry that I'm not there in person to thank everyone. But I'm very appreciative of the fact that I could participate tonight. So I did not attend any public meetings to report. Thank you again.

Thank you, Council Member. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mayor. I just kind of echo my colleagues here. I do appreciate all the staff's hard work on these. They're two big items for us, so I appreciate all of their work. It's been a long time coming on some of these very large projects, so there's a lot of work behind the scenes. And then everyone that showed up here and chiming in on all the different items. So it's important for a lot of people in the city and in the region. So I appreciate everyone being here. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. I also want to thank staff for putting together this behemoth of a staff report here, agenda packet. It's a lot of hours went into this, I realize it, and very thorough and some important items. So thank you so much for all your work. And not just this week. Obviously, this represents years of work, right, and the decisions that we made tonight. So thank you so much. I want to also give a special welcome to our new fire chief. Thank you. Interim Fire Chief Paul Lindley. Am I saying that right, Lindley? Yes. Looking forward to you joining the team and all your contributions to our city. So thank you so much. Appreciate you. With that, I think Council Member Cundiff already mentioned I attended the the General Assembly for WRCOG on June 18th. We got to see Tony Hawk, take a couple photos with him. He refused to sign autograph, no, I don't know, but didn't get an autograph. I'm not gonna lie, a bit disappointed, but it was a good event, always is. So with that, that concludes my report. I will now hand it off to our city manager for his comments and report.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just two quick things. Next Monday, July 27th, between 10 AM and noon at Cafe Royale, RSO will be hosting Coffee with a Cop. So hope the council and community can come hang out with our officers at that. And then there is going to be free basic CERT training hosted by Riverside County Emergency Management Department right here at City Hall, that'll be August 28th through the 30th. You can visit rivcoready.org slash cert, C-E-R-T, for more information and to register. And that's all I've got, thank you.

Thank you, sir. And now before we go to closed session, our city attorney will announce the two items that we will be discussing.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will read those two closed session items. I would also recommend that the mayor allow for public comment as to these two items since it was unclear earlier that this, particularly the second item, was going to be on the agenda in case somebody wants to comment.

Should I do that after you announce it? Yeah, I'll announce the two items and then I would recommend you allow for public comment.

So the two items on the closed session agenda, our first, item 21A, conference with labor negotiators, city negotiators, city manager, and the deputy city manager, the represented employees are the Cala Mesa Professional Firefighters Association. The second item, 21B, as added to the agenda earlier this evening, is conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation in the matter of City of Cala Mesa versus Everest Reinsurance. Case number 25-7356 in the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to section 54956.91 of the Brown Act. Thank you.

Sir, with that, I'll ask our city clerk if we have any public comments on the two closed session items.

No public comments.

Okay, with that council will now end this portion of our meeting and go into closed session. Thank you for being here.