City Council - Regular Meeting

And they better take it out, yeah.

Good afternoon. Welcome to the regular City Council meeting of September 15th, 2026. Madam City Clerk, can I please have a roll call? Council Member Warren? Here. Council Member DeForest?

Council Member Stone?

Here.

Mayor Kilkenny-Holiday? Here.

Mayor LaValle.

Here.

Let the record reflect all members are present with the exception of Council Member DeForest.

Thank you very much. At this time, we're going to do the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation. Pledge of Allegiance is going to be led by Mr. Ron Holiday, and our invocation today is led by Jim Jackson of the Orchard Church.

Thank you for standing. Please repeat after me.

I pledge allegiance to the Father of the United States of America,

It's my pleasure to give the invocation today. And I just want to say on behalf of the Orchard Church, what a great job you are doing and appreciate your hard work in the labor of leadership. Leadership is a special weight, but God has placed it on us to help lead people into the future. And we are so appreciative to everybody that is connected to the great city of Marietta. And Proverbs 11, 14 says that with a, With the plans of many, there can be failure, but with good guidance, there can be victory. And I am praying for that and a blessing on our city today and our leadership. Let's pray. Jesus, we ask you for an extra measure of wisdom upon the men and women that lead this city. God, our nation and our state and our local officials, God, are in desperate need of your wisdom. And your word says that when you here that we ask for wisdom, God, you grant it liberally. And so, God, I pray that you would just pour out your wisdom on this meeting and the things that will take place here. So, Jesus, we thank you for loving us and giving us great leaders and giving us a great place to live. And so now, God, I pray that your spirit would be upon this place and that you would lead us as we are led by them into a great, beautiful future. In Jesus' name, amen.

Pastor Jim, real quick, can you stay there, Pastor Jim? My wife would kill me as your, or technically our pastor. Can I get a selfie?

Yeah.

Thank you. Madam City Clerk, are there any changes to our agenda?

Seeing none, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. I'd like to get a motion and a second to approve the agenda. I have a motion by Councilwoman Warren and a second by Mayor Pro Tem Holiday. Let's vote.

Motion carries unanimously, 4-0.

Thank you very much. And next up is our administrative update from the Justin Clifton, our city manager. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council, we have a few updates for you this evening. We're going to start with an update on our Kratom ordinance from our police chief, Matt Hemery. And I apologize if this might have created any confusion for people at home. You might recall that when council adopted the ordinance, You asked for a report to come back, I believe six months or approximately six months after adoption, to review any enforcement activities. So there was quite a lot of conversation about kind of right-sizing that ordinance and getting the right approach. And you wanted to make sure that there was some follow-up on kind of how that was looking. So this is not a conversation about reconsidering that ordinance in any way. It's only an update that Council asked for on what has happened since adoption of that ordinance in our community. So with that, Chief Henry.

All right, so we have passed Ordinance 940 in March of this year. The new ordinance pretty much regulated the sale and the distribution of kratom at the shops within our city that sell it. Mainly could not sell it to anybody under 21, could not make advertising to children, and then there's also restrictions on the percentage of the 7OH in any sort of synthetic kratom. What we did is in May, our community policing team and our special enforcement team went to 21 location smoke shops throughout the city, gave them a copy of the ordinance and any other educational documents or information that they've requested, and just kind of gave them an update on the ordinance and what they could and could not do. The whole point was just to try to educate first so we wouldn't have to take any sort of enforcement action. And then in July and August, our school resource team went out with several under 21 decoys and conducted a couple operations. Of the 21 locations, 19 were in compliance. We found that two were not, who sold to our decoys, who were under 21. Appropriate action was taken. They were issued citations for the violations, hoping to where there's no repeat offenses. So with that is a pretty successful operations of people that are locations adhering to our our ordinance or going to continue checking on it periodically throughout the years just to make sure that that continues. With that, we have also not seen any new incidences in our schools or on any calls for service to where our officers have responded to incidents of either overdoses or any problems with the Kratom. So as of right now, so far so good with the ordinance, minus the two that decided to sell to somebody under 21. Everything else is checking out on it.

Thank you very much. I have a few questions. I know Councilman Warren has one that I will follow up.

Thank you, Mayor. Chief, you had mentioned 21 locations that you invested, you know, you checked out, gave them information. it sounded like those were all smoke shops, but I'm assuming some of those were gas station convenience stores.

Yeah, I left it up to our special enforcement team and our community policing team. I can't say for certain that they were all smoke shops or how many, what the mix was, but we are aware that they are sold in the gas stations and other locations.

Right, because some of those gas stations are now putting neon signs up that says Kratom here, and so maybe we just check to make sure they're following the rules. I'd really appreciate that. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mayor.

You're welcome. My question is about the investigation, or I guess the operation. The two violations were for age. Did any of them have the 708 product?

None that were found.

Okay.

The only violations were the selling to under 21. Okay.

Awesome. That's all. Thank you. Thank you.

Great, and moving on with updates, today is National Voter Registration Day. So you might notice in our lobby, the city clerk's office has a table informing potential voters about the process to register and providing other election-related information. So especially if there are any high school students here in the audience or at home whose interests we pique, please do come and pay us a visit, and we will help you get registered to vote. Next, I'd like to invite up Hilda Sam, the city's public information officer, to tell us a little bit about what is going on in Murrieta.

Good afternoon, honorable mayor and city council. So this month, we have the amazing John Lavelle delivering our State of the City address right here at Town Square Park and Amphitheater. The event is on September 30th. We're excited to see everybody. Everyone is welcome. The event is free to attend for the public. It starts at 7 p.m. And if you're interested in attending a reception beforehand, you can do that by going on the Chamber of Southwest Riverside County's website and finding tickets for that reception there. So we hope to see you all there. Some other upcoming events that we have going on in the city are our bulky item drop-off and shutting event, which is on September 26th. It's going to be right here in the City Hall back parking lot. I encourage you to come early. It is a very popular event and it only happens twice a year. So please come and get rid of all your unwanted items. Right after that, we're having the Murrieta Broad Run, which is going to be a Friday and Saturday affair with a Friday night cruise and then a Saturday show and shine. Please join us down here in downtown Murrieta for that. And I briefly wanted to mention we have some sponsorship and volunteer opportunities coming up for our events, including our Dark in the Park and Trunker Treat, which is happening on October 23rd. You can... You can donate either monetary or candy donations for the Trunk or Treat. We're accepting those by local businesses. And you can contact Heather Estrada with our economic development department to coordinate that with her. And then for our Santa Stops, which are coming up in December, a little ways away, but we want to put this on your radar, go to MurrietaSantaStops.org, and you can find out how you can volunteer or sponsor. We just published our Myriad Magazine, so our fall winter edition is available online, and we will be getting our physical copies this week. We'll mail those out to those that have requested them, and I hope you follow us on socials and sign up for our e-newsletter. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a question by Ms. Cindy Warren.

Yes, ma'am. On the bulky item drop-off, is that for residents only? Yes, ma'am. And so they need to bring their ID, correct? Yes.

Just want to make sure that that was... Or proof of address if you don't have an ID. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you.

It's for items of residence, not residents.

The items have to be residents. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you, Mayor. That concludes my administrative updates. Thank you, Mr. Clifton. Moving on to our governing body announcements and reports. This is the time that you get to see The committees we sit on and what we've been doing publicly for the last two weeks, it's not already on Instagram. So starting off with Ms. Cindy Warren.

Thank you, Mayor. Instagram, is that what you said? I thought you said. On September the 9th, I attended the RCTC regular meeting, and at that meeting before us was a consideration for $8 million in a second quarter budget resolution for Metrolink service. They currently are struggling a lot. They have been struggling since COVID. Writership is down because the work force environment has changed. People are now working at home or maybe even going in just one or two days a week. So the monthly passes are not being sold. And so they've also run into some problems with new equipment and new engine is not working and they now cannot get the parts because it's a brand new item. So there's been a lot of downfalls. I want to let you know that it concerns me that we continually throwing money at this rail system that seems to be going nowhere, although it does go to LA from Riverside, and I know people use it. But I voted no, seven of us voted no. That money was allocated for that purpose, but what's gonna happen down the road when there is no money to allocate? And my biggest concern is it's gonna take money away from projects that we desperately need in this region. So for that reason, and until I can see a budget that looks like they can stand on their own two feet, Votes for right now are no. And I wanted to just let you know why. There's a realignment for the State Route 79, and a new name has been chosen. 3,072 votes were received. We even had votes from Marietta, which I appreciate our community putting their two cents in, which was kind of cool. The new name is going to be San Jacinto Valley Expressway. So that is going to be the new name. And we're going to be changing. It's 79. Yeah, Winchester, yeah, it's a realignment from Gilman Springs all the way down. It's not gonna happen tomorrow. Probably won't happen in the next 10 years, but they've changed the name, so there you go. I also wanted to let everybody know, Cal Cities is next week, and our regular RTA Commission meeting would have been next Thursday. We moved it up to this Thursday. It will be on September 17th at 2 p.m. at the Supervisors Building in Riverside in case anybody would like to attend. Moving on to my governing body announcements. I had the honor to attend the 10th anniversary of Witch Witch Superior Sandwiches celebration. They have been in the city for 10 years, and they are quite a giving company and a great family. And everybody had a good time for the first two hours. Everybody got free food. It was pretty cool. I know, and you did not come. You missed out. I know that. I went to the wonderful mixer at Mulligan's, and I did challenge Mr. Agajanian and a few other people to a race. They would not even let me go past them. They cheated. So otherwise, I would have won the go-kart race, just saying it out loud so they know. I also attended a program that I started at Michelle's Place called Holding Space. It's a conversation on grief, loss, and healing, and I do that once a month. The reopening of New Hayes Bridge was dedicated with pictures, networking breakfast, Women's Roundtable, the estate of the 3rd District, the 911 remembrance. And I want to thank our mayor for his heartfelt and wonderful words. You did an outstanding job. And what you said, I hope, resonated with everybody that was there. So thank you for everything that you did. I also had the opportunity to attend the Yacht Annual Wine and Chocolate Festival for the Hospice of the Valley, a wonderful nonprofit that helps people at the most vulnerable time of life, at the end of life, and it was really a pleasure to support them. Went to the Rotary Club yesterday. And then last night, again, our mayor was a rock star. And along with Assemblywoman Keith Sanchez, did a Marietta Fire and Rescue along with our fire chief in his department. A great job on fire prevention and preparedness presentation. That concludes my reports. If you need to get a hold of me, I'm pretty sure you know how. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman Warren. Next up, Councilwoman Laurie Stone.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I attended WRCOG yesterday and they have begun the foreclosure process on those that have defaulted on the PACE program. In addition, I sit on the General Assembly Committee, and we have selected Kate Cole. She is the CEO of AGI Drink. Mayor, have you ever heard of that? It is a athletic green drink. She is our speaker, dynamite speaker. And then I think most of you know about the constitutional amendment that... Mayor Pro Tem and I are leading the state effort to force the state to have local cities at the table when it comes to housing policies. And we met with Cal Cities. We will be presenting our resolution to the Housing Policy Committee next week. The first line was to introduce the resolution to Cal Cities. And again, I want to thank Kristen and Isaac for their diligence in helping us navigate Cal cities. If there's ever a time that you need to pray, it is now. because without Cal City's support in having the cities at the table to have the discussion about housing policies, if you are unhappy with the high density development that's going on, not just in the city of Marietta, but across the state of California, this is the avenue approach that we are taking. We believe if Cal City's accepts and votes the delegates on Friday the 25th, then those discussions will begin and that will be very exciting to have that discussion with the state of California. I did my annual Medicare update for the seniors in my district at the colony. They had lots of questions, a lot of updates. It was very informative to me because this year I have a Medicare birthday. So it was very interesting to understand, try to understand Medicare. And thank God I have my colleague next to me that can help me navigate how to choose Medicare. Medicare. In addition, we have a public-private partnership between the City of Marietta, the Unified School District, and the Salvation Army. On November the 10th, we are doing the first annual Step the Bus. And what we're going to do is we are asking middle schoolers, high schoolers, the community to donate toys for underserved children in our community in the city of Marietta from zero to 17. We will have a drop off box in the lobby the week of the 10th. And I wanna thank Paradise Chevrolet and Supervisor Washington and even our very own Cassin Klein who've already donated to stuff the bus in addition to having people donate toys. Those funds will go towards gifts that have been requested, especially from our teenagers. They're the ones that typically don't get gifts. It's usually the younger children. So those funds will help us navigate gift cards and gifts for our youth, our teenagers. Again, our mayor did a fabulous job in the 9-11 ceremony and he made us all reflect back where we were on 9-11 and what it meant as a nation for us to come together. It was not political. It was not about race. It was about unity. And it's probably the only time I can tell you that I felt unity across the United States, if not the world. And I wish we could just bottle that moment and remember that moment. of unity and so thank you for your beautiful speech. And then I partnered with Mayor Jessica Alexander. Our deployed Marines right now, when they return, they will not have time to put on a Marine ball. And we hosted a fundraiser on Saturday night where we raised over $100,000 for our deployed men and women. And when they return, they will be attending a ball, a Marine ball free. because of our sponsors and the community coming together. So I want to thank Mayor Jessica Alexander for all her efforts. That concludes my report, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you very much. Mayor Pro Tem Holiday, you're up.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, Council Member Stone and I have been working very hard. She probably harder than I, but working very hard on the ballot initiative. We've got a lot of support from a lot of different areas working to make this successful at the Cal City's General Assembly next week. Can't believe it's only a week away. And a lot of groups that have been concerned about this have come forward. One group emailed out a blast email to 2,400 elected officials across the state. So that is actually, without a lot of staff time, is actually moving forward very nicely. Probably the major person on staff is Isaac Bravo, who's done a phenomenal job of keeping us organized and keeping us on track. So I want to thank him for sure. I attended most of this other stuff that my colleagues mentioned which which and The chamber event at Mulligan, so I won't go over those again I did attend the medical leaders luncheon along with councilmember stone and our mayor at Loma Linda professional office building, which is always an informative time and and I tended

I don't know if you mentioned this, Council Member Warren.

We attended the State of the Third District all together. Did I miss that? Must have been sleeping. So we attended that. It was attended by close to 300 people, so it was a good turnout. I'm not sure I was a fan of the venue because it was warm that day, but it was a great presentation. There was a youth group that did some singing and some musical instruments. That was probably the highlight for me. And then I also attended the wildfire presentation, and I'm currently working on getting a Firewise community put together because of that. That's all I've got. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that update. I've got a few brief comments and reflections back on the last two weeks. I had no committees that I sit on meet during that time. This year, a few of you mentioned the 9-11 ceremony was certainly a privilege of mine. Looking back at where I was 25 years ago, some of the audience probably weren't born then, but I was 22 years old, 21 maybe. Yeah, it seems weird to say 25 years. That's for certain. And I couldn't agree with more than what Ms. Laurie Stone said about the sense of unity and the kind of the day after was probably never feel that again because of how unique that was and what unfortunately it took to get there. But to talk about it and to remember it is really the only way you can, you know, you keep it held in high regard and reverence, really. So it was my pleasure to do that for the crowd and for anyone that was listening. So I always love those moments to look back and reflect where we were and where we are now. And then I had the pleasure of helping Assemblywoman Kate Sanchez last night at Fire Station. over by Loma Linda to do the update for the community for the fire prevention wildfire season that's coming ahead obviously there's concern it seems like every time you look at anything it's talking about how we're on fire somewhere in this state lots of reasons for that and really the only thing we can do is prepare as best we can and as best we know how so I commend our fire department for doing such a great job of being really what I consider the tip of the spear for prevention metrics measures that we all can take to you know control what we can in these in these situations so I I certainly feel concerned, but also at the same time a little solace in that thought. So thank you, Mr. Malloy, for everything you do from the top down. And lastly, this weekend, like most interesting, fun things in my life end up being physically painful, I committed myself to participate in the Temecula Torch Run for the Special Olympics. This is what I, I basically just said I'll do anything and beat them at everything. And this is the Temecula City Council. So I think, are you guys gonna be there? No? No, it's this Saturday. Well, I signed you up before you realized you were running, but... You'd be surprised what makes you run. Digging up dog, you know. So this Saturday, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. This Sunday at 9.30 a.m., starting at Bailey's at Old Town Temecula. Bailey's, there's challenges. And so I'm going to be going against, with any of you that want to help me, the entire Temecula Council, if they're all doing it. I'm not sure if they're all doing it or if it's just Jessica and Brennan. But... Bailey's is a starting point. The challenge is still being settled. This is the notes I have so far from them because I agree to anything. Then we stop at the Swing Inn. First one to finish their famous cinnamon roll. Then we stop at Lappert's. First one to eat an ice cream cone. And then we stop at 1909 Chug a Tiki Torch. And that will be milk, not alcohol. And then we stop at Mad Madeline's, and this scares me to death. It may, she put, the organizer put, it's not my fault. The owner has the punishment set. I can only imagine. I just, that's the last food challenge Lori did to us. She ruined all my taste buds, and I don't know if there's anything left this guy can do to me, but we'll see. And then race to the Arch. I don't know what Arch that is. Okay, so that's not far. It can't even be a half a mile. I could eat two cinnamon rolls and two ice cream cones and all that. So anyway, if you guys are free and you want to support a great cause, obviously Special Olympics is such an amazing thing that they do and allow those athletes to have a venue and a platform to get highlighted and recognized. So if you want a fun time and you want to see me run faster and eat better than all the Temecula people, come on out and enjoy the show. 9.30 Sunday morning. And the whole point of this, obviously, is to raise awareness and funds for these athletes. This actually pays for them to travel. I forget where they're going this next time. It's somewhere Turkey, Greece, somewhere way over there. It's going to be an amazing thing for them to be part of and be able to do. So all the funds that go to help Greece. Okay. You know, your guess is better than mine. But yeah, so it's going to support them in doing that. And it's it. it's almost guaranteed to be a good time. So thank you if you come out and support us and support them for doing so. And you can sign up. Our PD has a team. I signed up under our PD, so I don't know who's going to be there from our PD, but you guys don't have to eat the same things I eat, I promise. And that's all I have. Thank you for the time. And if you guys need to get a hold of me, there's my email address and my cell phone's probably everywhere as well. But that's all I have. Thank you very much. Moving on. Madam City Clerk, do we have any public comments for non-agenda posted items?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the public may participate in this meeting in person or remotely. If you wish to address the City Council remotely, please use the raise your hand feature as the public comment period for the item begins. Please note participant cameras and the chat features are disabled. We will do in person first, Mr. Mayor. Michael Bower.

Hey, Honorable Mayor, Council Members, thank you so much. My name is Michael Bauer, member of District 2. Ron, we spoke two years ago about a dirt road that feeds into Clinton-Keith. In that time, that dirt road still existed today, but since then, many flock cameras have gone up, not just on Clinton-Keith, but around our town. I don't come today to talk about the social implications. I'm hearing from my peers that they've already come and talked to you about that. More importantly, I'd like to talk to you about the economic implications of what's going on. I come representing a group, Tech Mecca, 200 plus strong in the area, who really want technology to come to this area. We want this to be the next Silicon Valley, and what I see is we've outsourced to an Atlanta-based company. Why? Why didn't we try to incubate and build something like that there? Let's go a little bit deeper. How many flock cameras are pointed today at City Hall, and how many are in Cal Oaks Park? If I told you zero at City Hall and more than 10 at Cal Oaks Park, would it surprise you? What surprises me is we let a private company go into our park, install, but we made no benefit. Why would you let them do this? Why would you let a company come into our town, into our parks, and not charge them? We're paying for their service, but their infrastructure is on our infrastructure. I see in the private session we have a meeting with our coming attorney about some exposure. We're exposed even more. SB 32 was passed in the last two weeks. If you're not familiar, go to the FLOX website. It talks about specifically within California the new regulations and requirements Gavin has put on us. And because you have a contract with Flock, it's put it on the local businesses you purport to respect. So now businesses like Lowe's, they're quickly able to change their websites to say, yes, I have an LPR in my license plate, and it's part of the city. But every which-which and every other small company is going to be required to do this now. You've put that onus on us. And I've heard from all my peers. I haven't heard one person saying yes to Flock. And when I talk to my brothers in law enforcement, they say, yes, it's helped us solve crime. But I ask, at what cost? When we take this skill that makes police better and gives it to a third-party company, how does that make Murrieta more safe? Now California wants us to monitor our data, and we don't have any skills being trained here. Instead of incubating the ability for us to build technology in this area, we outsource it to companies. Where was your voice in that? You're so concerned about these builders coming in. I live in this high density building. You're not going to remove the people, and you're going to have a new population to take care of. I'm not saying we can't monitor them, but let's go to Caltrans. They already have systems in place, but we did not improve them. Go and look at the live feed. They're dated cameras. Why wouldn't you go to Flock and ask them to improve it? My last point is this. All flock cameras that have been installed on our roadways are missing the DOT stamp. That is a requirement. If a car hits one and it hits someone else, we're again exposed. I ask you, look at the economics, not just the social implications you've chose to ignore. Thank you for your time.

Paul Rikas.

Hello there. I forgot my glasses, so my apologies there. But good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, council members, and city staff. My name is Paul Rikus, and I am the co-founder and president of JTTV365. It's a local nonprofit organization that's dedicated to building Jewish community education and culture engagement throughout the Temecula Valley. I'm here tonight to invite our community to a very special community benefit event taking place on Saturday, October 17th at Murrieta Mesa High School. JTTV365, in partnership with the Holocaust Remembrance Foundation of the Valley, will present an exclusive private premiere screening of Through Children's Eyes. The proceeds from the event will support the foundation's Holocaust education and remembrance initiatives. Filmed in Terezin at the Historic Attic Theater, This powerful documentary concert brings to life the poetry and artwork created by children in prison during the Holocaust. Through music, storytelling, and historical reflection, it provides an important opportunity to remember the past while educating future generations. The documentary was more than 20 years in the making and premiered last year in Thousand Oaks before an audience of approximately 400 attendees. Since then, it has been presented through select private screenings, and JTTV 365 is honored to bring the special event to our community. As Holocaust survivors become fewer in number, preserving these stories becomes increasingly important. Events like Through Children's Eyes help ensure that the experiences, voices, and lessons of history are never forgotten. The evening will also include a community discussion and opportunities for residents to learn more about the Holocaust remembrance and education. This event is open to the entire community. We welcome people of all backgrounds to join us for an evening of reflection, learning, and remembrance. At just $18 per person, early bird tickets are available through September 30th, which is the end of the month, and additional information can be found on our website at JTTV365.org. There's also VIP ticket holders will receive the opportunity to meet the composer. His name is cantor David Shukair, whose music plays a central role in bringing these stories in life. So as many of you know, the Holocaust Remembrance Foundation of the Valley is leading efforts to create a permanent Holocaust memorial in Town Square Memorial Park in Marietta. Events such as Through Children's Eyes help support Holocaust education and ensure these important stories continue to be shared with future generations. Thank you for allowing me to share this event with your community. We hope you'll help us spread the word and welcome everyone to join us on October 17th. Mayor Lavelle, we would like to ask you to actually present there if you like and speak. Maybe we could talk on the side there. Thank you again and have a wonderful evening.

Paul, I thank you for speaking. I do want to just tell, I did get your voicemail and I do plan on calling you back and I do plan on attending. I just got to look at both of my calendars at the same time. So stand by and I will be calling you.

I appreciate it. Thank you, everybody. Good night.

Sid Takeshita.

Hello. I'm really excited to be here today. I'm really excited to actually share this revelation with all of you. I am a homeschool mom here locally. I'm also a advisor to the local key club at Morita Valley High School. We have 140 strong, which that's the largest a club has ever been at a high school. A few months back, I was prepping to pick up my daughter for school. I'm an avid runner. I run up and down these streets. And I notice a lot of youth does as well, the cross-country team. And to my surprise, what I saw was pesticides being sprayed along the sidewalk for preventative measures. And I think everyone in this room, I think we've read into the science at this point. I know that Temecula, as of this week, they are focusing in on studies. I think a motion was presented to observe how they handle their parks and how they handle their public grounds overall, their streets. I think it's important that we partner with our sister city and we move in unison with them. I would like to also talk about our city workers, how they breathe it in first. The World Health Organization cancer agency called Glossophate a probable human carcinogen in 2015. Not only that, 90 minutes north, Ladera Ranch is burying children. I'm sure you guys are well aware of what's going on in Ladera Ranch. A cluster of children have rare cancer. Their maintenance corporation paused two herbicides in July. Residents caught them spraying a different one anyway. And it's just this ongoing issue in the city. And now they're fully testing all their grounds. They're partnering with their local universities to approach this matter in a highly responsible way. I am a mother of three athletes. We spend a lot of time in our public parks. And as I'm sitting there laying in the fields, it just dawned upon me that I'm laying in pesticides as I'm watching my daughters play softball. My husband also serves as coach across multiple teams in this area. I just think we could do better, folks. I think our youth, we deserve confidence. environments that aren't going to overwhelm them, overwhelm their health. And so with this opportunity, with our sister city really taking strides to make that happen, I think we should be in step with them. I think we look to Ladera Ranch, and we really try to make a difference. Not only that, I do want to address the mass buildings that are occurring in Marietta. I understand a lot of it was beyond your measure. But with that being said, I also run local... Sorry.

Thank you for your time. Time is up, but I wanted to offer... Mr. Brian Crawford in the back might have some information on the pesticide discussion. Awesome. I think he's ahead of that already, so thank you.

Mr. Mayor, that concludes public comments, including remote participants.

No remote. Thank you very much. Moving on. Are there any requests from City Council to pull any consent items for discussion or recuse themselves from voting? I see no head nodding. So Madam City Clerk, are there any members of the public requesting a consent item be pulled or to speak on one?

Seeing none, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. I'd like to call for a motion and a second. We have a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Holliday and a second by Councilwoman Warren. Please vote.

Motion carries unanimously, 4-0.

Thank you. Next up, we have our public hearing for the night. This is the introduction of an ordinance concerning the Hillside Development Standards, and to amend the Merida Municipal Code, and to amend the Merida Development Code, for the purposes of revising and updating chapters, there's all the chapters listed there, and adding some new sections and exceptions and title, there you go. So, general verbiage on that, but who do we have from staff? Mr. David Chantharansu,

Thank you, Mayor, and I was going to point it back to Mr. Klipsch for opening remarks.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, Council. I just want to set the conversation up a little bit and then turn it over to our planning team to talk you through the specifics. So, first of all, just a level set on where this all started, and it's almost a difficult thing to talk about because it started long before I arrived and long before me. some people here, but for a number of years we've endeavored to update the Hillside Ordinance in part because our existing framework has some inconsistencies, has some conflicts, has been difficult to interpret and apply consistently. So we've talked a lot about reducing bureaucratic burden in the context of this revised ordinance and just want to point out that one of those starts with just the mission to kind of create clarity and to create simplicity. We hear a lot from our development community about how certainty is really valued. So that's what we set out to do. Early on in the conversations with Council, and we've had a number of work sessions, we have heard loud and clear that Council sees the need to address some of the aesthetic impacts that are unique for development that occurs on hillsides, but there was also a paramount concern that we have balance with private property rights, that you didn't want to create a situation where home builders could not build, developers could not develop, et cetera, and you wanted to balance the preservation of good aesthetics while also preserving those property rights as best as So we've done a lot of work over the course of the workshops to try to strike that balance. One of those right away was the determination to use a map to identify those hillside areas. So remember that our current framework really puts the onus on an applicant to determine whether they are or are not in a hillside area, which means there's some bureaucratic burden associated with potentially almost any development applicant in the city. By reducing that area to a map where, using current technology, we can determine that the average slope threshold is met, we really pull about 90 to 95%, I don't know the exact percentage, but the vast majority of properties in the city limits are removed from the hillside ordinance. So again, in the context of reducing bureaucratic burden, this is a really big step because we've eliminated that confusion or burden of proof for the vast majority of people in Murrieta. On top of that, we have done a lot of work to try to right-size the policy. So recognizing that hillside ordinances in different communities can really take vastly different forms. Some communities might be preoccupied with height limits or size limits or other things that are really a pretty significant imposition on those private property rights. Instead, council really wanted to preserve some of those aesthetics, but in ways that were minimally invasive and minimally restrictive. So what we came up with are things like kind of finding the best suitable area to build. If there are going to be things like retaining walls to step those walls up in six foot increments, ideally that provides an opportunity to landscape and to kind of obscure some of those walls from view and to use natural colors and textures. So this really isn't on the scale of kind of restrictive ordinances. This isn't the more aggressive one. This is what I would describe as minimal additional standards that just recognize that development on hillsides is different from developments elsewhere in the city and that it's very, very visible. So those standards are now tailored to just address some of those visual impacts. At the last meeting, we came pretty close to resolving the vast majority of issues, but council was still interested in exploring opportunities to further reduce that bureaucratic burden, explore avenues to make this simpler or easier, or to vet any other suggestions that we've heard from stakeholders on where this should apply. So we've had discussions about things like developed, undeveloped property and things like that. Since then, staff has also visited with the Planning Commission. We've held at least one significant stakeholder meeting, and we've conducted 221 sessions with council to really explore and discuss the specifics of the current ordinance draft. Part of what happened with that is, and staff will take you through this in more detail, is looking at an exemption from the more rigorous zoning application to take projects that aren't necessarily small in property size or parcel size, but small in development, right? So associated with the volume of grading that is happening on a parcel and exempting them from the more rigorous zoning application would mean essentially through a building permit or plan check process, we could apply these kind of minimally elevated standards, but save significant time and money for some of those applicants. So we think that's in the spirit of what council was looking for in terms of making this as easy and as simple as possible in preserving those private property rights. So at this final stage, staff is going to present some of that detailed information, see if you would like to explore any amendments to that threshold whereby people would be entitled to the more expedited process, or if there are any other things that you'd like to explore in finalizing ordinance. I would remind council that we've also built in some safeguards at your request. The most significant of those is an appeals process so admittedly we've had a lot of conversation especially with some of our most engaged stakeholders about what is good and bad and what could potentially happen or not happen with this ordinance. I think for all of us it's a little bit speculative if the really big impactful development could happen or couldn't happen or you know, anything under the sun. And knowing that we can't have absolute certainty in this, we decided to create an element of procedural safeguard. And that is the appeals process. What I'm really saying is if there's something where we've missed the balance between preserving those aesthetics and preserving private property rights, we believe this council will be among the very first to hear about it. because that will be someone who elects to go through the appeals process. At that time, if you determine, boy, this is never what we meant to do, these burdens turn out to be way too significant, we underestimated the cost, we underestimated the time, it's really easy for you at that point to further amend the ordinance. As I said at a previous meeting, if you're wanting to hedge toward something more restrictive or something more relaxed, I would just remind council that if it's a little bit relaxed and we miss one of those kind of big visual impact kinds of developments, it's there forever. If, on the other hand, it's a little too strict, again, we think you'll be among the first to hear about it and you can amend it, make the change, make it a little easier. And that seems to be less risk, in my opinion, than risking something where there might be substantial visual impact and it's there virtually forever. So tonight, we're here to revisit these last few details. I would also mention that, again, in terms of bureaucratic burden, because we're still in the status quo with an ordinance with conflicts, we have, I believe, either actual applicants or people that we've had discussions with that are waiting for this clarity. So it's not just really about imposing new rules. It's actually, I think, in my opinion, more about reducing the impact of this confusion for the vast majority of people in the city. clearing the way and providing clarity and letting some of the people that are waiting to move forward move forward. If we do that, again, we think you'll have substantial opportunity to review this if we've gotten anything wrong. So that's it. We're ready to take you through the details and then take any other last direction from council, and then it'll be up to you to consider adoption of this or to direct staff to make further changes. Thank you for that. Let's get this show started.

Yep, thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Council. David Jenner-Ongsu, Development Services Director. On my right is Chris Tracy. He's been the Project Manager for the Hillside Ordinance and Senior Planner. And then also with us is Jarrett Romita to my left, the Deputy Director. So Chris is going to basically run through his presentation, and then we'll get to the Q&A, and hopefully he can land the plane. So thank you for your patience. And Chris, take it away.

All right. Well, thank you for the introduction. City Manager Clifton and Director Chantarangsu. And I'll go ahead and get started here. So what we have here is our Hillside Development updates. And my, of course, my pointer isn't working. Oh, there we go. So what we have tonight is a couple of different actions. We're going to open the public hearing, receive public testimony. Find that the ordinance is consistent with CEQA, and we're recommending approval of the first reading of the ordinance as drafted. Why are we updating this ordinance? Well, there's some existing challenges and proposed improvements here. Some of the existing challenges include inconsistent application of standards. We've had manual error-prone slope calculations in the past, and ambiguous definitions leading to confusion. Some of the proposed improvements have included here automated and clear calculation methods, precise and modern definitions, and streamlined workflows. All right. Some of the benefits of the update include property owners, staff, and the community. For property owners, certainly speed and objective standards is the goal here. For staff, Consistent administration and easier interpretation of the standards is the goal there. For the community as a whole, we still want to have hillside protection, as described in our general plan, implementing design quality for those slightly elevated standards where appropriate, and have improved implementation overall. Some background here. It's July 8th, 2026 hearing. The Planning Commission considered when a hillside development should require a zoning application versus an administrative plan check type of review. The framework relies on proposed definitions that we previously talked about in the past, including agriculture use, developed, disturbed, and undeveloped, undisturbed. Our screen here just kind of illustrates this visually. Developed disturbed, you have altered land through grading, construction, infrastructure, undeveloped, undisturbed natural hillsides with no significant alteration. And then for agricultural improvements, there's an important distinction here. By having, say, an orchard or a vineyard on a slope, that doesn't automatically establish a developed condition. Our screen here is some of our hillside review framework. Undeveloped natural areas, they require a hillside development permit as required, so that's at higher threshold with slightly elevated standards. In previously developed areas, minor improvements may be exempt, and we're talking about a process exemption when grading is 50 cubic yards or less. The developed status is approved, reviewed through historic aerials, approved plans, And when records are not available, we do have that appeals process. If there's a dispute between city staff and an applicant or there's clarity that's needed, and that could be appealed all the way up to city council. And that's where you can make those adjustments as noted in the introduction. Great evening drainage work over 50 cubic yards remain subject to engineering requirements ad use and accessory structures ad use follow state law Accessory structures greater than a thousand square feet that do require a hillside development permit We do currently require that on a citywide basis. So we're just carrying that forward here In this important distinction is hillside standards still apply when in the zoning applications not required so if you're going through a plan check review The standards are still in play, those slightly elevated standards. So there's an important distinction there. The thing that really helps out there with the process is there's a streamlined process. So we're going to talk about increasing the permit thresholds in the next couple slides. We're currently standing at 50 cubic yards, which is about one swimming pool, in triggering a hillside development permit review. We've talked about potentially increasing this to 200 cubic yards or about four swimming pools. The purpose here is to allow relatively minor grading to proceed without added time, cost, and discretion review, helping out the homeowner in streamlining processes. So your first option is to maintain it as drafted in the ordinance. This retains a more conservative approach. It does provide greater oversight of relatively small grading activities. Option two, increasing this to 200 cubic yards. This would allow for more modest grading activities to occur without automatically triggering a hillside development permit. In this visual example, someone could build a home office or something of that nature. For the comparison purposes, the city of Tustin has a 200 cubic yard threshold, which is treated as a minor hillside review and is approved administratively. Option three is increasing the permit threshold through another intermediate or higher threshold. For example, here, the city of Lake Forest and Laguna Hills, they have a 500 cubic threshold. The city of Los Angeles is at 250. The number of parcels located within the city, there's about 40,000 citywide. The proposed hillside overlay represents approximately 1%, GIVE OR TAKE. HERE WE'RE PROPOSING STREAMLINED REVIEWS AS WE PREVIOUSLY COVERED AND HOPEFULLY REDUCING COSTS FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY.

on what this means for property rights within the city. So the problem that we were asked to address back in 2021 was to ideally address the kind of like antiquated average slope formula that a lot of cities happen to use in trying to determine whether or not a property is going to fit within our hillside ordinance. On the previous slide, Chris identified that there are roughly 40,000 parcels within the city. And under the current scheme, I mean, you could argue that every parcel is within the hillside zone until we can prove that they're not in the hillside zone. So by going with the approach that staff has suggested, you can go back to the next one, we're really having 99% of the parcels. We're freeing them, if you will. I don't really think about it. from having to go through the hillside process. I mean, obviously, properties that are relatively flat, I mean, those would be easy to determine. But where it starts to become difficult is when you have properties that have some kind of slope on them. Then it becomes really difficult for staff to advise an applicant or property owner on how to proceed. So, We're hoping that if the City Council is able to move forward with the adoption of this map, we've identified the parcels here that we've categorized that the hillside standards would be subject to. So we're going from, if you will, 40,000 parcels down to roughly 500 that we're trying to remove a bureaucratic process for. Chris did mention that without some kind of reference about where the ordinance applies, we are going to have existing projects that start to run into this issue. And depending on what happens tonight, we'll have to go back and have a discussion with those applicants.

Hey, David, real quick. The 40,000 designation or existing parcels, how would they be designated in a hillside zone? What mechanism does that?

Sure, so without a map, which is the current you know condition. They are required there's a requirement in the hillside ordinance to produce that average slope calculation it's that really wonky formula you've seen it within our ordinance you basically it takes. The the land area the interval of a contour now and a conversion factor that converts the length of the contours into a slope and we don't want to do that anymore. We with the advancement in technology, you know we're we're really wanted to use our gis system to geographic information system to that for us and you're saying that the 40,000 would trigger a hillside designation on that formula using currently. Well, no. What we're saying is there are no exclusions in the hillside ordinance currently, unless you go through that average slope determination. So there's an extra calculation that has to happen before we can determine that a parcel is not included in a hillside area. Obviously, there's going to be very obvious examples where a property is flat. We're not going to need to do that. But when you start to get into properties maybe around the base of the foothills, Other areas with topography, we're not gonna know how to advise an applicant without going through that process. Okay, thank you.

Turn back to Chris. Thank you, David, for that context there. So in closing, staff has a couple of recommendations here. We're recommending opening of the public hearing, receive public testimony. Third, find the actions are consistent with CEQA under 15162, consistency determination. and approve first reading of the ordinance as noted here on the screen. And we'll be happy to answer any questions and walk through any specifics as needed. And staff does appreciate the opportunity to present this tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. I remember when this started. I was on planning commission. Thank you very much. We're going to bring up the council for questions. Questions. Mr. Holliday, you're first.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you staff for a for all the great work you've done on this is a 5 years now. 6 years.

5 years, but we Council school workshop was early 22 so we got really started.

Thank you I read through the entire ordinance as I'm apt to do. First thing I noticed is that there are far more. Red line strikeouts and eliminations than there were additions of new things so I certainly appreciate the effort to to minimize this burden on not only entire city, but also the ones that are in the map currently. I have a I have a couple questions. Would you say that the three main areas that we're looking to accomplish with the hillside ordinance is retaining walls and how they look? The grading of slopes would be second. And then the aesthetics of structures that could be built that could be seen from anywhere in the city. Am I missing anything there?

Yeah, I think that's the three main pillars. And then streamlining processes compared to what we have now. Saving costs for... the majority of folks out there processing permits too. Which I think you've accomplished. Yeah, so.

My second question is, like for retaining walls, for instance, could that be, instead of in a hillside ordinance, could that be citywide?

We could, we did evaluate that on a citywide basis. At one of the workshops, we discussed that, and the focus was to, you know, at this time, just look at hillsides,

Yeah, I think I was the one that suggested that because I didn't want to confuse the issues and get into a bigger discussion when the workshop was taking a lot of time to begin with. But if we made a change in the development code after today to do retaining walls, could that encompass what we want to accomplish in hillsides by looking at the different residential and commercial zonings? Because there's properties out there. Councilwoman Stone and I traveled to a commercial property, and there's two-to-one slopes on two sides of the property currently undeveloped that they could put a retaining wall and increase their building pad if they wanted to. And I know we're talking about looking at retaining walls citywide after this as well, right?

Yeah, I'm sorry. I believe that's a future project. And also, I would say on the retaining walls, We do have a deviation process built into the code for hillside. So if a landowner needs to go taller, there's a process through a director's review and the reasoning that it would need to go higher, provided they meet aesthetics and things of that nature.

But we could do that citywide for slopes that are greater than, say, three to one, if we chose.

Yeah.

And it would address that part of the hillside ordinance as well.

Yeah, there could be overlap potentially.

Okay. And then grading-wise, the uniqueness of the hillsides, does that change the way grading would be done compared to a normal lot?

Yeah, in the hillside section 1624, we have contour grading, we have landform grading. These are engineering techniques to make it look more natural. We just processed a permit just west of the 215 that's going to implement some of that contour grading technique when they're out there grading. So we'll have a recent example of that in the next year or so.

Okay. And then obviously the last thing would be the structures built that could be seen on a ridgeline from a lot of parts of the city. that could also be addressed in a development code outside of the hillside ordinance. Actually, it was Mr. Chantarangsu's idea. I want to give you all the credit and all the blame. That if we put in the development code that anything above a certain elevation that's on a ridgeline, would have to meet some sort of screening, or if they can't be screened because of the fire code, some sort of objective design guideline standards, which would somewhat remove that out of a hillside ordinance as well.

Yeah, and I guess it's just picking what that threshold would be, if it's an elevation determination.

It would take some work to get the particulars, but could be done. Certainly.

Okay.

Currently, outside of this proposed update, is there an appeals process for development standards?

Yeah, there's, well, right now with a regular development plan permit, we have an appeals process built in. Depending on what level it was approved at, it would either go to Planning Commission and then ultimately City Council. if it was for example, a director's approval. This process mirrors that in a very similar nature.

So that appeals process is pretty much similar throughout the whole city? Yes. And if things for the rest of the city, if they weren't in a hillside ordinance, they can create up to 50 cubic yards without a permit currently.

Yes, that is generally the threshold. Our engineering folks are here to kind of go through that in more detail. There is certain situations on if you're altering a drainage pattern that it may be a little bit less than that. Rick can speak to that a little bit more, but 99% of the time it's 50 cubic yards.

Correct. And is that pretty standard through most cities?

Yes. It's also in the building code as well.

And above that, you need a permit. You need to create a grading plan. Is there differentiation between a regular grading plan and a precise grading plan?

There's a fine grade and drainage plan that engineering reviews for generally less than 50 cubic yards. If it's over 50 cubic yards, then it kicks it into that higher review.

So if you're modifying drainage, the 1% you talked about, that requires the... simple grading plan with drainage and erosion control.

Potentially, yeah.

Yeah, Council Member Soane said we could change the threshold of that in the hillside ordinance that you're proposing to 200 if we want to do that. Currently city-wide it's 50. I'm just contrasting the two.

Yeah, and just a point of clarification. So the 200 cubic yards would be for the hillside development permit, the zoning application. So that type of review. However, it doesn't change the grading permit itself. So that's sold at that 50 cubic threshold.

And you still have to do erosion control you have to do all those things even though you don't need a hillside right permit you still have certain things you have to do with anywhere in the city, yeah, we have our citywide regional water quality permits that we have to comply with so that's where that ties in. And I'm kind of a side note. In our general plan, it talks about maintaining the views on the ridgelines and valley floors and all that kind of stuff. Do you know what section that's in offhand?

It's in the conservation element. I would have to do a little research, but, um, that's okay.

I was trying to narrow it down cause I looked at the general plan earlier today and spent about 30 minutes trying to figure out where that was in there.

Yeah.

My question is, is, is let's say that at some point in the future we did away with the hillside ordinance altogether. Would the general plan language in that conservation section have to be changed if we did away with the ordinance?

Uh, So I would say not necessarily however If you've got the so the reference in the journal plan is what I would call a pretty hard line so There would need to be a standard not necessarily the hillside ordinance, but a standard somewhere That addresses that journal plan statement with these City-wide things I'm talking about for like retaining walls and

Ridgeline screening and that kind of stuff with that address those. Those statements in the general plan.

It could certainly OK.

The subsequent yes that's all my questions, thank you.

Thank you councilman Warren.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, for asking a couple of my questions. I appreciate you did that. I do have a couple more to ask, pretty simple. At one of our last workshops, lengthy workshops, I think they've all been lengthy, one of our stakeholders made a comment about fencing, and she had some questions that we needed to address. Did we address her concerns about fencing?

I think the geogrid walls as an option, and of course that could be a design option. The tricky thing with that is there is a fabric that has to go back like 10 feet to install that. So say if you have like a pool kind of near that border, there's kind of a little bit of kind of an obstruction, if you will. But that's the only kind of drawbacks with those.

Okay, I just want to make sure that her concerns were considered and addressed to her. And the other question I had is, I know that we have an appeals process. Should we mess up or should something go awry? And that's great. I'm glad that we do. What is the cost to the applicant for that?

So I think it's about $2,000.

It's $2,000. And if it's found that we have done something incorrect or we have, done something that has caused the appeals process? Do we refund that money back to the applicant?

Well, I think what's been happening is applicants, I think, have been reaching out to council members directly and have been asking for council members to appeal items, which you can. I think, if I remember correctly, I think it's Three times. I was gonna say two times a year, but if you remember three, then it's three.

Okay. I was just curious because I know the appeal process, there's a cost associated with it, and it's not a cheap cost. So I was just curious about that.

Council Member, there is... When an appeal is filed, it first initiates a meet and confer process. So staff, an applicant meet in a room.

Okay.

If it's found that there was an error, we usually allow the appeal to be withdrawn, and a refund occurs at that point.

Okay. Great, thank you. That's kind of what I wanted to see, what the provisions were on that case. Okay, appreciate it. Those are all my questions. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you very much. I think I'm going to, I don't have any questions at this point. I'd like to hear a public statement on this, so we'll go ahead and open the public hearing now. And Madam City Clerk, is there any public testimony?

Seeing none.

Called an audible.

Section 8 of the general plan. And I appreciate your comments, Cindy. I would like to point out, while the cost to appeal is the smallest portion of that, to get your engineers and team and to quantify while you're out, that's the bigger part. And lost time is certainly a concern of an applicant. Justin, appreciate your comments as well. And I wanna just respectfully say, I think the intent is good, but it reminded me of what we were told about the MSHCP. We're gonna take all these people out It's going to be really great and streamline the process. But boy, if you got left in the MSHCP, you were in for a rude awakening in the future and appeals and takes. And I think the city experienced that in the sports park they tried to expand and were not able to do so. So you got a taste of that. So the unintended consequences, I think, is what I'm concerned about. This has been six years. I've been involved in all but two meetings that I couldn't make because of other commitments. In the staff report, I will like to make note, it does say they did extensive outreach for this. When I talked to my neighbors about their slope and their land in this last few weeks, none of them knew about this. They didn't know about the process. They didn't really understand what it meant for them, but they were very concerned about how it affected them. And a 25% slope, it's not going to affect me, guys. I have plenty of documentation of my personal land being permitted and disturbed. But all my neighbors, it's questionable whether they have an actual permit that built their pad. I'm sure their pad has a permit. But all that dirt that was pushed up, they're about a 25% slope. And they're going to be affected by this. So I'm not asking for anything extraordinary, but for this mapped area, what I am asking is for parity. You're taking a lot of people out of this, and I commend you for that. I don't want to take anything away. Good for them. And many of those parcels meet the criteria. There's 25% slope you're taking out. And I know they have technology. I can give you a tour and point to numerous hillsides and slopes. And Ron, you know some of those. Ron, I think you're spot on. I think I know where you're going with this because it's where I'm ending where we started. Former Senator Hollingsworth couldn't have said it better. Claim mission accomplished. You've met the objectives of the general plan, not because of your ordinance, but because of MSHB and conservation. My brother said it a little differently, but even better. You've tasked staff with Mission Impossible. You are asking them to put a Band-Aid on something that needs surgery. And I would slightly disagree with David on needing to change the general plan. If you don't need to do that, great. If you can handle this through the development code, which is where I think it belongs, citywide, if I can just have 30 seconds to finish, that would be great. I think that's a bigger lift, and I don't know if that could be done tonight. So in the meantime... In the meantime, what you can accomplish is give people the same breathing room that you're given the rest of the city that's compliant with the general plan. If you're disturbed, whether it's through a permit or not, disturbed land or developed, and less than five acres, exempt them as well, just like you're exempting everybody else in the city until you can make this a citywide policy again and make it make sense for everybody and do the surgery that's needed, not a Band-Aid. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Long.

Mr. Mayor, that concludes public comment.

Okay, thank you very much. Closing the public hearing. That's a whack. And then bring it back up for council deliberation, closing comments on this, hopefully. Mr. Holliday, looks like you're up.

Thank you. I have one more question. How long do you think it would take to deal with some of these if we move forward and say we wanted to see a citywide retaining wall? design guideline standards based upon different slope percentages and stuff, and the elevation and objective design guideline standards for an elevation above a certain amount. How long do you think those two would take?

Well, for context, the development pipeline is a real issue for us right now. We have some very... larger difficult projects that are moving through and we've actually been waiting for Chris to be done with the whole site ordinance. So that we could assign him more projects, so I think I think, to be fair, I mean I think it's at least a year before we can actually kind of start really doing some some of that serious work, I mean you know we can you know, maybe do some. preliminary investigation, you know, with maybe have some workshops with the city council. But I'm really concerned that with the workload that we have going on, you know, right now that it would, you know, focusing on this, obviously, if that's a direction we get from the council, but it would have an impact on our ability to, you know, do other things, essentially.

Yeah, and I wouldn't want to jump ahead of projects you're already working on. Second question is, if you started January 1st of 2028, How long would it take to complete?

I mean, I think, you know, with our process, I mean, I think it's something that's doable within six months. The one caveat I have is, you know, there could be changes in state law that are coming through Proposition, known as Proposition 45. It's going to turn the development process completely on its head. So having that year would be a great, Buffer you know if you will to so as we can try to figure out you know what what that entails assuming it passes It sounds like it will But then I think it would be great to have a check-in. You know with the council at some point These new processes. We just have no idea How they're gonna impact our workflow so we may want to revisit that timeline just to see if we're still on track for that kind of a deadline bless you Thank you

I have a proposal, a thought, that I want to share with my colleagues to see what you think. I think the staff work that's been done on this is commendable. I think that making it easier for the majority, 99% of the city, is a great goal and this accomplishes that. The question is what about those left inside the box? in my research and my discussions with staff and my questions here tonight, it seems like we can accomplish the three things that we're trying to accomplish in the development code without having a special ordinance just for hillside people and having a map saying you're in, you're out. And subjecting them to a lot more cost to do something that somebody else wouldn't be required to do. And so my thought is, While I don't I'm not suggesting we don't adopt this. That's not my suggestion. I think we adopt this as is and then Get these the other three areas put in line in the queue to be done and what I would say is is that if That is not accomplished by December 31st of 2028 that we exempt parcels under five acres and And that way it gives staff time and gives us time to see if we can actually accomplish what I'm thinking. But it also gives those inside the map a guarantee, a surety that if we don't do what we say we're going to do or we can't do it in the time frame we think we're going to do, because that gives us over two years that. they have some guarantee that they're not going to be subjected to this for their lifetime just because council changed or staff changed or whatever happened. And I think that accomplishes everything we're trying to do. And then we can focus on these three individual pieces separately and not have to do the whole thing at one time.

So that's essentially an ordinance for the shelf life?

The ordinance would still stay if we weren't able to accomplish two years. It would just exempt the five acres and smaller. That would be the only addition that would kick in December, January 1st of 2029. Thoughts?

I think Mr. Clifton has a thought. I mean, certainly we are eager to follow the direction of counsel, and I always like when accountability is built in. Not knowing what the future holds, David mentioned the possible changes in regulatory environments. Sometimes we also have extenuating circumstances. We don't anticipate vacancies and other such things. I am only wondering if there's a way to create the same accountability but perhaps without painting us into the corner in a way that might be somewhat rigid. So what that could look like is something like directing staff to bring back a schedule to address these items, having some shot clocks on updates and other things so that we're able to monitor progress. At the same time, perhaps reporting on the number of applicants that come in and engage in this process either through a zoning application or plan check. So you also have the data of who's impacted precisely. And so all the accountability and tracking is built in with a goal, but perhaps just for your consideration without the shot clock having a trigger that We may want to extend by a month or four months or something along the way for good reason and being able to evaluate that in real time in real context instead of something kind of pre-established where we don't know what that future might look like.

My question would be is how does that give any assurance to the property owners?

I don't know that it does, but again, I also think it could end up being somewhat relevant to see the volume of applications we get, and you might be able to draw conclusions about who's really impacted. Right now, we're speaking largely about theoretical numbers, just numbers of possibility. If, for instance, it turned out that there were three or four applications over that entire period of time, it may be relevant context for this council in terms of evaluating Where are the potential burdens it may not if you if you want that kind of drop dead? Trigger the other thing we haven't evaluated is What what could happen on a five acre parcel right in terms of retaining wall so in your example? What's interesting is we have not met the? Timeframe to revise something like retaining walls citywide and then there's an exemption where one of those walls could actually be built and which is the thing the ordinance is trying to address, that potential that would then be there forever. That seems like a long shot case, right? Kind of threading the needle, so to speak. I can't say what those probabilities are. All I know is, you know, we could preserve the ability to collect good information, update council, and track the accountability, and then determine in real time what you want to do, and you could adhere to that date or extend it or something, just thinking that that's a long time from now, and it's difficult to know. It is a long time from now.

My thought would be is that we keep that date, gives assurance to the property owners, because as you said, we can always, we can always modify this ordinance any way we want. We could get rid of it, we could extend the timeframe on that, we can do anything we want, but once the ordinance is in place, I would think, or the timeframe is in place, I think we get a year down the road and it's like the law changes and makes development code stand on its head and we've got to completely look at this all over again. We look at this all over again and change to what we need to change it at that point. But I don't know, I'm a fan of telling property owners, trust us. Yeah. Not because of our staff track record, not because of this council's track record, just because of government.

Because us now is not us then, right? Could be. Who knows?

Could be. Certainly not two of us.

Justin, finish the statement for me. Why wouldn't, or I guess answer the question, why wouldn't, we apply the very simple measures that we're trying to accomplish for reasons I think everybody understands and probably agrees with. Why would it take a deep dive into the development code at all? It seems pretty clear how simple these things are to not have to turn over every stone.

Right? The only thing I would say is at the end of the day, when we're talking about retaining walls, a little bit of grading, color and texture, if someone told me you're going to spend five years figuring this out, I would have said absolutely no chance. And yet here we are.

But those are all subjective, right?

They can be portrayed. Point being sometimes even relatively simple things take a long time. Sometimes that's because of intervening priorities. Things that I don't know that we anticipated when we started this process was that we would have elevated priorities around housing and transportation and a number of other things that, again, kind of occur in real time. So I think you're right. It seems simple enough. We always try to undertake a little more than what we're capable of, and our track record is generally running behind our estimated time frames, not running in front. And I think this is a good case in point. Relatively simple on its face. Five years later, you know, hard to imagine why it took this long, but it did.

And can you... You mentioned, David, there's some properties like in the queue waiting for this. I don't know that I feel an urgency to like make a move because there's something that's like, I mean, give me an example of how this would help them or how is this not being in place stopping them?

I wouldn't say it's necessarily stopping them, but it definitely changes the process for them.

And they're wanting to be put in the map because, theoretically, their life is going to get much easier.

Well, I think their life is going to get easier because they're not on the map. And one of the projects is a conversion from commercial to residential. We've talked about setting up the next housing plan and how that might help us. So if this property becomes a residential project, then with the current standards in place, they're going to have to go through the hillside development plan review process. So it's another...

So you said something there that kind of made my hair stand up a little bit. It's that they're wanting to not be on the map because it's going to be easier.

Not necessarily. I think it clarifies a lot of the standards that Chris has been talking about over the course of the project. With less ambiguity, it's always better for applicants.

But they would want to be not in the map for one reason.

Well, let me clarify. So they have to do a general plan amendment. There's nothing easy about that. So the hillside is kind of the least of their problems, if you will. But it just changes the way that we process.

But let's ignore everything else. And let's say, hey, developer, do you want to be in the map or not? They're going to say no.

Well, no, it's not. I don't think it's that simple because, you know, with no map, I mean, they've got to go through, they've got to do the calculations. There could be, I think we were talking about it earlier. Excuse me. There could be slopes over 50% on this particular property that they would have to avoid.

We can't develop on slopes over 50%.

Correct.

Regardless of retaining walls. That's what I understand, I think.

Well, so if you're in the hillside zone, that answer is yes. Anywhere in the city, we can develop on a 50% slope? If you're not in the hillside zone, there's no restriction. With a retaining wall, okay, okay.

If I might, if the question is taking the approach that Council Member Holliday suggested where some of these standards apply not through a more rigorous process but just enshrined in the development code, would any developer prefer to have fewer rules and processes? The answer is yes. I THINK THE ANSWER IS ABSOLUTELY YES. AGAIN, WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO HERE IS FIRSTLY RIGHT SIZE THE STANDARDS AND SECONDLY PROVIDE FOR SOME OF THAT EXPEDITED PROCESS. PUTTING THESE IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CODE MIGHT PROVIDE AN EVEN EASIER PROCESS. AND I THINK NO DOUBT ANY DEVELOPER WOULD WANT IT TO BE EVEN EASIER. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE EVER THOUGHT THAT But that's when they're not free of burden to be in the map and to adhere to these elevated standards or to have a process to get there. That's not the case. We've tried to reduce the overall bureaucratic burden, but certainly for those that have to go through this process, it is more bureaucratic burden than not having to go through it at all. Yes.

Yeah, and I would add some of those projects are more in the center part of the city. in areas where you wouldn't traditionally think of there really being a hillside set up. Is this new?

Yes.

Oh, Lori. You're up, Mrs. Stone.

Thank you, Mayor. Mayor Pro Tem, I'm not in support of waiting two years. It just doesn't make sense to me. I think we should approve with exempting five acres and disturbed with the ordinance. That's my opinion.

I have an opinion on the floor. Disturbed.

What's the council's pleasure?

I guess what I'd like to put out there is tell me why what Lori just said doesn't make sense.

So we haven't, I'm sorry, were you asking us? I just assumed.

I'm asking you and us, yes, and myself internally.

So, you know, there hasn't been any analysis done for that approach. And I think, you know, like I think we've mentioned, I mean, we've been out this for so long. I mean, this would continue to delay, you know, the, Adoption of an ordinance and that's that's not to say that that's not you know, a reason to to not do the analysis, but I think. You know, being able to maybe come back and look at that type of an approach for you, I mean Councilmember holiday approach him holiday, you know mentioned some other ideas that he'd like to look at so we could throw that. you know, into the mix, you know, as well, but without having done that analysis for you, we have no idea what the impact is going to be.

And it's the timeframe just gives us, since a lot of these are new ideas brought up today, it just gives city council and staff just take a look at it. We can, we can change that date anytime we want. We could make it go away two months from now.

Do you think we need an analysis on what Lori said?

Like a deep dive analysis? Well, the worst thing that we would, what we wouldn't want to happen is for you to have that codified and then have a project that got built and then we're stuck with it forever, essentially.

Chances are slim, but especially with it being under five acres on a potential... that would need retaining walls, if it's a hillside actually being a hillside?

So I think the parcel, or sorry, the PowerPoint slide that we had shown you that identified the hillside parcels, essentially, that we tallied, I think like 90% of those parcels are under five acres. So we're essentially taking out a very significant part of the hillside environment without really understanding how that might affect our general plan and some of the other goals that we're trying to accomplish.

May I offer to say it a slightly different way? I think what we've always been talking about here is, are there situations that are so unlikely to create the impacts we're trying to avoid, the visual impacts we're trying to avoid, that we ought to add those to the list of properties that are exempt from these standards? And it's difficult without knowing the exact nature of all these parcels, but what is easy for me to envision hypothetically, without putting them in context of our properties in the city right now, is that you could have a very large wall built on a five acre parcel, and you could have no walls at all built on a parcel substantially larger than five acres. What I'm really saying there is there's maybe size of parcel has some relationship to the probability of impact. but it is a very crude proxy because you can have a lot of impact on a small property and you can have zero impact on a much larger property. And given how many of the parcels are under that threshold, you are increasing the probability of the impacts that the ordinance is meant to avoid. I can't say what the odds are, but you can fit- No, and let me clarify.

The date that I'm suggesting isn't so that we accomplish exempting all these parcels. The date that I'm suggesting is to give us time to either get rid of the ordinance completely and then put this in the development code or to modify the ordinance to deal with the unknowns that are currently there.

Why don't you just put it in the development code now? Why are we waiting two years?

So that's the question I was answering is the question about exempting five acres today at the outset. And the question was, why wouldn't we? And I'm offering the reason is because you can have significant impact on a five or four or three acre parcel. It might do something to avoid the biggest parcels where impact could happen, but it opens the door for a lot of those impacts. That's the reason. It is council's decision and discretion to do that. But you could build a very large wall, for instance, on a parcel less than five acres. That's the reason.

It's been six years, and we're still sitting on this dais, and we're still struggling. So why don't we just take your idea, Mayor Pro Tempore, and let's apply the two years, but let's right now approve exempting the five acres, and then we can come back in two years and figure out if there needs to be adjustments.

The date doesn't have any meaning if it's exempted today.

We're still struggling over this.

I think I see a clear path forward, and I'm trying to give property owners some assurance that we're going to get there. And that's why I suggested the date.

The date has problems with it, though, too. Because? Because Justin said, like, who knows what's going to happen? What's going to get in the way of the date, the intent of the date, right? It being viewed as a shot clock versus... Well, the state can do a lot of things.

And that can throw all of this into a mess. I agree with that. But that's... that's something we'll have to deal with when that reality, if it happens, happens.

Let's adopt something now and not worry about what the future holds with the state because they're going to supersede anything that we do anyway. I agree 100%.

I think we're probably getting to that point. Justin, can I ask, you mentioned even with a five-acre parcel, you have a retaining wall that could be impactful, right? We still have guidelines for retaining walls, regardless if it's five acres, 20 acres, one acre, one foot. To do that, You're saying there's a gap in the code right now that would allow that?

That's right. I'm saying the standards that apply to walls generally throughout the city are some of the standards that have given us the largest walls that we see in the city.

And that couldn't be easily fixed right now with one, like, kind of like, oh, yeah, we know what we missed there.

I do see your point. Again, I don't know how quickly it could be done. It's not the only issue that's in Hillside. So again, if we're looking at kind of the three, I think it still requires some kind of analysis that would, and we're talking about rewriting different sections of the code. You have to draft that language. I'm sure we can borrow from what's in the current ordinance, but I just would be reluctant to commit that we could do that in a number of short months. Generally speaking, even to follow up on an item that you introduced today, because you only meet twice a month, is at least a couple few months if we were already down the pathway. If it requires any analysis and drafting at all, it does extend that time frame.

But what if you just isolated? So in the five acre context, what Laurie's saying, it seems like you're painting a picture of concern, which is valid. If it is just the retaining wall, I don't, and I'm not the expert, but I don't see how a sentence, a statement, a correction, or whatever allowed some of the more egregious retaining walls to happen couldn't be enacted overnight. And correct me if I'm wrong. Hey, the retaining wall got like that because that, or that's too big because we missed this.

So currently, if someone's going to build a retaining wall, they're going to go through, in a hillside zone, they're going to go through that development plan review process.

And that's, in your opinion, is that, does that have enough substantial teeth to protect the city from what you see in surrounding cities that we don't want to see?

Are you talking about the existing ordinance or the proposed one?

No, I'm talking about the existing ordinance. I mean, the proposed one addresses hillside, you know, retaining law standards the way that we've, the way that the council has decided you wanted to do that. So that's in place. Under the current ordinance, there are not a lot of great what I would call objective guidelines, and that's what the state absolutely does not want to see. So getting sideways with a developer or an applicant because we're trying to apply a subjective wall height standard. For example, the code says that I can improve a wall height subject to a few mitigating things, but that's very subjective. So that's going to be a difficult code to enforce, you know, for us. And then we're into the situation that, you know, Justin's describing.

So are you protecting? Are you saying that the chink in the armor is that it's interpretive of that protection? The code is very interpretive.

The current code, not the proposed.

The current, yes.

Not this update.

Yeah. And so you take. the current, sorry, the update, the proposed update hopefully addresses whatever chinks we've. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.

Yeah. But if you exempt certain parcels out of it today, you don't know what that impact could have. Chances are, it's probably going to be very minimal. So to me, I see we have three choices. We say, send this back, let them start working on other avenues, which I'm not in favor of. It still keeps the entire city inside a very vague hillside ordinance that we currently have that's full of flaws. The second one was what I suggested, and the third one is what Council Member Stone suggested.

Walk through the dangers of Council Member Stone's recommendation.

It's unknown. That's a danger. It's just an unknown.

Could it be possibly not a danger?

It could be possible. It's entirely possible that might not have any danger at all. The danger is if something happens, which I would say the chances are fairly slim, if something happens, it's irreversible.

Yeah, the great, if I could just interject, I apologize. But the, you know, Chris mentioned that in hillside areas, you know, there's the grading development plan review application that has to be, filed and and that review process ensures that the city's is that it. You know standards we want the hillsides to look nice we don't want to you know what during this process review to what's happening in Temecula and people have have said that that's not desirable.

That's so that's like the most egregious example of something I mean how many acres is that.

I don't know, I'm just saying that with the.

That process, that development was in the queue for over 10 years. That was like 10 years ago.

Sure, my point is that we're gonna lose, there's not gonna be the aesthetic controls that are there now.

We definitely don't want high density development and that's what that is. That is high density development. So I think that our current ordinance does not allow high density development in the Hillside ordinance, correct?

Well, there's certain exceptions like SB 9 that you can't override.

Yeah, most of the areas are zone rural residential, which has a low density designation.

Yeah. So I understand about carving out the hills. I get that. I want to make sure that if a development were to occur and they are carving out the land, of course we would want them to replant to make sure that we don't have that visual that we do see in Temecula. But I cannot imagine that development happening in the Hillside Ordinance or even under our ordinance today. So all this is, is aesthetics, correct? This is all what it is, aesthetics.

And that's what, to a large degree, the Hillside Ordinance addresses. So I started to say, without having properties designated in a hillside area where aesthetics is prioritized, people only have to go through a file of grading plan. There's no limit on how much grading gets proposed. the grading codes and the building codes have limits on the maximum slope that you can use in a design, but other than that, there's no other aesthetic items that get addressed.

And also, Mayor Pro Tem, when we went and looked at that property, there were two major sides of it. And that property would not be subject to the hillside ordinance. But it's going to be an eyesore. So we can go back and let's have the discussion. Let's just make it citywide. I mean, we... This is difficult. I think I asked that. This is difficult. And again, I want the best of both worlds. I don't want someone carving out something that's a visual. But again, it goes back to property rights as well. And I'm sorry, after all the hard work that you are doing, I am still conflicted on adopting this as it is today. Sorry.

So I'm going to make a motion. I want to... I thought you had a motion.

Did you have a motion?

Would you be amend...

It was just a conversation.

I do like what Lori said. I think five acres may too big. So what? Pragmatically, I think you exempt everything three acres and less. You make that even a smaller footprint. I don't feel if you guys are, if you feel confident that it's very, very unlikely something bad is going to happen in five acres. Well, now how do you feel about three? Just to exempt it to appease any private residential landowners. They're gonna, even with the worst tool in the toolbox, could they do what you're afraid of?

How about 3.5? Okay, of course.

Please, please. My thought is I think we need some more data. I think we need to figure out how many parcels that is. I think we need to figure out what is the worst case on that. This ordinance does a great job for a chunk of the city. I still think we need, as Council Member Stone said, I still think we need to look at the retaining wall aspect for the whole city. And we need to get that done sooner versus later.

I agree. And so she just said it, and Justin kind of touched on it, I think, but I can't remember what he said. Why? Why? Apply to the whole city right now today. What happens? Okay, I'm making a motion. Hold on, hold on. You apply this right now to the entire city. No maps, no elevation. Everybody gets the same standards for walls and colors. What happens?

So, we go back to what my statement was earlier with no grading aesthetic standards.

There's not a lot of controls that... No, he's saying if we apply the updated ordinance citywide with no map, what would happen?

So we're still going to be relying on applicants to give us that average slope formula. Or we use GIS that we have. I mean, we would use it as a guide, but if an applicant disagreed with us, they'd have to go through that process.

And it still doesn't eliminate the... Problems we have on properties that aren't in the hillside based on the definition Because we'd have to rewrite this ordinance to do that for starters because it says in the ordinance that there is a map But there's not a map It's in the addendum it's it's attached to the ordinance so we couldn't adopt this tonight and say there's no map That's not an option

The other thing I might mention is if you decided to take all of the elements that are currently in the Hillside Ordinance and say everybody will follow them, you're just shifting that balance between bureaucratic burden. You'd have a simpler process, but you'd essentially say this standard is good for everybody. So you'd go from applying these standards to 1% of the parcels to 100%.

But they're supposed to be easier, more straightforward, and objective, and what the city wants.

That's right. And so that might be a worthwhile trade. I'm just pointing out that that slightly elevated standard now applies to everybody. When we went into this, the thought was hillsides are different than the rest in that they have different aesthetic impact. Again, I live at the end of a cul-de-sac in a neighborhood. A very, very small percentage of the city sees my house. But people that develop on certain hillsides, a large majority see those houses. So the idea was slightly elevated standards make sense in one context and not the other. Why? Because one has a different visual impact than the other. So you could decide, instead, we're going to apply those same elevated standards to just everybody. But that gets back to the essential point. Is that the right balance between kind of, you know, a higher threshold, and that, you know, and the private property rights. Because there's a lot of parcels.

Right now, it just applies to 1%. There's a lot of parcels in that 1% that nobody can see. They're tucked up in the hog packs. No one can see those. And as I say, that hasn't been looked at.

Justin answered my question with a question, which is why.

So do we do it citywide? Do we?

I make a motion that we adopt the ordinance as it is, adding the drop-dead date to exempt parcels with a goal of not having to exempt them because we have a better fix.

Did you need to mention that date again?

December 31st, 2028. It only exempts those under five acres.

If we don't come up with a better plan, is that the game plan here?

Yes, the game plan is to come up with a better plan to deal with some of these other things.

To give us the two years to fix that size of property? Correct. Okay.

Just to be very clear, if we don't, exempting them then would be like exempting them now, correct?

Can I ask a point of clarification? Now, when we're talking about exemption, are we talking about process or application of standards? Because those mean two different things. I just want to make sure we're on the same.

It would be exemption of both, right?

It would be treating them like they're not in the back anymore.

Treat them like they're any other parcel in the city. which gives us and staff the incentive and a reasonable incentive to get this fixed once and for all.

But this, we have two years before that happens.

Correct. Over two years.

I'd like to make a motion. Or do I have to wait for, let me see if there's a second.

Let me see if there's a second, then she can make an alternate motion. If not, it dies for lack of second.

Is her motion on the floor?

Yeah, his.

You have to do his motion first.

I was just asking what motion was on the floor.

Well, Council Member Holliday made a motion, and I do not hear a second. Is that correct? And motion fails due to a lack of a second.

Okay, floor is open.

So I want to continue a discussion before I make my motion. Do you have a problem, Mr. Klein?

Lori, don't talk.

Would you consider a citywide ordinance, or should I actually make the motion, and that is to approve with exemption five acres and disturbed? What... Are any of these, do you like any of these two options?

I like the 3.5 or less more than I like the citywide to Justin's point of it. We're trying to make things easier.

That's my motion. That's my motion.

Does it have to be 3.5? Can it just be three? It's 3.5.

Can I just clarify, you're saying adopt it as written now, but exempting anything 3.5 acres or smaller?

Any parcel.

Yes.

All right, I'll second that.

Could you second it?

Yeah. Oh, nope. All right. The act of discussion, okay. Ms. Holliday?

Sorry, that was, I think I did something there. That's okay. We know what it was. That motion was by Council Member Stone, and the second is by Mayor Lavelle. Yes, ma'am. Give me a second, please.

Thoughts, Council Member Warren? Thoughts?

Yes, ma'am.

Why am I so confused? I don't know what we're doing. No, I'm kidding. I'd like to adopt the ordinance as it is for right now, and I think we need to continue to look at it.

Without any exemptions?

Without any exemptions. That's what I feel about it.

Do we know how many parcels are 3 1⁄2 acres or less?

Not without doing some digging. No pun intended.

No one would ever hold you to this. Take a guess.

I think it's pretty close to the parcels that are under 5 acres.

Which?

Which, at the time we looked at it, it was 90% of the... So I would just assume that 90% of the parcels are going to be under three and a half acres. It might be a little less than that.

So 90% of 40,000 is what you're saying?

No, no, no, of the 500.

300 and something, okay. So 90% of 300 are less than five acres, three and a half.

Yeah, we're talking a portion of the 1%.

Can we look at that slide again, please? Sure.

There's like the map or the stats. The stats.

There you go. So we have 319 parcels that are developed and privately owned. We have 179 parcels that are developed that are on an MSHCP. 51 parcels that are undeveloped, which that does not count. We're not talking about undeveloped, undeveloped, undeveloped. So we're talking about the 319 parcels. And out of the 319 parcels, you think 90% of them And then as the mayor said we're not Holding you to that number, but you think 90% of those parcels, so then we would be if we adopted councilmember stones Motion we would have Almost every parcel exempted from this Correct that has the ability to develop except for the undeveloped chunk below. I Yeah, I think that's a mistake.

Well, we have a second vote.

Let's vote.

So I have a motion by Council Member Stone, a second by Mayor Lovell, and this is to approve as amended on the floor by Council Member Stone, is that correct?

Yes. Yes.

I just need a minute, Mr. Mayor.

You have 30 seconds.

There you go, council.

Back to the drawing board.

I'd like to make a motion that we accept the ordinance as presented.

If I can just state on that motion, motion fails with council member Warren and Ron. Thank you for that. Council Member Warren and Council Member Holliday dissenting.

So I'd like to make a motion that we accept the ordinance as presented by staff.

Would you accept the amendment of adding the date back in?

If you add an extra year to it.

Three years? That's a long time.

I know, but I think we need that. I don't know what the state's going to throw at us.

We can change it at any time.

I could go with that. I'll go with the two years. Two and a half to the December.

December 31st, 2028.

I can go with that.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay, motion by Council Member Warren and second by Mayor Pro Tem Holiday. Let's vote on that adoption with the added date timeline.

Motion carries 3-1 with Council Member Stone dissenting.

Now we have a discussion item for the 2026-27 Capital Improvement Budget Adjustments. Oh, the money team.

Good evening, honorable mayor, city council members, city staff, members of the public. Javier Carcomo, Director of Finance, and to my right is Tiffany Raduzco, our Finance Manager, and to my left is Arne Mendoza, our Financial Analyst. and together we're going to bring forward a report to you to amend the fiscal year 2027 capital improvement plan budget, which council recently adopted back in July of 26. While amendments to the CAP budget occurs throughout the year, whether it is through a single item when staff brings agenda reports associated with contracts or projects, or through our formal QUARTERLY BUDGET UPDATES. IT'S VERY COMMON THAT STAFF TO COME BACK AND UPDATE THE BUDGET, BUT I DO WANT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT AS TO THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT. THE PREPARED PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S REPORT IS TO BUDGET, RECONCILE OUR CAP BUDGET AND ALIGN THE BUDGET WITH RECENT CHANGES WE IDENTIFIED SHORTLY AFTER THE BUDGET ADOPTION STAFF identified several items that needed to be reconciled and rectified. Staff will discuss these items in the next few slides. The intent of the report is to ensure that the CAP budget accurately represents the City's current commitments project balances and fund balances. The proposed CAP budget amendment does not impact the general fund of the measure T, but it realigns financial commitments from other funds that are earmarked primarily for CAP projects, such as development impact fees and transportation funds. So with that, I will turn over the presentation to staff who walk us through those budget adjustments.

Thank you, Mr. Carcamo. Good evening, City Council. We're presenting the proposed budget amendment to the capital improvement plan for fiscal years 26, 27. On July 7th, staff presented the adopted CIP budget of 123.2 million. To answer the question of why we are bringing back the CIP budget for amendment is during the CIP budget adoption, staff inadvertently omitted the presentation and inclusion of two project carryovers totaling $900,000. It is $700,000 for the Monroe Avenue project and $200,000 for the Hayes Avenue bridge. Staff also overlooked several budget requests needed to complete current projects. To rectify this oversight, staff is bringing this report to realign the CIP budget and update the project's budget commitment to ensure respective fund balances remain positive. The 26-27 adopted CIP budget was $123.2 million. After correcting a $900,000 carryover emission, the restated budget is $124.2 million. The proposed budget amendment includes $2.35 million in added project funding $2.57 million in reallocations, and $5.32 million in reductions to balance the fund. Overall, these changes result in a net decrease of $391,818. This slide summarizes $2.3 million in additional funding for ongoing 2627 projects. This is essential to completing critical pre-construction activities, proceeding to construction, or require funding to support the next phase of work. The project includes $200,000 for ongoing mitigation for Guava Bridge, and to advance the final design into construction for the Menifee Road improvements for $250,000 and the in-pavement LED crosswalks project for 500,000. Lastly, the budget amendment includes a budget commitment to pre-fund the city's next slurry seal program for fiscal year 27-28 for 1.4 million. This next section represents approximately 14 impacted projects with a total net appropriation of 2.57 million from budgetary savings from prior year completed projects. Staff also identified a more appropriate grant funding source to account for the Line F project, which results in a net zero impact on the budget. This next section represents a total net reduction in appropriation of $5.3 million across three projects, namely the Murrieta Creek design, Keller Road at I-215 interchange, and the PD building expansion phase one. Staff identified and is proposing that the 26-27 revenues and budget appropriation be aligned to ensure that the respective funds maintain a positive fund balance. The action approved earlier for the PD building expansion phase one, which is associated only with the parking lot expansion, has sufficient funding following the budget amendment. I am now turning over the presentation to Ms. Frodusco to discuss the budget summary as well as the recommended action, thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. So to summarize tonight's presentation, the overall impact and net position change is $391,000. That is taking into consideration the restated budget to $124.1 million, including the carryover that was omitted. With this net position change, the amendment would total $123.7 million. No local funding will be impacted. As presented on this slide, the major funding sources that were impacted with the proposed amendments is development impact fees, transportation funds, and drainage funds, which attributed to the overall net position change. For future CIP updates, as previously discussed in a workshop held in June 23rd, staff will be bringing back a report that further refines the CIP projects to advance the city tier one council priorities and strategies to fund these projects, such as utilization of local funds on assigned fund balance, as well as the reevaluation of the city's operating reserve balance and any external funding sources such as bond issuance. This concludes our presentation, and staff recommends to approve the amendments to the Fiscal Year 26-27 Capital Improvement Plan, totaling an amended budget of $123.7 million, and staff is available for any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. As predictable as the sunshine in California, Mr. Ron Holiday has our first question for Finance.

Thank you. Thank you for your report. I'm going to start on slide six. One more forward. There it is. So the PD building expansion phase and the I-215 Keller Road interchange are being reduced by those amounts?

That is correct.

But they're not... Keller Road's not fully funded.

Correct. The CAP plan... includes a five-year plan, so there is a continuous commitment on an annual basis with the efforts to fully fund the project at some point in time. And so, yes, you're correct. The Keller Road I-215 project is now fully funded. This reduction is necessary so that fund balance primarily for... Development impact fees. Development impact fee funds remains positive or with positive fund balance. Currently, right now...

Is it negative by $4.7 million, whatever that number was?

Correct. If we would continue with the adopted budget, we would potentially be in negative balance if we committed in excess.

Correct. That explains a lot. Okay. And on slide seven, you've got the 4.6 reduction in development impact fees to bring it above zero, I assume. Correct. Probably well above zero, right? Yeah, correct. Because it's got to be designated for certain things. And you're somewhat backfilling that with transportation funds. Is that measure A?

No, Mayor Pro Tem. So the 4.7 is savings from unassigned fund balance, which potentially includes Measure A gas tax and SB1 funds, specifically restricted to transportation-only projects.

That's quite a swing. That's all the questions I have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. No more questions from Council. Madam City Clerk, any public comments on this item?

Seeing none.

Amazing. Back to Council. Comments? Concerns? Good. All right. I'd like to call for a motion, please. And a second. I'll make a motion. And Mr. Holiday makes the second. Let's vote.

Motion carries unanimously, 4-0.

Thank you. Money Team, see you later. Madam City Clerk, can you take the next few items, please?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any council member who voted on the prevailing side of the original motion may move a reconsideration to consider new information or correct inadvertent errors on a non-public hearing item at the same or the next meeting. At this time, are there any requests from any city council members for reconsideration? Seeing none,

Thank you, moving on.

And city council member request. Now is the time for council members request to add or withdraw items to future agendas. There will be no discussion on the request. A brief explanation of the request may be given. Merit of the items being requested may not be discussed or debated. Are there any city council requests?

I have a question. Yes.

You have a question?

Yeah, I want to ask a question on that. Can I?

Let's do question from Cindy, then we'll take Lori's request.

Okay, so mine is a request and a question. So we just passed an ordinance and we have a timeline in there. We introduced an ordinance. We introduced an ordinance. When can we bring that back to discuss that timeline and a proper procedure for following that timeline?

Well, my point was that there still needs to be a second reading and then it's not effective for 30 days.

Okay, that's what I just wanted to know when we could bring that back. Okay, thank you.

TBD. Ms. Laura Stone.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've been in discussion with our city attorney and our city manager about the recent charges against Randy Madrid from the city of Menifee. And sadly and unfortunately, Mr. Madrid applied to run for Menifee City Council, and he perjured himself. on his application that he lived in the district that he was gonna run in and he does not. He actually lives in a completely different city. The conversations have been about vetting. And I'd like to bring back our policy and our city attorney is doing her due diligence right now to discuss whether we can adopt language in our policy that you have to provide proof through a lease or a utility bill that if you're running for any district, you have to prove that you are living in the district in which you are running.

So let's surmise that into unpacking voting registration. Is that confirming? Okay.

Can I ask a question of the city clerk? So when a candidate applies, you ask for their home address? Correct. And you verify that's in the district?

I verify it's in the district, and I verify that it is as a registered voter through the Registrar of Voters.

Because our policy currently is you have to live in the district on the date that you pull papers.

That's correct, and that's the elections code, yes.

And so you're verifying that through the Registrar of Voters already?

Correct.

But they could have lived at that address. Let me rephrase. Does the Registrar of Voters verify they actually live in the address they registered to vote for?

That's a question for the registrar of voters.

Okay, I didn't know if you.

Yeah, so it sounds like we might, or Lori's asking to look into how we do things, how they do things.

No, I like it.

Okay, we have a motion and a second from, or sorry, Lori's request and Ron supports it, and I also support it.

And so does Cindy.

Not that I care.

Not that I care. Okay, that passes. Anything else?

So Mr. Mayor, I see no public comments on non-agenda, agendized, or closed session items. Thank you. So if you'd like, we can go into announcement of a closed session.

That would be great.

City Council will conduct closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.92 because there is significant exposure to litigation in three cases. At the request of staff, item number CS2, which is Conference with Labor Negotiations, will no longer be heard. It is not necessary at this time. Thank you.

Okay, at this time we're recessing to our closed session. We will be back. And it is 718. Welcome back. We are back from our closed session. Madam City Attorney, can you please report out on closed session?

Thank you, Mayor. The City Council met in closed session pursuant to CS1 to confer with the legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation in three cases. Council Member Lisa DeBoris was absent from these closed sessions. All other council members were present. The council was updated on the three items, asked questions, no reportable action. Thank you.

Thank you. And with that report out, this meeting is now adjourned. You guys all have a good night.