City Council - Regular Meeting

All righty. Good evening. And I will um bring us back from close session and call this regular session city council meeting um to order at 6:38. John, can we get a report out for close session?

Yes. The council met in close session. Item B1 was conference with legal counsel regarding potential initiation of litigation for potential cases. No reportable action was taken. Item B2, conference with labor negotiators, the agency designated representative Henry Garcia as designign, the unrepresented potential employee, the city manager. No reportable action taken on that item. Item B3, public employee appointment employment title city manager. No reportable action taken on that item. And item B4, public employee performance evaluation title interim city manager. No reportable action taken on that item. All righty. Thank you. And can I get a roll call, please? I forgot to get roll call coming back. Council member Laura

here. Council member Finn. Yes. Council member Martinez here. Mayor Prommoy here. Mayor Voit here. All righty. And if we could please get the invocation by Ron Dri.

Happy New Year. Absolutely. Thank you to the council on behalf of various pastors. I have the privilege to connect with them and invite them to come and do the invocation. It's a privilege for all of us to do that. So just want to thank you and wish you a happy new year. Let's pray. Holy father, thank you for the opportunity we have to invoke your presence in this the first meeting for the Bowmont City Council here, the regular session. And I pray you'll bless as this year there are challenges that will be met, decisions that have to be made. And so today I want to pray and uh dedicate these council members specifically mayor Voit, Mayor Prom White, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Fen, Council Member Lara, and the rest of the team as they all work together so that they can be a blessing in the city and beyond in Jesus name. Amen. Thank you.

And if everybody can please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Place your right hand over your heart. Ready? Begin. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All righty. Thank you. And do we have any adjustments to the agenda? I don't think so. And uh any conflicts of interest to disclose early on? All right. Then we will move on to our announcements and recognition. I believe we have uh Bowmont Cherry Valley Recreations and Park District here to go over their event schedule.

Thank you, Madame Mayor, members of the council. Mickey Valdivia, general manager for the park district in Bulmont. So, I'll be brief, which is rare, but I also wanted to uh let uh Mayor or Mayor Pro Tim White know that I did wear my Dodger gear. It's kind of a little comeback to your uh San Diego Padres thing the other night. So, I was very conscious about what I wore. So, anyways, um like I said, we we have an event schedule. We really only have two major events going on at Noble Creek. The rest will be either at uh Bogart Park or some of our other facilities, but we are opening up with our uh annual welcome home Vietnam veterans which we started in about 2006. And mayor, we'd love to uh put you on the on the docket if we if you will. It's a Friday and it's the exact day that it happens pretty much around the country. So, um like the previous mayors have partaken in that. So, we'll we'll offer you that invitation. We'll reach out to you for that as well. Um, but essentially we are trying a a few new events. We are moving and this is typical for us. We are moving our Cinco de Mau up to Bogart Park, but we're calling it a michelada festival. I don't quite know exactly what that means cuz we're just trying it out, but love to have you bring your favorite mechelada recipes, whether it be non-alcoholic or broughtwur and whatever you want in it. We will accommodate it, but we're kind of making it up as we go along. But really the the thrust of of what we're doing at Noble Creek within the confines of the city of Belmont really is our uh barbecue bash which is uh just really gaining more popularity um as well as our annual October Fest. So just wanted to be here to assure everybody we absolutely intend on sharing all that critical information. Thanks for all the planning that you've done for making our special events um even that much better. And Mr. vessel that that stop sign that four-way stop sign is amazing. So, thank you so much for that. Everybody is just so much

safer. And then finally, I'll close with the with Mr. Romo. Thank you for availing yourself to me. Um it's, you know, as you guys have been in transition, there's been a lot of discussions about many things. Um that goes with your legal counsel. I know that he's working with ours as well as we mitigate some other issues that are going on. But looking forward to a very exciting 2026 again um as we share a lot of the same constituents with the exception of our friends in Cherry Valley. But uh just want to say thank you. Well, thank you. What's the date for the Vietnam? The Vietnam veterans is the 27th of March. March. Yeah. So, we'll send that event schedule out to you. I thought we did, but uh perhaps we didn't, but love to get that schedule out to everybody. Okay. Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for your guys' partnership always. We we always appreciate that. All righty. We will move on to public comment uh period. Any one person may address the city council on any matter not on the agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out a public comment form provided at the back table and give it to the city clerk. There's a 3minut time limit on public comments. There will be no sharing or passing of time to another person. State law prohibits the city council from discussing or taking actions brought up by your comments. Do we have any public comment? I have no written requests. Simone, do we have any callers on the line? We have no callers at this time.

All righty. We'll move on to uh G, the consent calendar. Are there any items to be pulled for discussion? Mayor, would you mind pulling G15, please? Sure. All righty. Item G15 will be pulled and I'll entertain a motion for 1 through 14. Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve consent calendar items 1 through 14. No second. Can I get a roll call? Council member Laura? Yes. Council member Finn. Yes. Council member Martinez. Yes. Mayor Promo. Yes. Mayor Voy. Yes. And I will hand that over to you, Council Member Laura.

Thank you so much, Mayor. Just very quickly, just wanted to um let you know why or let you know why I would vote no on this particular policy. The concerns I have obviously deal with the Brown Act um in the fact that just having a majority of the electeds together to hear anyone um in a meeting um is a violation. We have always tried to um recuse ourselves out of an abundance of caution uh when we're in having a open public meeting. It uh concerns me that we wouldn't do that when we're having meetings that are not in the public view. So that's all I have on that mayor. So with that, I'll make a motion to uh to approve this item.

I'll second. All right. Can I get a roll call, please? Council member Laura. No. Council member Finn. Yes. Council member Martinez. Yes. Mayor Pro Tim White. Yes. Mayor Voy. Yes. All right. That sends us to the youth council report. Do we have any youth council tonight? No youth council this evening. Okay.

Very good. And we will move on to our public hearings. Um for this public hearing it will be um item I1 public hearing to consider the approval of tenative trackm 38926 to subdivide uh 12.58 58 gross acres into 49 single family residential lots and for this item I will be recusing myself as my residence is within 1,000 ft.

Our associate planner Jill will be given this presentation. Good evening. Let me pull up our presentation. Okay. Good evening, council. Jillian Fountain, planning staff. This item is a public hearing to consider approval for tenative track map number 38926. The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide approximately 12.58 gross acres into 49 single family residential lots. The site is located south of Norman Road and east of Orchard Heights Avenue. The subdivision would include 49 residential lots, four lettered lots, including a retention basin, two public streets, and one private road. No homes are being approved at this time. Any featured development would require approved plot plans, a final track final track map, and building permits. The site is designated in zone single family residential and the project is consistent with the general plan in Bowmont municipal code. The project is SQA exempt under guideline section 15183 and is in and is consistent with the general plan land use and density. The planning commission held a public hearing on October 22nd, 2025 and voted 5 to zero to forward a recommendation of approval to the city council. Public noticing was completed and no comments have been received as of this staff report preparation. If approved, the tenative track map would be valid for 24 months with the option of a request for a one-year extension. Based on the findings in the staff report, staff recommends that the city council hold a public hearing, adopt the findings, approve tenative trackmap number 3896 26 subject to the conditions, and direct

staff to file a notice of exemption with the county clerk recorder. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. And the applicant is here as well.

Yes, I'm on the on the um Okay. Do we have any public comments? Um I have no uh no comments, but we will will need to open the public hearing. Okay, we'll open the public hearing at 6:49. I have no written requests. Simone, do we have any callers on the line? We have no callers at this time. Okay. Um we'll open this up to council discussion. Are there any? Uh, Council Member Martinez.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim. Um, so, you know, a couple of things I I have concern with. So, I'm I'm really trying to keep our standards consistent in the city. Um, and I really have an issue with that um, Orchard Heights Road. It's it's very narrow and I I just don't think that we're we're upholding our standards by allowing that to um having that as a thorough fair when it's really not designed for that. And with no cars parked on that, you're really sending it a disservice to those houses along that road. But I'm mostly worried about the safety. I'm worried about the safety issues posed. For instance, if you're going to have cars that are parked there that aren't supposed to be there, now I I I turn it into a code enforcement issue. Are we going to be monitoring that all the time? Are we going to be relying on residents to keep calling uh to have enforcement come out? Um and then for those that are there and until enforcement can get there, you're posing a safety issue in my opinion with the narrowness of the road uh for large um emergency vehicles. So, I really have an issue with that. Um, I don't necessarily have an issue with the idea and concept of houses in there in that area, but I don't think that the way it's designed with that narrow road uh just serves that community uh any any value there. So, my concerns lie with one that road and the second concern I have um lies with Brookside and Orchard Heights. Um, I do believe that there is a stop sign that is conditioned to go there. Um, so Robert, let me know if that's true. Um, and then yeah, there is currently not a condition

for that stop sign. However, in preparation, staff has prepared a a condition and if it's council's direction to include that, we can.

Okay. So, thank you for that. So, yeah. So when you look at that whole span of Brookside going from Cherry all the way to Highland Springs, there's nothing there. And Brookside maintains to be one uh lane in each direction. So for those cars that are going uh westbound that are going to turn left, they're going to hold that whole traffic behind them, which is a safety issue. And then of course the other one coming in an east direction, I do believe there's a turning lane going to be installed there. Um but for cars coming out of Orchard trying to make a left then you again uh create the safety issue on a very heavy now heavily traveled road. So that's my second concern. My third concern has to do with the way that the the street is of course currently used as a drainage. So I do believe there's some improvements coming at some time for that road. However, I'm I'm concerned about the timing. I'm concerned about the timing of that versus the timing of a project and um as well as the drainage that you know that's created along there. So that's my third concern as far as the drainage and the road. And then lastly I really believe and I don't know if it's warranted a signal there. Um, and what's what's become of Brookside, if you've traveled Brookside, it becomes a thorough affair because everyone's coming down Highland Springs going towards the high school and they're using that area, that Brookside as as a main road back and forth. And what I'm concerned about is anything that we do there that's going to affect that. and I want to make sure that we're looking at all of those issues because now the stop sign will help with the, you know, breaking up the traffic, but now you're going to create this backlog and and I'm concerned about that as well. So, I

bring these concerns to the council just as a part of discussion to see where we go with it. Um, but those are are my my four main ones. So, that's all for now. Mayor Prom, Council Member Finn. Yes. Thanks, Mayor Prom. So, I've got a handful of questions. I'll start off with the I know the area is in a flood zone and so my questions are with the with the drainage improvements along street A um I'm sorry and Norman Road in particular, excuse me, will that um would that help facilitate that that it can go back maybe to whoever is in charge of the flood maps to have them reassess it and perhaps maybe there were not in a flood zone. Is does it work that way? Is that even possible?

Yeah. So that the city is not requiring this, but should should the developer pursue this, I believe that they can amend the the uh map, the flood plane map by going through the FEMA process to do that.

Okay. All right. Thank you. And then um I also have a concern with lots one through six. And so I've got several questions related to that. um on the subject of of drainage. So, I'm on um agenda page 834 and it shows the the the map of the project and in the top left corner where you see Norman Road and it starts to go down to lot D um for that extended driveway. It looks like there's a storm drain there. Is that correct, Robert?

Yes, that is And then so then my question would be would there be an easement underneath these properties that would run down to the retention basin? And if so, would those run under driveways or would it curve back around and go under potentially the backyards? The reason for the question is would it prevent any potential future ADUs or pools for lots one through six? So in this case, uh, no. the the storm drain comes out of the catch basin on the east side of it, excuse me, west side of it. Okay. And then travels to the center line of uh lot D and down the middle of lot D.

Okay. Very good. Okay. And then so then questions now related to lot D. If I read it correctly, lot D will be paid via concrete, not asphalt. Is that correct? I'll have to confirm that. Okay. And

also with lots one through six, because there's a shared driveway, would those six lots have a higher association dues to maintain that driveway and that cost not be shared with the other lots throughout the the project or is that a builder decision? I think that that would be an internal discussion for for the HOA. Okay. Um and there's no proposed sidewalk down lot D. Correct. No.

Okay. And so me trying to v visualize what it's going to look like. Well, the front from the front of the homes with your back to to the home looking straight out your driveway, you're going to have a nice view of a block wall that is there for, you know, the adjoining neighborhood. So, I don't think it's going to very going to be very nice for those six lots. Um, what I don't understand I have a question on is when you're looking at lot D, the wording that's shown next to lot maybe I think I may have seen this somewhere else. I I came across something that said um X public row to be vacated. What does that mean? So there was a I believe a map that underlines this property and there is a an existing paper street that bounds the westerly PL, the southerntherly PL and the easterly PL. They are proposing to vacate that right away and then with the map remap it.

Okay. Um, and then when it comes to parking, lot D needs to be clear. And I I would imagine that for lots one and six, any visitors would probably be parking on um street A and on um Norman, you know, to to help alleviate that. But when we start to get through lots through five, I think that's where the congestion might lie. Is there any way that we can impose that there would be room, adequate room for a driveway long enough to accommodate three vehicles wide, perhaps like a threecar garage or at least a longer driveway? Because I would imagine and just based on basic economy nowadays, it takes two incomes to to purchase a home. So you probably have two two workers each with their own car. And then if you've got another family member, even a visitor, there's your third car for each home site to not try to block that. and try to prevent, you know, having to police it on a regular basis and so forth.

Do we know what's going to go on? I know plot plans aren't done yet or anything like that, but can we that's force that issue? Something that we can discuss with the builder. Um, they are here and they can speak to that when we do open. Okay. As well. And just to note, council member, these are 66t wide lots, so that is enough room to accommodate uh a driveway for three vehicles and a threecar garage.

Oh, very nice. Okay. Um, I think that that that covers some of my concerns. Just a thought would be is if we want to attain a little bit more conformity is we remove two lots out of the the equation, it would be lots three and four in a sense on how it's written and then we turn lots one and two around. They have deeper home, you know, deeper depth on the lot. And then same thing with five and six. And so if there's any any change that the council doesn't like, if they don't like the other, you know, the full six lots there in that shared driveway, then perhaps maybe we can um the the the developer would be willing to to make that change and they're not losing too many home sites out of it. But we've got two that have very large backyards and perhaps they can, you know, earn a large lot premium or something like that to help offset the cost of losing profit on selling two homes. Um the street

um it would it would keep the same. And so the example would be where you see lot six it's the front of the home would be facing west. um it would now face south and then you would in a sense take five, you know, and cut that in that width in half and then you would have, you know, two lots facing, you know, south with deeper backyards that extend all the way to the um the border of third the fourth third and fourth lots. And then you do the same things with lot one and two on Norman.

And I think there's enough room to to put that in there. just in general, in my opinion, if you've got a 50 or a 55 foot wide home site, you have plenty of room, you know, to put a put a home in there and, you know, two-car garage, nice driveway, room room to park a car in front and so forth. Um, but I really just do not like the I'll call it an alley concept with that driveway. It just it I want to keep the standards that we're trying to to to put forth um and don't want it to turn into a code enforcement issue. Um, so those are my comments. Uh, Mayor Proen, thank you. Uh, Council Member Lara.

Thank you, Mayor Prom. Um, it it seems like we all have the same concerns in regards to the the private uh driveway. Um, quick question. on a private since it's identified as a private driveway. My understanding is is that code enforcement nor the police department would be able to enforce the no parking. Am I correct in that is the the first s um people who would be monitoring that would be the HOA in place. Um but you're correct in the code enforcement.

So the city would not have any enforcement authority on a private driveway. Correct. For no parking. Well, only if the association doesn't take action, then the city would come into it.

Okay. So, the concerns that I have is when you walk through and I'm I'm okay with the development, doing the houses, this the subdivision, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a concern over is a safety um provided by lot D or maybe not provided by lot D. So, if the HOA has responsibility to ensure that that drive is maintained or stays clear, anytime that you walk any track subdivision, they're flooded with cars all along the street. Typically, you can't fit more than two cars in a driveway. I like council member Finn's idea, but somebody has a birthday party or a party, they're not going to they're going to park in front of the they're going to park on that driveway. So then you've got the issue with the HOA trying to enforce no parking. Um I understand that the reason it there is no parking at least as I I'm assuming I shouldn't I shouldn't say understand but um is fire is going to be using that as a secondary access. So every subdivision has to have the primary and a secondary access. I think that secondary access needs to be Orchard Heights should be taken all the way through. that eliminates the issues and the concerns and the safety issues. This is in a in near a very high fire area and all it's going to take is for one birthday party to block this private alley or this private drive and we limit these is it I think it's 70 is it that many? Now, these 49 residents are have one exit out of that subdivision. That that's a a safety concern for me because you're just not going to you're going to tell the people you can't when you come to visit. We have three cars in the driveway. You're going to have to park uh on the culde-sac or around the corner or down the street. I know it's

raining, but you you've got to walk anyways. Um that's a huge concern for me. I think that needs to be Orchard Heights needs to go all the way through. My opinion, um the other the only other question I have is I didn't see any conditions uh obviously that require the stop sign on Brookside, nor do I see any conditions that would require a turn pocket uh on Brookside for Orchard Heights. Um I I'm in agreement with Council Member Martinez. I think that there should be a turn pocket there. Uh, I don't see when you look at um what is it the maps that I don't think we can get a turn pocket for um what is it? Sandra Drive. Is that what it is up that way?

Yes.

Um yeah, I don't because there's a lot that sits right on the street. I don't think you'd have the rightway there, but I there does appear to be right away before Orchard Heights. So, what I would like to suggest is that there's a turnpocket on Brookside before Orchard Heights with a stop sign or you do a signal light study. I think I'd like to see Orchard Heights go all the way through because it was papered as a road at one point. Um, and that's going to and that will eliminate the issue of the no parking, the monitoring of that. uh whether you red curb it or not the city would not have any jurisdictional authority to enforce that. So then you leave it to an HOA which um I know sometimes HOAs and enforcement issues have uh it's a delicate balance shall we say. Um so those are my comments. Um this map as it exists right now I could not support.

Okay. Thank you. So can you just give me um an understanding of where we are in the approval process? In other words, um there's no development agreement, correct? Because it's is that correct? No. No development agreement. Okay. And so if we approve a tent tentative track map, what does that mean? Going forward, we're locked into this. Yes. So then they would be able to um record this with the final track or final map. Okay. Um, so if we want to suggest or make any recommendations, changes, this is our time to do that. And all of the issues that were brought up here by my colleagues, were these brought up during planning commission?

No. Okay. And my my question or concern is um lot B or yeah lot D or um Orchard Heights that is part of the Calvary Chapel development and can you uh remind me on what that um that uh impact is with their development at this point? Are they required to do do the road? Does this does the new builder, you know, assume some of that responsibility or just sort of give me a feedback on that?

Sure. So, this development would pave Orchard Heights from the current terminus of uh the Calvary Chapel Orchard Heights driveway. Okay. uh south they'll widen it a little bit but it'll it'll be the burden of Calvary Calvary Chapel Calvary Chapel when they get um entitled to widen orchard height for the frontage of their project.

So does this increase or decrease any responsibility of Calvary Chapel and their development? It provides some paving which Calvary Chapel would have to do but it doesn't provide the full width of the road that that will be the burden of Calvary Chapel. And that project is in SQA at this point or where where's that project? It it is in pre-entitlement or not yet entitled. Yeah, they're working through their SQA documents.

The Calvary Chapel is okay. And um what's the timeline? In other words, again, I know you don't can't give me a definite timeline, but um would CH Calvary Chapel be further ahead in the process here? Well, this will not have to go through SQA or this project's already completed their SQA analysis. Um so, they're further in the process. Okay. So, they would probably start construction before Calvary Chapel starts their final construction, I would say. So, yes. Okay. Any other comments? So, are we ready to approve it? How do we

I didn't It didn't sound like we are. Question. If we want the revisions made and for it to come back, can we ask for that or how would we ask for that? You may, sir. You may provide comments as to what you'd like to see revised on this map. Knowing this is a tenative track map. Once it's approved, then the developer would go through the process of meeting all the conditions of approval. And then the final map before that gets recorded comes to you for approval as well. Okay. And let me jump in real quick before we go forward. If the uh developer would like to discuss any of the issues, respond. I just want to make sure you have that opportunity.

Yep, I would.

Uh which button do I hit? Oh, it's on. All right, here we go. All right, so it seems like the majority of the concerns are on lot D on the uh private street. So, we started off with three lots there in a public street. The uh if you notice on our map and our conditions of approval, we're supposed to be improving we're conditioned to improve Norman Road outside of our project. That was that was a um negotiation with the city. City asked us to do that. They said, "Hey, look, to to to fund that, we'll work with you to get some extra lots in here so you will do full improvements on Norman Road." So, we we agreed to that. So, everything that you are complaining about was not originally proposed by us, by the developer. They came from city staff. We thought it was reasonable, totally reasonable what they asked for and we went along with it. So if if we want to go back remove our requirement to put improvements on Norman Road and go back to three lots along Orchard Heights, then we'll agree to that. We just This process has taken so long, so long working through the city and even getting here to city council has taken three months since we went to planning commission. So, we're we're a little tired of of of taking this long and now we're talking about revising the map again. And this is the first we've heard of it. No, no one's brought up this concern up to this point. So, we're we're pliable. We'll work with you, but we just need to know what the direction is.

Okay. And what was your name? Brian King. Brian Holmes. Are you open to questions from council? Oh, yeah. Did anyone would like to ask uh questions? Yeah. So I want to ask then what how do you respond to our our concerns about the the leng the width of that road there coming off of Heights? The the width was proposed by city staff in return so we could fit more lots there in return for us coming in and improved nor improving Norman Road off of our project site. That's not typically something we would be required to do. What was the width of that road to begin with? Has it always been that size? I

whatever the city standard was, I I don't recall off top of my head. So, you're saying that it was at one point the same size as the other street in width? Yes. But in order to get your request to put more lots or our request to improve Norman, the city's the city's request of us to improve Norman and they made the suggestion that we we make that a private street so we can add more lots there to offset the cost of improving Norman. Okay, I see what you're saying. So it wasn't your intention to put more lots there to begin with? Not originally. No. So, your original request was fewer lots, no improvements on Norman, but a regular whatever the width is,

a standard public. Okay. Appreciate that clarification. Council member Laura. Yeah, Mr. King. So, um, your improvements then would only be I'm talking about Norman so we're clear. Um, would only be for the width of the lot that would face or front Norman. Correct. That's what typically If you were to put in Orchard Heights the for the full width. Yes. Okay. And then um were you have any concerns? Are you agreeable or amicable to the the turn pocket off of Brookside in the stop sign?

Um yeah, I know. I'd have to look at that's the first time that's come up also. So I I can't say either way on that. I that's pretty far off our site. So, I don't I don't know. I'd have to take a look at it. Right. Understood. But the So, the the traffic analysis or the traffic study did not require any stop sign or No, because the this development is less than 100 units. It It didn't require a TIA. Okay. So, you'd have to look at it obviously before you could commit to it in in this public hearing. So, I understand that. Um

Okay. So, it's either the the private alley or the full width of Orchard Heights um with no improvements to Norman other than what your your subdivision would front on. Correct. That's what we originally proposed. Yes, understood. It'd be lot So, lot 22 there'd be an improvement there and then there'd be an improvement for whatever lot. Maybe it's ends up being lot one with the revision that you make. Yeah, correct. Okay, understood. Thank you very much, Mr. We thought staff's suggestion was was reasonable, so that's why we went along with it. So, understood.

Well, and a quick question at the Orchard Heights, is that going to be used as um an entryway for Calvary Chapel also? It will. Yeah, it's their primary entrance. It'll be their primary entrance or Orchard Heights, right? Yeah. Okay,

Mr. Martinez. Well, I just wanted to follow up to staff now because now the story is not quite what I understood it to be and so I'm a little disappointed on why I'm not getting that story. So explain to me staff then why would we go to a smaller road there? I know obviously to do Norman, but is that something that staff decided to well then it's a give and take. We'd rather have the uh fully developed Norman than having that. I mean, I just need your processing to see how that came about because obviously, you know, our applicant is, you know, didn't realize that was coming. So,

Sure. So, staff made no recommendation for that. Staff requested it be a full street. Uh staff also requested uh D Street Dot D, excuse me. Oh, so the Orchard Height Street. Yeah. Staff also requested that Norman Road be extended by virtue of a safe and effective uh utilization of Norman for this subdivision. And I think the applicant came back and argued that lot D did not have to be a public street which it it does not. So staff was not able to enforce a road at that location.

Okay. So that clarifies. I appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. Council member Finn.

Yes. Thank you. Uh Mr. King, would it would it be feasible for you if you went with my suggestion and cut and and change the the orientations of those of those lots, remove lot D. Um and then you end up removing two two home sites out of that. Is that um Well, if we're going to remove two, I'd just rather remove three and and remove the condition to improve Norman Road. Okay. So if Robert So question with that then if he were to do that so are so I sorry back to you Mr. King. So if you did that you would only have one lot facing Norman Road would that be correct or would there be would there be two home sites there?

There's still well there there'd be two facing Norman Road. One on the uh on what we're calling lot Deer Orchard Heights and one over on street B. No, it's not facing it, but it it's adjacent to normal. Okay. So, you don't So, where on the map that we're looking at in the in the agenda packet, lot one would be one one home site there only. Correct. There'd be three along Orchard Heights in that area where there's six lots right now. Okay. Just uh

sir to clarify what the council member is saying over on street A. Would there be two uh lots fronting street A and two lots fronting uh Norman? No. There there would be a lot on the corner of of Orchard Heights and Norman, a lot on the corner of Orchard Heights and Street A, and a lot in between those two. So you'd have a third lot in the middle, not the houses would be oriented, but they'd be oriented differently. they fit the lots differently. From my from my memory, they were longer. Yeah. Yeah. So, the orientation of those lots proposed would just be instead of um deeper, they would just be longer in the fronts. Does that make

They're w they're wider in a sense from if you're facing the lot, they're wider lots. So, the house is is shaped differently. Would the entrances be then on Norman and they would they would all be off orchard heights. The answer see what I want. Oh, I got you. Okay. So, if I understand correctly, lot D is removed. Orchard Height extends all the way to the south to street A. Correct. It is a normal wide street. Correct. Very similar to what you were suggesting, I believe. Well, my suggestion was it didn't connect all the way through,

but that's okay. Um, all right. So then so the so we have a road that connects all the way down and then we have so we go from six home sites to two three. Where's the Oh, I got you. Okay. Cuz it's a wide Okay, I got it. Okay. Um is that is that feasible and still run when you run numbers for the whole project? Is that

Yeah, that's what that's in your in in your view not improving Norman Road and that it remains a dirt road from the easterly edge of the lot that faces Nor that that's on the corner of Norman and Orchard. Um and then those three home sites are in front of it to Morin Drive. That's that remains dirt. Correct. Correct.

What's staff's thought on that one? Obviously, you know, we we we you know, if they're going to improve and there's going to be traffic to that house, then it should be a paved road to meet our standards. Um, for me, it doesn't seem like it's much to to no offense, sir. Put on the developer, but at the same time, we have three home sites that are there would benefit by having a paved street. It will increase the value of those homes. Um, so they benefit. Now, I know there's it's just a dirt road there. was recently viewed that home that was on for sale on Norman. So, I've been down there and so forth. Um, but when it's done, if we've got new homes there, there's our opportunity to get that road paved. Um, and so I think it should be on the developer on that. Um, and again, I just don't like the alley concept of lot D. So, um,

you're talking about the width. You call it alley, but I'm correct.

Yeah. So, I think it's a compromise with the council's saying and what the original plan was that the I think the council, correct me if I'm wrong, guys, we would approve it if it were three home sites, a full street length, full width all from all from Norman down to street A, and the developer um improved Norman Road in front of those three existing home sites. I I would think it would be a nice project if that was taken care of. And I don't think we have any issues with code enforcement or anything like that. Um and the what's different today then is is the developer sacrifices three home sites.

So Mr. King, before we go to Mr. Laura had a couple more questions. Uh just I know this is probably too far advanced. I got a realtor over here and a building official here and I develop web applications. So, um just any idea on the size of the homes, what what you're planning on putting there?

Um we've got floor plans laid out and off top of my head, I don't know if Jillian remembers by square footages. They're generally compared to what's built these days are smaller. So, they're going to be, I think, in the high high teens, maybe 2,000 up to maybe 3,000 or 2,800, something like that. We we we try not to go too large. We try to make our homes attainable. Okay, Mr. So, I I see what staff

Sorry. Thank you, sir. I see what staff is referring to now in regards to Norman Road. That's an unimproved area. And what they're indicating is that your development bringing that traffic in could would you'd probably still have to do the improvement. I don't know if it's is it a half with improvement? I don't recall reading that in the conditions. There's no nexus for us to do those improvements. There just isn't.

So, there's no nexus for you to tie. Okay, understood. Um, so Orchard Heights all the way through. I still think at least Norman Road should be improved half width to connect to um Marine. That's just one one council member. So um because what's going to happen is if we do the turn pocket on Orchard Heights, Orchard Heights would be the primary entrance. So cars I mean cars could use Norman or cars could use lot A was I'm sorry lot A. Yeah, street A off of lot D. So traffic could still use that that Norman road. You couldn't prohibit traffic from using that Norman road for your development. That's the concern that I have as well. I think that's why staff was asking for that. You see, if you look at the the aerial photos, it's dirt. It's a dirt road.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, Mr. Romo, how do we move forward? What do you suggest? Well, I was going to ask our public works director, lot D and that area that's being vacated, is that necessary access or can that entire area be vacated to create four lots? I think you'd have to consult with the fire department and PD. Uh from a uh engineering standpoint, lot D is not necessary, but but it is a secondary access for emergency services for emergency. Okay.

So that is needed and that's why the three lots. So at this point uh you would give us direction as to uh you we need to go back and uh redesign this to uh meet your comments and uh this would then come back to the um actually might have to go back to the planning commission. Um or I can identify with legal here if a modification like this would still be necessary because you're looking at less lots than in other words less intensity. So, I'm thinking in my opinion that you do not have to go back to planning commission. We can come back to you with a revised map.

Yeah, I would because of the time that it's taken so far. I would I would appreciate it if we don't if we can bring it back to us. I'm sort of surprised that planning commission didn't bring up any of these concerns. Yeah, I was too. Um, Mayor Prin, may I ask did my um concern for the stop sign a part of this um bring back? Is that noted? because I was confused because because it was less than 100, it wasn't required to do a study. Is that what I was heard? Yeah, that that is correct. However, adding a stop sign uh is not a financial burden on the

Yeah. No, I mean, from what we hear from the public on that Brookside is absolutely necessary to look at. You know, the the amount of we hear from the public is unreal. and I I'm not going to approve a project that's going to somewhat contribute, you know, and and hear that we didn't do anything about it. So, it's just not going to happen. So, make sure that that's a part of the discussion. Okay. Okay. So, do you have enough direction at this point? We do, sir. Yes. Could I get some clarification on the public hearing? Currently, it's open. We have not closed it yet. Do we want to continue to a date specific or close it and renotice?

I think with the direction that we've received, we can go ahead and uh close this public hearing and renotice because again, we're looking at um a revised project for the public. Okay. Okay. So, you can go ahead and close the All right. Did you have anything else for us at this point? No, just I don't know if you guys are still looking at some type of requirement requiring us to improve some part of Norman Road, but there's just like I said before, there's no nexus for that. There's there should be no requirement for that. And the Yeah, I just wanted to make my position known on that. Okay. All right. Thank you.

All right. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing at um 7:26. And we'll bring the mayor back in. There she is. All righty. That will move us on to our action items. We will move on to J1. A public works agreement for repairs and protect protection of city sewer mainline with efferrell. Did I say that right? Uh drainage ditch. And the staff report will be by the van bill.

Thank you. Uh good evening mayor and council. This item before you is to award a contract to perform repairs and protection of the uh city's infrastructure in the ephemeral drainage ditch at the golf course located uh near Hogan Drive. Uh the history there is in March of last year, there was a slope failure that caused uh damage to the city's infrastructure. We came in and did immediate uh remediation and structural repairs to the mainline afterwards. Um we've done a number of studies environmental uh a hydraologist and the determination was that we were still at risk uh in the current conditions and they wanted to um they proposed that we make changes within our easement area over our main line for future protection of the infrastructure. And that's what this contract is for tonight. We use the emergency provision uh that we are under. However, we did still want to ensure uh the best use of the funds. So, we asked uh our designer to utilize or to reach out to people known to do this kind of work that they have had that there's good experience with. And of the four we reached out to, uh one said it was too small of a job for them. Another one did not have uh the calendar. And then we have the two bids there. The engineering estimate was 380. The low bid came in at 323. Um we're recommending awarding to the low bidder. Uh also of note, this is not a budgeted

item. We didn't foresee this. We don't have this in our current budget. So, we worked with uh finance and uh the proposal that this comes out of our um reserves and will be part of a budget amendment uh with the midyear financial report. And with that, I'm available for any questions. All right. Thank you for that staff report. And do we have any public comments? I have no written requests. Simone, do we have any callers on the line? We have no callers at this time. All righty. I will then open it up for council discussion and council member Laura.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, Daxton, so I know that the the bid that we're going with, I think it's M andB, there are some items that are not going to be included. Are you comfortable with those items and those don't pose any concerns for you? Yeah, some of the, you know, the mentioned things, um, it's not a flowing constant stream. it it's considered a ditch, but if they came across any kind of dewatering or anything or you know things like that, we consider that the contractor's means and methods to you know to deal with the project at hand. And also as a part of this, we uh are asking for approval of a 10% contingency that's within the city manager's authority to keep us moving.

Okay. Well, as long as you're comfortable. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mayor. And any other council comments? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion.

Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve the agreement with MB General Engineering, Inc. for the for the in amount not to exceed 323,815 and approve the contingency of 32,382 for a total not to exceed 356,197 and authorize the city manager to sign off on any preceding amendments or purchase change orders within the authorized contingency amount and authorize the insurance of a purchase of the issuance of a purchase order to MB General Engineering in the amount of $356,197 for the purchase of construction services. I'll second. Can I get a roll call, please? Council member Laura, yes. Council member Finn,

yes. Council member Martinez, yes. Mayor Prommoy, yes. Mayor Voit, yes. Thank you.

All right, that will take us on uh to J2, which is a on call traffic engineering service contracts amendment with a staff report by Mr. Bestl. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor Councel. Uh, this item is to extend the contract term for three of our on call services. Uh, when they were originally awarded, it was for three years. Staff would like to extend that additional two for the full extent uh, capable under the Bulmont Municipal Code. Additionally, for a little bit more transparency, these three contracts were awarded with a coupled not to exceed $500,000. Uh we're finding that it it's challenging to uh keep track of that the coupled amount, the the combined amount. So staff is requesting to modify that by assigning each consultant an actual not to exceed amount. Uh and in this particular example, it's fair and peers for 500,000, STC for 480,000, and EXP for 120,000. A change you you'll probably see more often is that these values are for the contract amount and not necessarily or not a uh peranom amount. That concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

All right. And Nicole, do we have any public comments on this? I have no written requests. Simone, do we have any callers on the line? We have no callers at this time. All right. Uh, Council Member Martinez. Um, I'm good. Mayor Prom. Uh, so the 500,000 originally was for the contract amount at that time. It was for all three of them combined for the contract which was Oh, no. I'm sorry. That was for the per perom. Okay. That was 500 perom. Yes. And how did how did that meet our needs? Uh very well.

Okay. And so now you're looking at a total of,00 or 11,000 I'm sorry 1.1 for for two years. Two years between all three of them. That's correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other council discussion? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion. Mayor, I'll move to approve the recommended action. I'll second. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Can I get a roll call, please? Council member Lur, yes. Council member Finn, yes. Council member Martinez, yes. Mayor Prommoy, yes. Mayor Void, yes.

All right. And that will take us on to professional services agreement with Koad and Fox Inc. and Mr. Vestl again.

All right. Thank you. Uh this is to award Kosad and Fox the design for a slope restoration on Desert Lawn in Tuckwood uh golf course. Uh staff originally tried to engineer this plan. However, the failure was increasing beyond staff's capacity. So staff reached out uh for an informal bid and three firms did respond. The reason that uh this item is being brought to council is that the contract for Kosad and Fox is under the threshold for formal bid. However, cumulative with other project the vendor Koad and Fox has done has exceeded 75,000 which is why it's uh being being brought to council. Uh, that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Do we have any public comments? I have no written requests. Simone, do we have any callers on the line? We have no callers at this time. All righty. Opening it up to council. Council member Laura. Yeah, real quick. Um, Robert, do you have any concerns regard regarding the gap between the lowest bidder and Koad and Fox? Are we good with what they're proposing?

We did we we spent extensive time we as in staff sorry spent extensive time with MV5 EXP and KOAD and Fox to make sure that they fully understood the scope. uh we felt that MV5 and EXP were missing something and and um were not able to fully understand the scope and KOD and Fox you'll see in the the staff report was actually willing to negotiate with us and we we do think that we're getting the full scope that we're requesting for a a fantastic price.

Okay. Yeah, I did see in the staff report that you did go back to talk to them. So, I appreciate that that due diligence on on your part. So, thank you. That's all I have. Mayor.

All right. Do we have any other comments from council? And I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the agreement with Koad and Fox, Inc. for professional engineering design services for the period of February uh 2, 2026 through February 2, 2029 in an amount not to exceed $65,984 and authorize the issuance of a purchase order to Kosad and Fox, Inc. in the amount of $65,984 for the purchase of professional engineering design services. I'll second. Can I get a roll call, please? Council member Laura, yes. Council member Finn, yes. Mayor, excuse me. Council member Martinez,

yes. Mayor Projamo, yes. Mayor Voit, yes. All right, we will be moving on to item J4, which is a cooperative agreement for the Highland Springs interchange. And uh before we move forward, city attorney, I'm going to step out on this one because it involves the city of banning as a party and for that reason I'm going to declare a conflict and recuse myself.

And all for you, Robert.

Yeah, thank you. Uh this item is associated with an exhibit I laid uh before you 11 by7 showing plan five the alternate for this project. Uh in summary, RCTC is the lead. They are requesting an additional $2 million to complete the PAED phase. Funding is coming from exclusively from TMP. In this case, it is the zone pass tip TP funds. Uh that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to discuss the agreement or uh any of the design elements before you.

All righty. Thank you. Do we have any public comment on this item? I have no written requests. Simone, do we have any callers on the line? We have no callers at this time. All right. And I will open it up to council for discussion on this item. Mayor, I'll make a re uh motion to approve the recommended action authorizing the mayor to execute the second amendment to the cooperative agreement with the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the city of Banning for the management of the I 10 Highland Springs Avenue interchange project. I'll second. Can I get a roll call? Council member Laura, yes. Council member Finn, yes. Council member Martinez, yes. Mayor Prom White, yes. Mayor Voy,

yes. All righty. And that will move us right along to item J5, our downtown revitalization discussion, also by Mr. Vestal.

All right. Similarly, this item is associated with two exhibits laid at your uh on your table. Uh the first exhibit is a summary of the accounting provided in the staff report. However, it's just a larger font and then has some subtotals to help you uh visualize those numbers. The second sheet is the uh highlevel traffic analysis that was performed by fair and peers. And just a note to council, we do have a representative from fair and peers, Paul Herman, in the audience today to answer any uh technical questions about that study or in general. Uh, a lot of this information is in your staff report was previously provided. I'm just going to touch on some very high points and then open it up uh for council. The downtown revitalization plan was adopted on September 17th, 2024. The design contract for the road improvement segment of that plan was approved on or awarded on September 2nd, 2020, excuse me, 2025, but was later terminated on November 18th, 2025. the road improvement segment of the downtown revitaliz revitalization plan was removed from the CIP and funds uh reallocated to Pennsylvania grade separation during that discussion during the last discussion for downtown revitalization uh traffic analysis was a a large part of that. So staff hired fair and peers to perform a high-level traffic analysis that was provided to staff ahead of time, provided to council, excuse me, ahead of time.

That that analysis looked at if we were to take the four-lane road and reduce it to two lane, what would be the impacts of traffic? And in there, just again summarizing, you would see a a diversion of approximately 700 trips uh that mainly went south along Pennsylvania to first and predominantly north along Pennsylvania to Oak Valley Parkway. Uh it's important to realize that this is just a model that those actual paths may not be interpreted as um fully accurate. They're going to choose whatever path they they want, but it is a good representation of where cars are generally heading. Just one more note on the traffic analysis. uh the impact the 700 trips is approximately 5% of the capacity and that's that that's within the normal fluctuation of day-to-day traffic. So the 700 diverting trips are is not a critical um critical number. Switching to past downtown investment there is a total spend of approximately 5.5 million real estate 2.49 49 million market nights 900,000 incentives uh 89,000 planning and design approximately 500,000 public improvements about 1.5 million uh and the estimated project cost is approximately 27 million but just a lot of caveats on that that we don't know what those look like we don't know the the market at that time so take 27 with a grain of salt

No. So the whole improvement part of the project. So everything within the road, amenities within the road, signage within the road, but nothing outside of that. So no buildings, no no facades, none of the incentive programs. Um selfishly, it's just public works. Sidewalks as well. Lighting. Yeah. Sidewalks and lighting on sixth and B for the for the entire downtown.

Yeah. For the for the area defined in the the downtown specific plan, downtown revitalization plan, excuse me. And there currently is no funding. Uh so with that, that concludes my presentation and staff fair and peers uh are available for any questions. All righty. Thank you for that and thank you for the work that it went in to uh to back this up and and to get um that information. Do we have any public comments on this? I have no written requests. Simone, do we have any callers on the line? We have no callers at this time.

Okay, great. So, seeing that, um I'm going to kind of open it up to council for some discussion. Um I would like to note on this one that um you know kind of laying it out and seeing it all here with knowing some of the expenditures looking at long-term plan. Um you know for me it's definitely something that we've already committed to as evidenced by the a lot of the funding that has uh and expenses that has already been spent. um you know and and continuing to look at how we um we build this is really important um not just for the community but also for future revenue um as we look at alternate revenue streams as well for the city. So um I just kind of wanted to kind of lay it out that way and then I can uh open it up for uh council discussion. So um Mayor Prom, I'm going to hand this over to you to start us off since this was what you requested.

U thank you. I have a couple quick questions and then I'll let everyone else comment before I start to really comment. Um the market night total is for two years. That is correct. Okay. Was it consider was it about the same each year or was the second year a lot more because we had a lot more u nights? Uh I think Doug can answer that. Yes. So you're correct. The first year it was only seven nights um for the thing and the second year was 15 nights. So 22 nights total. Okay.

Between the two years. So the costs for the second year um were double what the first year was roughly double what the first year. Yes. And where will the third year be? It'll be slightly less because we're slated to do only 12 nights this year in 2026 instead instead of 15. So it'll be almost in between the two but closer to this year's total. Um 3 weeks shorter.

Okay. And originally um we had committed to 5 million in the downtown and I think 1 million in um streets and or lights and sidewalks. Um and uh how much of that was um re re uh program for other non-down? I don't have a good accounting of that right at the for this meeting. I can provide a full accountability of that.

Okay. Uh I do know that it was um recently and our last amendment downtown CDO3 was divided into three projects. Uh all of those have to do with the downtown. So one one was the California building, excuse me, two two projects. One remains CDO3 with a balance left in it and then the California building had um a certain amount allocated to it and then also the uh what we're calling the cleaner building. Okay. And the 1.7 is still uh programmed for downtown projects. The available balance at the bottom of the page for CDO3 downtown revitalization. You have approximately 300,000 left in there. that 1.7 million that you're referring to is the sum of uh yeah other other other projects.

Okay. And um I have a question for Mr. Finn. Mr. Finn, were you on council when we ar I mean, let me preface this by saying a lot of of the staff report references 2023, 2024, and 2025, but were you on council when we approved when we made the commitment of the 5 million, 1 million? I'm just trying to get a timing. Yes, sir. Okay. At the You were not. Yeah, I was. Yeah, mayor was. So, it was probably four years ago. Okay. And we originally had our downtown meeting with um the um businesses I believe in 2017 I think is when we had was you had brought that up before.

I think that's when we kicked them off.

Okay. Um and so I just want to make a couple comments and just to sort of set sort of do what the mayor did here. Um, I think we all just determined way back then that um this would be a long-term uh commitment. It's not something that's going to happen overnight. It's not something that um a lot of money needs to be put up front. Now, um, one of the recommendations we got from the consultant, I forget which one it was, um, early on was that we look at doing an approach with, um, starting with the area around the properties that we already own, which is the cleaners, the Grey Street building, the um, the yard across the street. Um and the suggestion was that we start in that area. If we are committed to moving forward, I think we should get a plan on how that would look towards that. And again, understanding this is long-term. But if we're not committed to move forward and we have the Grey Street building, I believe is to uh rehab that was about 8 million. Is that a fair assessment? Yeah. Um, you know, if we're not going to commit to the downtown project, then I think we should seriously consider what we do with that building. Um, I don't know what it's worth and, you know, whether or not it could be sold or whether or not it could be turned into a historic building and and there might be grant or funding that we can get for that. But I just think we need to look at this as like we did um a number of years ago, 5 years ago, four years ago that um we look at this as a long-term commitment and not something that um needs to

happen overnight. I was hoping that I'd had a better understanding of exactly where the five million has gone from when we originally approached it because I think didn't some of it go towards the police uh acquisition of the police department property as well. There was land acquisition included or expended? Uh I'm not sure if it was the the PD station. Okay. Um okay, that's all I have for now. Thank you, Mayor and Council Member Fen.

Yes. Thanks, Mayor and uh Mayor Prom White. I appreciate your comments as well. I I am in support of of the downtown revitalization, but I've got my concerns are are with traffic and and in particular at Sixth Street east towards the freeway ramp. So, Paul, could you come on up? I got a couple questions if that's okay. Um, I appreciate the truck routes that are going or the the what we've done with the truck routes. I've seen some of the signage go up already um in the street on the polls. I think it's great and I think we're we're heading in the right direction on that. But I want to give a personal example of what had happened with me and and it just adds to the previous concern I had with the traffic. when um Sixth Street was being repaved and they shut down from a four-lane road to a two-lane road, the public coming elsewhere from elsewhere wasn't certainly wasn't aware of that. I wasn't sure exactly what day. I didn't remember. And I was coming from Marina Valley uh on the 60 freeway heading east to Bowmont. And what I call the loop around is you get off the freeway and then you get back on the 10 freeway going west to exit the Oak Valley Parkway. Now, I know in the future when we complete the ramps at Petro, there'd be a good number of people that will avoid that and get off um at Petro and work their way through Bulmont that direction, me being one of them. But what had happened to me was the traffic was backed up so bad I was stuck on the 60 freeway on the side of the road with semis flying by. An initial thought was, "Okay, it's something's going on up there. Maybe I should just continue down to Bowmont Avenue and get off there." Well, it was too many cars. It wasn't, it was dangerous, so I decided to stay where I was at. So, that's an example of us going from four lanes to two. I understand that behaviors will change and people will reroute, but I'm afraid then some of those reroutes will add even further

congestion to Bowmont Avenue. Uh, and then that that backup could extend on that. It may also extend a little sooner on the Oak Valley exit. And at times of the, you know, certain times of the day when school's being let out and, you know, people are coming home from work, you know, maybe a little early, I've seen Oak Valley Parkway exit the the the eastbound exit back up all the way to the freeway. So, my concern is if we we lower the the traffic volume on Sixth Street, which is a pass through, that we blow up those other intersections. Uh, another example that I witness often is when we have gnarly traffic coming from um, Hemet and Santa coming up 79 to avoid the congestion at Bulmont Avenue. If anybody's heading west, they'll go down, they'll turn on California Street, take that north to 6th, and then either continue to go further north or turn left and get on the 60 freeway westbound or or on the 10. I think most people going that route would get on the 10 because if you're from Hemtt Santa and you want to go down the 60, you just take Gilman Springs. And so it's that little section of road that I'm concerned about it. If we narrow that down, what's it going to do to the to the um to the offramps? Um on-ramps, different story. That's not a big deal once you get you your way work your way through, but it's I'm concerned with that eastbound traffic coming in. I read through the traffic report. It was very helpful and it helped me quite a lot and and it was a it was a bit of a surprise to realize that and if I remember this correctly a third of that traffic didn't originate in Bowmont and didn't that the destination wasn't Bowmont. So which showed it was a it was a clear pass through. So I think if that's changed and people realize that there'll be more people that will stay on the freeway longer and then go down to the next exit that's probably closer to their destination. But could you

address maybe some of the some some of the findings perhaps on that eastbound section of Sixth Street? And is there anything that we can do with that or do we leave that alone or or do we think if we follow through with the design that things will be okay down the road? All right. Thanks.

That's a big long loaded question I've ever been asked. Um I think there's a lot of pieces to consider. Um when when Robert approached us, it was over the holidays. He gives us a very simple contract and he said who's on Sixth Street right now and what what would happen potentially if if we adjusted the uh lane configuration there. So we we referenced two data sources. There's a a big data source that tracks uh cell phone data anonymously and we can track origin destinations and uh that's what we use to figure out who is using Sixth Street and to determine that about a third of the people that are on Sixth Street now they don't start or end in Bowmont. So they're just cut through, pass through. So right there, that gave us an understanding of, okay, about a third of those travelers probably should be on the freeway or elsewhere because they're not really using uh Sixth Street uh for local access, right? And so that tells us part of the story. The other thing that we were able to do is we were able to use the um travel demand model to understand if we if we lower capacity on Six Street, where would cars go? um we didn't have enough budget or or scope and it was very quickly if you notice the date on here it was delivered on Christmas Eve so merry Christmas. Um but the uh you know a typical two-lane road can carry about 15,000 cars per day and when we ran the uh analysis with two fewer lanes only about 700 cars deviated um on a daily basis away from Sixth Street. So it showed that not a lot of uh congestion is expected to actually uh force cars to move according to the travel demand model. That's using a base year condition. So it doesn't include any of the future land use growth or the future roadway development improvement projects uh in the RTP. So I mean ultimately um if you want to understand if this project is going to affect congestion in the area, you you're going to need to do a more detailed traffic assessment. Um, you know, there's

certain pieces, uh, that are proposed in your downtown plan related to roundabouts. Um, I think it's all going to work at a high level. Um, but you might need a couple extra turn lanes, and that's where you're really going to need to do some more detailed traffic forecasting, um, and assessment at those conditions to truly understand it. So, we haven't done that level of detail yet to understand is traffic going to be better or bearable, right? I think your um anecdotal condition um of when there was the pavement project um that's a single day it it takes people you know a little bit of time to really fully adjust and redistribute and reroute and so um under good planning you know I think it can work okay but um I think you need a little bit more detailed traffic analysis to make a final determination.

Okay. All right. Thank you sir. All good for now. All righty. Thank you for your comments. Um, Council Member Lara,

thank you very much. Um, as Council Member White indicated, I' been on board with this. Um, with the downtown revitalization plan, I do think it's a it's a good project. The there are a few concerns that I have. Um, traffic flow is one of them. I while we were going through the process, they asked the consultants if they would do if they did a traffic study and they said that was not a part of their their contract that this traffic study would come after they did after you developed the downtown revitalization concept. So, we had the open session where Robert had indicated that they would do a traffic study, but the traffic study is only going to tell us what we need to do to make the concept work. So, it doesn't tell us whether or not um the road diet or the traffic commie, whatever you want to refer to it as, would take the level of service from D to E or D to F. It it it'll just work. So, traffic will flow down Sixth Street. Um the backups, we don't know. Um and the population of the city of Bowmont is not going to decrease, it's just going to increase. So, the traffic will also increase along with that. I typically go downtown three to four times a week because I live maybe only a few blocks from there. I'll go down Pennsylvania. I'll go down uh Bowman Avenue, Sixth Street. Sixth Street is can can be very difficult to navigate. When you look at this traffic analysis that was done, um it looks like there's traffic would have to detour onto First Street, which is also a concern. So, I'd really like to kind of understand and maybe a traffic assessment is the way to go, but to really see because we council's also worked very hard to ensure that traffic flows at a D level. Uh we even looked at possibly

doing requiring some C- levels uh service on traffic only to find out that the cost would be prohibited. Um so, I would hate to put all the effort into the millions of dollars that we spent on Second Street. the Pennsylvania widening um to improve traffic flow only to go ahead and take it from a level D to anything less than that. So would a traffic analysis give us that information and tell us yes if you do the road diet from four lanes and you go down to two lanes you're going to take this from potentially level D to or level D to level E or that not what what would we need to do to find that out and what in the impacts to Pennsylvania because if you go down Pennsylvania uh I call it the witching hour between 5 and 6:30 7 o'clock there's A eight street has a twob block backup going north south. Uh that's not obviously that wasn't going to be looked at in your thing. But so the impacts that I that I'm concerned about is that the the backups that we have already will only get worse on Pennsylvania. Uh very few cars I see will go to Highland Springs, so there's not really a big issue there. A lot of cars are going to go to First Street. So that's a that's a heavy concern. uh we are looking at that um and doing improvements there. So the traffic analysis or the traffic assessment would that give us that kind of information or not necessarily?

Yeah, I I'd suggest that you're probably going to want to look at not just Sixth Street in Bulmont, but a couple of the parallel corridors, the effects on the freeway. Um, and you're probably going to want to look at some type of phased assessment cons uh concurrent with some of the big regional uh improvements, right? Because I think once the Bulmont Avenue interchange or the ProO interchange go in, it's going to significantly change traffic flows um with the intent of of alleviating a lot of that traffic, right? And then so that that could alleviate on Sixth Street, right? So, um I think you can pick some focused points along there. Um that's not, you know, overly cost prohibitive. Um focus on a couple key improvements when those would be expected. Pair that up with the year it's expected, the expected traffic growth, and um evaluate it along those lines. And I think that would tell a pretty good story.

Okay. Um, Robert, on your your initial estimator, the the ballpark that you gave us for the I think it was 27 million 22 million, did that include undergrounding the power poles? It did not.

Okay. So, I don't know if council is looking at doing that as a part of the downtown revitalization plan, but there are a lot of holes in in our downtown revitalization area. So, it it I agree it's going to take time. There's a lot of of um it's a very ambitious project. Um I think we need a measured approach to make sure that we can continue doing that. Um as as funds become available, I did do um and I'll just close with this for right now. I did my own survey uh because we talk about comparing it to Redlands. We also talk about the comparing it to Uptown Yukipa. So I walked two blocks off of State Street. Just I picked two where I parked. Um, in that twob block section, there were 12 stores, three restaurants, um, four what I'll call specialty shops like candy, ice cream, baked goods, um, services such as banks, uh, salons, attorneys, there were 15. Um, coffee specialties, there were two. There were bars within some of the restaurants. Uh, there were two vacancies. That was for Redlands in that twob block section. So there's a good good selection of stores. Um you go to Ukipa, there are eight stores, so it drops a little bit. Ukipa is a little bit smaller of a downtown. They call it uptown Ukipa. Uh restaurants though, they did very well. They had six restaurants there. Um they had one multif family building. Uh for specialties, they had five. Um services they were pretty high. I thought in my opinion, they had 17. uh bar and lounge, like a craft brewery. They had a wine tasting thing there. Uh they had two of those. They had one vacant building. So, I did Bulmont and I did focused on where we do our Bulmont nights. The from Sixth Street to 8th Street. We've got

seven stores, two restaurants, two specialty uh like a craft lounge or the bakery services. We have 32 bar and lounge. We have two um vacancies. We have three. We have three multifamily buildings and three look. It appear to be single family dwellings. I couldn't really tell, but we're really super heavy on services. And when you look at the downtown revitalization plan, it talks about having a a walkable retail and dining destination. And I don't think we're quite there. That's why one of the um previous open sessions I talked about possibly doing a a non-complying non-compliance businesses having a a sunset uh time frame which is I think a little heavy-handed. So rather than maybe that approach, maybe we start looking at um a potential relocation program where we move service businesses that you can't shop at to another section of the downtown area and you try to get um and work with business owners to do that to try to get retail or maybe some dining in there. But I we really don't have anything that draws you down there. I go down there, we have dinner, we'll have breakfast, but I I I don't go down there frequently and I, you know, if and I'm wondering if if there if we go down there that often as council um because there's there's not a draw at this point. There are a few nice places to go. I'm not saying that, but there just doesn't seem to be enough of the variety. Um so that that's all I have at this time, Mayor. Thank you. Oh, and a couple quick questions for you, Council Member Martinez, on the services. Can you go back and rename here in Bulma what those 32 services are? I'm I'm assuming they were the salons, the Can you

council member Laura? Sorry, Council Member Laura. I did it. I did it. Some of the services there was uh like a tutoring center. Uh Santan um construction. What's that? Chiropractor. I don't know if there's a chiropractor in that section or not. I don't remember seeing one. Um contractors, offices, um beauty salons, um those are some of the things that I can recall that I saw. Thank you. Sure. Now I can say council member. I looked at you and then I asked a question. I told not to wear his gray shoe today, but you know what? No. No.

It will definitely cost you. Um, thank you, mayor. Um, so just a couple of quick comments. So, basically, as I said before, I'm really not I'm not opposed to the project. What I'm concerned about is the spending because, as I stated before, my concern has to do with putting money into something that one, we don't really have the funds for at the moment, and especially for something that's so long-term. So that that's really where my focus is. We have our priorities set at Steuart Park and and the Pennsylvania separation great separation and Petero and those we had talked about, you know, possible um funding shortfalls and so forth. And that's where my focus lies. My focus lies in let's get stuff done before we put money into something else. That that was where my initial conversation was going. And you know, as situations develop, priorities change. So now we've got a, you know, police station that's sinking. So we looked and we said, "Okay, let's start thinking about that and let's go get some land." And we did. And we're going through different things about funding mechanisms and so forth to to look at that large project. And you know, at some point we're going to have competing projects out there and there's, you know, and no money. So that funding mechanism is a big thing of discussion coming up soon I would hope so that we can take a look at how are we going to fund some of this stuff. So why are we going to be putting more money into stuff if we don't have a funding mechanisms coming in? I know we don't know what the project's going to be but we're not fools. We know it's always going to be $20 million plus. So you know we can put a number there and say okay where that's going to come from. So that's why I was for I call it pausing the project uh as far as any money going into it until we can kind of settle

where some of these things that are currently happening um can start moving and we can feel comfortable knowing, okay, this is moving. We've got some money coming in here, so we might have a little extra. So let's talk about where we want to put that. That was my whole conversation when it came to the downtown. And I don't know if it was misunderstood. It's not supporting the project or so forth. But again, I make it clear that it's the project in general I'm not, you know, against. It's the funding for stuff right now going into a project that we know is long-term when we have issues right now that we have to address. That's my whole concern from a fiscal point of view. And um you know, with that said, I had I had thought, okay, well maybe we can compromise. So at one point we I talked about well how about if we t talk about maybe doing this in phases. So we concentrate on Bulmont Avenue um as you know market night and so forth. Bulmont nice and it's like okay well maybe you know we can look at what we can do there closer rather than longterm at the more you know shorter term or perhaps the original concept way back when because I was here when we were meeting in these rooms way back in the day. Um maybe talk about that area of anchor. This is the whole reason of going with the dry cleaners and the grace building and stuff and using that as our buildable walkable town. And that's where I thought we originally were going to go until I realized we're going all the way down to, you know, past Palm with turnabouts and everything like that. And I was like, whoa. So at first I said, okay, well, let's take a look at phases. And then our consultant said, well, we can't do phases. We have to do all of this and all of that. So it really shoots oursel in the foot. If we're very limited on what we can do here, then how can we go forward and try these things if it's an all or nothing type thing? And that's what I get concerned about because I would be willing to entertain looking at it at a shorter, you know, type of a project that we can do a little bit more in the

very closer future than the distant future. But as the consultant made that comment now, I don't know if what what could be done there. So again, the bottom line is just, you know, I know it's a long-term thing, and all I know is that I I don't feel comfortable putting large amounts into something that is so long-term, you know, because I consider this a project. I don't see this as an enhancement. Enhancements are things like, you know, smart signals and things that we're doing now to help improve traffic and so forth. That's where I see that we can be funding. But when we look at putting, you know, large amounts into something that's really far term and now we might even have to adjust a little bit depending on comments I've heard. You know, now I'm now I'm concerned. And you know, it's it's it's no no one's real fault. It's just the fact that this takes such a long time. Way back in the day, it was great and we didn't have these big issues that popped up on us, you know, with Stal Stewart and all that kind of stuff. So I can see where the momentum was going. But as things started to pop up, we started to say, "Oh boy, this is now. That's way later. So how can I tell the public that I'm going to put money on, you know, benches and trees and and shade structures and so forth when again I've got a police station that needs to, you know, be addressed and and uh everything that the separation, you know, that the public's asking for. And I can't sell that because I've talked to people just to make sure I'm not in this La La Land and asked them, hey, if we're going to prioritize spending, you know, none of them has said anything about downtown. They said it would be a great idea, but nobody I talked to said that should be a priority when it comes to spending right now. So, you know, that's my concern with the project in itself. I don't know what we do. I assume that it's going to be paused and put on a shelf until we can, you know, do other things start

moving and then we can always pull it out. I'm not sure, but the last we talked about it was a big commitment to go to the next step. That's what I recall. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I thought. If we were going to pull the trigger to go to the next step, we were looking at some big dollars and that's why I I got concerned and we talked about moving CIP and things and all that stuff. So just to be clear, I'm again I'm not against the project at all. I was there at the beginning and I you know the traffic concerns yes those those are a major concern of mine too but mine is purely from a fiscal point of view especially when we don't have funding mechanisms talking about and we have some large projects that are going on that I have to make sure they come to fruition. I don't want to be a council that has great dreams but no action. So I want to make sure things are good. So that's my comment. Thank you for that, Mayor Pro Tim.

Um, okay. So, a couple responses. Uh, I don't remember the consultant telling us that we couldn't do it in phases. I I know that the consultant told us that the plan, the revitalization plan had to be do done all at once. I don't know that that meant the the uh the changes to the structure there. Um, I do know that if you 27 million sounds like a lot, you spread it over 15 20 years, it's a million and a half or 2 million a year. Um, remember we did approve this before we ever had the the income coming from um, Amazon. And yes, I agree. We've we've hit some roadblocks with the um, Steuart Park and um, Pennsylvania still needs to get done. I I would recommend against putting it on the shelf. I think if you're going to put it on the shelf, then you just move on and don't do it because it'll if you put it on the shelf for 3 or 4 years, the 27 million is going to be 35 million. And now we're looking about a 20 25 30-year project, which at that point, who knows what the city's going to look like at this point. But I do agree with you that um we should focus on the gate the um I think they called it the gateway district is what they originally called it when we first started talking about this which is the Grey Street building the cleaners. Um now we have a restaurant coming in there. We have the uh Biz Hub which is going to generate some some business um after work and on lunch. Um, and we could do some street improvements along that way. Uh, we talked about the roundabout. Um, things like that that we could do in a in a a completely phased approach. I just think that if we don't

commit to continue to move along and I'm I don't think anyone is suggesting a huge um commitment financially in the next year or two, but if you do it year by year um and you just start moving it forward now to to address um Mr. Laura, your your um uh your surveys. One thing that we're doing on Bo on 6th Avenue is we have an ordinance, I believe, in place that says that if a property that's a residential property sells um to to a commercial property that it can never go back to reszone to residential. We don't have that on Bowmont Avenue. But I I think the reason we did the Bumont Knights on Bowmont Avenue cuz it was a quick it was a quick win. I think if you move Bumont Knights to the Grace Street building area, we already own a number of properties there. Um, I think there's there's a way to to again move slowly but just keep moving because if we're going to pause, it's not going to get started again because as we go on, it's going to be less and less of a demand for um for a downtown area. Um, right now I think we still have uh very little places to go as far as just to sort of hang out. Um, and I think that that's sort of what a downtown gives you. Um, and I think that if you if we did the same survey that um, Mr. Laura did on Sixth Street, I mean on Bulmont, and you include the area from Bowmont Avenue to the freeway and all of the businesses there. Um, I think again I like your idea, Mr. Laura, of of encouraging some kind of relocation program. Um, because you're right. I think once some of these other big projects like Target and some of those things come in that some of those services might move over there. But again, if if if we're I think it's

either we continue to move forward or we just I hate to say shove, but we just end the project and then we start looking at what we can get out of the properties that we do own if we're not going to be developing the downtown. Um, and that's all I have at this point.

So, thank you, mayor. So I just need to ask then what does this moving forward mean? Then what does it cost and what do we get? Because then the reason I asked is because the last time we were at a place to where this humongous price tag was there. If we wanted to go to the next phase which was costing everything was you have to go in and cost the construction that was going to cost that that big number. So is that what you're asking us to do or is there something I'm missing or does staff have another alternative or what does that mean? Well, I'm looking for a plan from the experts, and I'm not an expert, but my plan would be to get a better traffic assessment to look at ways that we can do some of the phased in um lights, look at the idea of a of a roundabout, some of the other features, and then focus on getting the finding a way to get the Grey Street building to become the anchor. And we we do it in in we ask staff to come back with a you know a two-year plan and a five-year plan and just see how we can move forward um in in a financially responsible way. Um but um you know we we made it we made a a commitment to um our downtown businesses and they are looking at our approach at this point and their pos their opinion of our approach is that we just talked a whole lot and we're not doing anything. So if that's the case and we're not going to do anything, let's not shove it. let's let's end it or let's come up with a plan to continue to move forward in in step in baby steps at this point and and start planning to move forward. But um I think if we if we can make that the uh the Grey Street building more of an anchor area and we get in some of the kinds of businesses

that will draw pull people off the freeway, um I think we can then start looking at um yearbyear. But again, this is a 15-year approach and 2 million a year works out to be 30 million after 15 years. And um but again, it requires a commitment um to to continue to move forward

and just to to just comment if I may. Um so I I and I don't have a problem with that. Having staff come back with here's what you could get for this, here's what we could do, here's what it would cost. That that makes sense. Um, you know, the only thing I caution is remember I it makes it sound like it's only one or two million over 27 years, but it's still money that we have to make sure there's funding sources, which we haven't had that discussion yet. Um, because there's a limited pot going forward and that's all I want to make sure that we understand. But I would be, you know, curious to see what we could do. Where could we go? Can we focus just on the Grace area? You know, stuff like that. I'm open to. Uh, just remember though that smart councils know when to pull a plug and they know when to shelf things if necessary. So, I know we made a commitment, but it doesn't mean because things change and priorities change that we can't be smart enough to say, you know, this was great at one time, but because of such a a dire need in another place that we we're just going to have to shift our focus somewhere. And there's nothing wrong with that. I don't see it as making as being uh taking our word back to anybody because, you know, it's for the greater need of the city and if there's a need in public safety, if there's a need somewhere else, then that's just the way it goes. But u but I'm open to to having staff definitely look into some options. No problem.

Um just so you know, I'm not opposed to pulling the plug. I'm just saying what's Yeah. And I hate to I'm and I wouldn't do that until we do get some ideas from some staff. That's a great suggestion. Let's see what they have to say. Let's listen to our experts. We got a great economic team and we really haven't had weigh in on this yet.

No. And I also understand that our our our sales tax revenue is going to change significantly with the target project and other other properties that may be coming in. Um so we may be, you know, in a position where u committing a million or two a year to continue to move forward won't be such a drain on on all the other projects that we have to do. So, um, but, um, I'm not going to say another word at this point. My my light's still on, Council Member Laura. Thank

Thank you so much, Mayor. And and I agree and I mayor pro Tim White, I I understand, you know, if you put something on the shelf, sometimes it'll it'll go away. I don't agree though that if we have to put it on the shelf because we don't have the funding that that it can't come back. Um, when you look when you sit down and I've gone through this, this is a very ambitious downtown. I mean, it it's it's not walkable obviously from California down to Highland Springs. And so, there are sections um that could be that we could take an approach on. So, I'd really like to try to look at some type of a measured approach. When you go through this current plan, it talks about uh it's got four, no, three, excuse me. They call them a redevelop revitalization hubs. There's there's four of them. I think they were supposed to be put around property that we own because they do show one at a street. I couldn't figure that out. Um but I remember us talking about that that property that was across from City Bank. We don't have that, but that's still identified as a revitalization hub shows a a potential restaurant there. So, I think we need to look at to relook at this and and look at how we can take a measured approach and still do things. Um, I like focusing on the Grey Street area, but I have a question for Robert in that regard is if we do I think in the open session you talked about the reason it was such a a big chunk that we had to do is because in order to do the roads, if you do the roundabout, you had to do the road. And so you're doing roundabout basically to roundabout um that you had to do at one time. Is that correct or is that did I misunderstand that? That is correct. As soon as you introduce the roundabout, you're in for significant improvements on the east and west streets. you may be able to to phase like Bulma Avenue

uh because Bulma Avenue doesn't have a roundabout, but you you need to control the traffic prior to getting to that roundabout or build the roundabout to a four-lane road as opposed to what it's ultimately going to be. Okay.

Um so, but that doesn't mean we have to do the roundabout. I mean, we could still look at, you know, potentially doing the improvements around the Grey Street area. The the other concern that I have is and council member Martinez touched on it is the money. I'd love to do the Grey Street building. That's an $8 million price tag on that. Um that's a concern. My focus we've got to get the the down the we've got to get Steuart Park done. Um so any extra money that that comes up because I I don't know where that what the status of that project is. Um, and when you look at the revitalization hub for this property, it includes the property across the street, which when you look at that potential buildout, the police station is gone, and that's a parking lot. And they show some retail buildings where the charging stations are. So that kind of has to be I mean so there's there's just so many nuances to this downtown revitalization plan. I I think we can kind of look at maybe peeling the onion one layer at a time um to what we can afford to do. I don't have a problem with that or looking at ways to develop this this measured approach and and set something up where we can start picking some of these things off. Um the other concern I have though is that as um again it's financially is we're the revenue is and the and our costs are we'll be getting that I think with budget. So I'd like to see what the budget says. Um, but we may need to make a a tough decision and I want to make sure that we're ready to do that to get that funding to do these projects because if we're not then that that's a concern. Um, because I just not sure that we'll get

enough the I think the power poles I counted just on Bowman Avenue alone and again we don't have to do that. We can do it separately but I think it was like 15 which is 1.5 million. I think it was 100,000 is the last number I got to underground a utility pole. And that doesn't include any of the the lines for service panels that cross Bulmont Avenue that would have to be undergrounded as well to these uh existing businesses. Um this downtown revization plan goes all the way down to 11th Street. Um which is which is fine. I'm just not sure if 11th Street is too far. So, I I don't know if we need to rain back the scope in. And and the the little tail from Sixth Street to Fifth Street, I don't mind doing sidewalks there and and landscaping there and and an entry monument, which would help slow traffic down, but I I don't want to put that down to two lanes. Um because you've got the money that's going to be invested, which is another long-term project, I understand. But I I I just I just want to make sure we're we're measured in what we do and the areas that we pick to to revitalize are going to be ones that are going to benefit the community long term. But I I I don't agree if we have to shelf it for a year. I'm okay with shelfing it for a year. Um but I would like to work on a measured approach to make sure that we're kind of making sure that we we're dotting eyes and crossing tees on which what things that we can do to improve the downtown area.

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, thank you. And I really appreciate all the dialogue that everybody has up here. I I want to highlight a couple things. Um, we have done a lot if you look at this as mentioned before and I think that what we have opportunity to do is to continue to do some of these things and maybe not shelf completely which is what I'm hearing from you guys up here is that we have the opportunity to continue to the market night. We have the opportunity to continue the incentive programs. we have the opportunity to look at a phased approach or to truly look at some hubs and to get some ideas and bring them back so that we can make a better and informed decision which I think is what I'm ultimately hearing from up here is that we want to see um some other options whether that's scaling it back um it goes all the way down to palm it goes all the way up to 11th so is there an opportunity or maybe we don't scale it back completely at this point but we look at a hub or a phase based approach um which it doesn't seem like we've had the opportunity to see that. So um Gus, maybe if we can I I think I saw Kirk on the line, but um you know, maybe if we can direct staff to do some some deep digging in there and to really come up with some maybe some lowhanging fruit, something that's attainable, you know, over the next two years and then looking out another five and then laying out kind of further from there. that may help this council um be able to make some more informed decisions. And and I think too during this time frame that we think about that during budgeting season might be a really good idea. So maybe we're hitting this at a good time frame. Um although it seems insurmountable, I'm sure at this point. So Kirk, I don't know if you have anything to add um or questions for clarification.

Uh no, thank you. Mayor, can can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Yeah. Um, no, I think uh the the conversation was good and and you you hit on it. I mean, there are some relatively hopefully lowhanging fruit items that we can pursue and some that you as you know we are pursuing and uh I think you'll see some traction on that and they do center around the grace area hub. Um I I think one thing that um you've all touched on tonight is this is a big this is a big plan. It's a big framework. It's a big vision. And and we should not and and not every single page of that plan is going to be implemented. That's not how these kinds of things work. There are some very specific things that um likely will happen in time and will be very good and those will in turn create synergies and momentum for other things that are within the framework to happen. Um but I think with it's we should be mindful that um this is a big picture long-term vision and not every block and every building in each block is going to magically transform. We're going to get some some good wins along the way and the market itself will will create some momentum. Um and so I think it's it's not a question of having to shelf a plan and not get back to it. There are things we can do now, little steps that we're working on and we will continue to do that with your guidance.

Great. We appreciate that. Anything else from council before we go and make sure we're we're good. So, sounds like we have the commitment. We'd like to see it in smaller, more attainable pieces maybe uh a little bit bite-size versus the buffet uh so that we can think about it for now. And uh we look forward to hearing back from you guys. All right.

I had one question. Is is there an interest to see kind of in the vein that you guys are are referring to the byite-sized pieces uh other aspects of this plan be implemented? Specifically, we need to update the population number for the city of Bulmont. uh uh your the city's PIO has mentioned about installing wayfinding points throughout the city in the downtown revitalization plan. It has some pretty interesting design cont uh design concepts for those. Is that something that the city would like to see the council would like to see implemented? You know, smaller chunks that can be done relatively quickly. Yeah, I think those are I'm speak for me. Uh those are some easy wins that I think are attainable to add more signage, give more direction throughout the city. And I mean even if it started to point towards the downtown area, right? Maybe then we start to see some name recognition and things along those lines. Um that's my two cents, but no, I agree. I mean, it's just always how much is it going to cost? What are we going to get for it? And in the big picture of the plan, how does it contribute to that? that those are the way how I look at everything. So,

Council Member Lara. Yeah. No, I think that's great. You could bring obviously a PowerPoint back. I was disappointed we didn't get to see any, but something that shows what it is that you're talking about and and obviously the associated cost. No tiles, please. But, uh, no, I I like that and small winds. I like the low hanging fruit idea. Thanks, Mayor.

Yeah, and I I think it can help bring momentum, I think, once we see some other things coming into town as well. I mean, we definitely saw the momentum happening once Target announced. And so, you know, and and this is a point for me that I I do hear a lot of people say all the time like it's great we're getting these big things, but I do want to see some of the smaller um more walkable areas. I want to be able to take my kid in a stroller and be able to walk down that area and know that I can hit two or three things along the way. I want to be able to, you know, buy shoes that aren't off of Amazon that maybe come from a specialty store or things along those lines. So, I think that there's um the appetite is there. Um it's just, you know, identifying the ways in which we can we can catch some lowhanging fruit while we're still dealing with some major projects which I think we all agree up here. We recognize that Steuart Park, Petero, uh and Pennsylvania were where all the money had to shuffle, right, in order to even make this successful. And so for me, we've identified that we're working on those solutions, but we also can't let the other things that are going on in the city just kind of stop, which I think is to Mayor Prom's uh a lot of his points as well. And also for the businesses that are downtown. Um they've made a lot of commitment to be here and they are utilized and we want to make sure that we are bringing people down to that area as well. Um plus if we can diversify where people go in the city, hopefully it impacts traffic as well, right? So, some of them are going downtown. They're not all at Second Street or they're not all in the other portions of the city. So, um I really appreciate the dialogue and the professionalism that we had up here tonight. So, thank you guys all. And mayor, if I could just add, um, Kirk and the economic development staff, we are going to continue looking at this ourselves, you know, and we understand it's a lot to bite, you know, when you look at the three revitalization hubs, but as we're going forward and we're looking also at our strategic plan, we're also going to be looking at a specific plan, getting funding for that and putting all three together. But at

the end of the day, if we can focus on one of these, maybe the one that has the most opportunity, that's what we're going to go after, and we'll bring that back to you. Very good. Thank you for that. All right, we'll move on uh to legislation, legislative updates. No legislative update tonight. All right, economic development. Uh we I would like to have a brief update from Kirk just on the EDC meeting and the report out. So Kirk, go ahead.

Sure. Uh thank you guys. The last week the EDC had a couple of just updates. One was on the uh the council's decision on the direction we received on the decorative crosswalk uh project and then um we gave an update on where we are with the economic development strategic plan process which is still underway. Um our consultants will be in town first week of February for a whole series of additional meetings and we have some other one-on-one meetings with council people scheduled. uh I believe for next week as well. So that process continues. It's we're getting near the sort of end of the data factf finding collection phase and um pretty soon we'll we'll morph into the sort of starting to frame up what the the recommendations will look like as we get into the spring. Um that was really the the crux of the EDC meeting last week. staff uh provided um verbal updates on a number of projects like the Regency Center and some other things as well.

Great. Thank you. All right, moving on to the city treasures report. We have no and then we'll go to the city clerk. Nothing. All righty. City attorney and the city manager. I know we have your uh monthly report for December and that's all. Great. Thank you. And big shout out as always to that report. I appreciate all the information that's on there. All right, council. Do we have any future agenda items that we would like to see besides a two-year and a four-year plan and lowhanging fruit and No, I'm just kidding. All right, we will start with our council reports and council member Lara, I'll start with you.

Thank you, mayor. Nothing to report this evening. Thank you. All righty. And council member Fen.

Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Um for Riverside Transit Agency, um we have new chairs for the for 2026. Um chair Jim Steiner from Corona. Um and then we have vice chair Cindy Warren from Marietta and second vice chair Timothy Sheridan from Lake Elsenor. So they'll be serving in as leadership for the RTA um this year. And then a big um announcement for RTA, they are hiring um community bus drivers. they have probably 60 positions to fill and so spread the word. Um and so we're hoping they had taken over um a contracted service. They're bringing a lot of those employees over um but not every single one will will want to stay and and so forth, but they're doing good in terms of of filling those positions, but it's a a lot to fill. And so they were um they will be at our um veterans expo and job fair this Saturday. So, I wanted to give a shout out for that as well. That will be this Saturday at the Chattney Center beginning at 10:00. And so, we hope to u this is for veterans, friends, and family of veterans. We encourage everybody to come come and attend. And again, there's a job fair element to that as well. And then um lastly, I wanted to report um I had the pleasure to be stopped at our DUI checkpoint uh back in December. And um I found out the the rule that they had was every third car gets stopped. My son was following behind me. He got to go right on through. Um but I did want to report that I was uh treated very respectfully. Um even until they found out who who I was.

Um but it was nice. So there was and how it worked is I, you know, pulled up to one spot. I was identified as the third car, was asked to to pull into a parking lot. Um, they asked for my ID and so forth. So I think it was two opportunities for officers to check to see if I was under the influence. Obviously not. Um um but it was it was um it started with that. Yeah. So how long does Pepper keep you guys in suspense? Right. We were we were

but I was impressed on how well it was run. Um they treated me as if I was any other driver. So no special treatment being a city council member. Um but it was it was kind of funny when eyes opened up when they recognized who I was. Um and then they did give a handout um from mothers against drunk drivers showing statistics on how bad the situation is. And so it's nice to that we have grant funding to pay for that. and so appreciate the efforts that that went into that during the holiday season. So that's my report. Well, we are thankful we didn't have to hear about that in the newspapers. So we do appreciate that. And uh Council Member Martinez,

well that's hard to follow, but I just attended the RCA meeting, our typical acquisition reports and collection fee reports. Um our reserve of the month was the Reynolds Reserve. Uh that's north of Lake Elsenor. Our featured um species longtail weasel, orange throat, whiptail, bell, sage sparrow, coastal California nat catcher. Don't ask me for the specific names. I don't know. Uh I was reelected to the RCA of the executive committee and uh I was reappointed to the Cal's environmental quality committee for the Riverside County Division. And that's my report.

All righty. Excellent. And mayor prom council member Finn, I have one quick question. They still make you touch your nose on one one. As a matter of fact, I didn't have to get out of the car. Um, but I did did show my license and they came up right up and they were training an officer at the same time, too. So, right. That that will be my report.

All right. I had the opportunity to attend uh the Rotary first responders um and K9 fundraiser. They raised $3,000 for our K9 program. So, I really appreciate all the effort that went into that and always wonderful to see the support for our first responders. Um especially as always as a first responder wife, it is nice to see that support for us as always. Uh the other thing is we will be I will be traveling this week to Cal for Cal Cities uh along with council member Martinez as I have been appointed to the taxation committee. So wish us luck as we are up there and if nothing further I will adjourn tonight's meeting at 8:43.

Thank you.