City Council - Regular Meeting

How are you?

All right, good evening everybody. Sorry for the late start. Ready to call to order our joint meeting of the city council, successor agency to the redevelopment agency, public finance authority, public utility authority, housing authority, Paris Joint Powers Authority, and the Paris Community Economic Development Corporation of the City of Paris. is Tuesday, March 10th, 2026 at 6:49 p.m. I had a correct, can I roll call, please? Sure. Council member Rab here. Council member Vjo here. Council member Nava present. Mayor Prom Corona present. Mayor Vargas

present. Thank you. Item three is our invocation which will be led by Pastor Chris Vargas from the Victory Outreach Paris. You here, pastor? No, that's not pastor. Pastor Vargas. No relations from Mayor Vargas. Okay. Um, anybody like to lead us in prayer? David. Okay. Councilman uh Rab will lead us in prayer for item three. And then if you please stand, join us and then remain standing for item four which is our pledge of allegiance which will also be led by council member Rabb.

Can please bow your head and close your eyes. Dear heavenly father, we come here today asking you that you guide us in our decision-making cap capacities today. We ask that we take in public comment and we consider all the comments along with any implications regarding the future of the city. We ask that you keep our heads cool as we debate the issues that affect our city. We thank you for everything that you've done for us and may you watch over us. May you watch over the city of Paris, the state of California and all the service members throughout the world. And please pray for the United States. Please God, we ask you to bless the United States of America. We thank you for everything you've done for us in Jesus name. Amen. Amen.

Please join me as we salute the nation's flag. Please place your right hand over your heart. Ready? Begin to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands. One nation under God, indivisible with all. Thank you, Councilman. Item five is a report on close session items. Attorney Sultani.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The council met in close session pursuant to government code section 54956.91 to discuss three cases. No reportable action was taken. Council Matt pursued to government code section 54956.92 to discuss two potential litigations. No reportable action was taken.

Thank you. Item six is presentations and announcements. 6A is a presentation of a proclamation recognizing the Paris Sheriff Station Explorer Post number 522 on their recent accomplishments. I will be addressing this one. And what we're going to do is we're going to read this one off and then I we'll go down take our photos. We'll stay down for the following presentation and then we'll come back up for the the last one. So So this is in recognition of our Paris Station Explorer Post number 522 are front and line there looking nice and sharp in their uniforms. Tonight we are proud to recognize the Paris Station Explorer Post 522 for their outstanding achievements and their and for representing the city of Paris with excellence. The Explorer program provides young people with opportunities to develop leadership, discipline, teamwork, and a deeper understanding of law enforcement through hands-on training and mentorship. Over the past year, these young explorers have competed against some of the most talented young teams across the country, and they have consistently performed at the highest level. In October of 2025, they competed in Riverside against 40 Explorer posts, earning four first place finishes and placing third overall in the competition. In January of 26, they traveled to Arizona and again secured four first place finishes along with additional top placements against 42 competing posts. Then in February of 26, the team completed I just said that these accomplishments reflect the hard work and dedication of our explorers as well as the guidance and mentorship of their adviserss. On behalf of the city council, we thank you for representing our community with integrity, professionalism, and pride. We will now

step down and issue a proclamation, and we'll take some photos. What? All right. That has never worked that good. Jesus. Better than our the deis. So, this is our proclamation we will be issuing them. It's basically an extended version of what I just read off up at the deis. We kind of kept it short for everybody. Um, so what we're going to do is I'm going to we're going to well, let us first we'll walk down. I'll take the lead. Let's shake all their hands and thank and congratulating them and then we'll let our staff here figure out how that we're going to stand for the photo. Congratulations,

council. Congratulations. Captain, you're the lead, right? Okay. Who's leading? Who's organizing you? Well, I'm gonna go in the middle with the captain. So, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. So, captain,

you scoot down. Keep going down. I'm a little bigger. Keep going. This you hold on to this. And now Yeah, just

any feel free to $5. Sorry. Don't go up. Um, did you want to make a comment or your captain? Anybody? No. You're good.

Nationwide. Did you hear that? They're first place overall nationwide. Back to back. And this is a repeat for that title. Is that correct? Yes, sir.

So, we're going for a three next year. All right. Congratulations, guys. Uh, welcome. Don't go. Okay. Item uh 6B is a presentation of a $10,000 sponsorship for the Mlug Scholarship Foundation. Uh, this is going to be presented by Scott Hilderbrand from the Albert A Web and Associates. Let it be known that this is round two of $10,000 intervals. She's the company has uh pledged to give $40,000 in total to the scholarship with the first 10,000 was last year. This is the second round and we're going to be seeing him two more times. So Scott, would you like to come on up? You can use the uh podium. I promise to make this very brief. Um good evening, council. Last year, Albert A Webb Associates uh was very honored to be one of the original supporters of the MLOG Scholarship Foundation, which provides assistance to students who are seeking a career in the engineering sciences and related fields. It is my privilege this year on behalf of everybody at Albert Webb Associates to present the foundation with this $10,000 check and support to the scholarship program and we look forward to that continued support for years to come. Thank you.

Excellent. Who gets to check? So, um I want to bring up to the front Mr. Matluck. He's the organizer of this foundation. We'd love for you to come up and receive this check. Habib Habib Batlug was our former city engineer for 30 years plus. Who's counting?

That's right. And then staff members from the appropriate department. Anybody here that that works our our our scholarship program? Come on in. All right. Council Yeah.

All right. Everyone ready? All righty. 6C. This is a presentation from the California Department of Insurance under the commissioner Ricardo Lara. Tonight we are joined with Judith Penith Pena, excuse me. She's the outreach analyst who covers the Riverside and Sanino counties. She will be providing a brief update on recent insurance legislation, consumer protection efforts, and resources available to residents. Judith So before I start, I just want to make sure that I know how to Okay, there we go. Okay. So yes, good evening uh mayor, council members, everyone here, and thank you for the opportunity to be here uh with you today. So as thank you for the introduction. My name is Judith Pña and I am an outreach analyst with the California Department of Insurance. And part of my role is to work with cities, organizations and um help consumers understand um insurance issues and initiatives that the department is working on. So today I'm going to uh want to talk about what is happening in the insurance market. I know it's not a fun topic, but I know a lot of us are struggling with insurance these days and what reforms are underway and how these changes may affect our communities. To

start, it is helpful to understand the current insurance market conditions in California. Okay. So, California's insurance market has been under serious um serious pressure. And before we talk about solutions, it is important to understand the market conditions. We are seeing more severe wildfires and more frequent natural disasters, rising rebuilding costs, inflation on materials and labor. We know the cost of rebuilding a home is not what it was 5 years ago, 10 years ago. Um, and also reinsurance, a higher reinsurance cost for insurance. So for those who don't know, reinsurance is the insurance reinsurance, I'm sorry, is the insurance that insurance companies buy to protect themselves after a disaster. And when disasters increase around the world, those costs go up. And because of all this, some companies have stopped writing new policies. reduced coverage um in high-risk areas um increased rates raises sorry increased rates and um the fair plan has significantly grown. Um the fair plan grew quickly. Um the fair plan was created to be the last resort and has become the first resort for many. We know us don't we don't know fair plan only covers fire. So it's very high low coverage for very high cost. And because all these challenges the department has been working on several strategies to stabilize the market with focusing on how do we stabilize um the insurance market in the state. Okay. So, safer from wildfires, one effort is safer from wildfires initiatives. This was adopted in 2022. This program requires insurance companies to provide premium discounts to homeowners who take wildfire safety actions. This includes fire resistant roofs, ember resistant vents, uh

clearing vegetation near homes. Um the idea the idea is if you lower your risk, your insurance price should reflect that. And for if folks are not receiving these discounts, you contact our department. It and it varies. Discounts vary from insurance. Um that depends on the insurance carrier. Um another major initiative is the sustainable insurance strategy. This strategy in um allows insurance companies to use forward-looking catastrophe models to better evaluate risk and California only risk. Um that means that um California in the past was the only major state that did not allow insurers to use catastrophe modeling. So that means that they could look at future risk, not just past losses um like they have in the past. But there's one important condition. Um if insurers use modern models, they must also commit to writing more policies in wildfire distress areas. We're looking at 85% um insurance carriers who want to work in the state um have committed to writing 85% uh new policies in high-risisk areas and some of those insurance who already filed and were approved were Mercury, CSAA, Farmers um that was intervened by watchdog um USAA Pacific Specialty California Casualty. So those insurance companies have already submitted and agreed to write um policies in high-risisk areas. Okay. So, we um the goal is to bring companies back into the voluntary market, traditional market, and um have consumers have more options. Now, let's talk about helping homeowners afford mitigation. We talk about mitigation. We know that is pricing. Replacing a roof is not cheap. Replacing windows is not cheap. Um especially for those folks on fixed incomes. And that's where the California um Save Homes Grant Program comes in. That's AB Assembly Bill 888. So, this program provides

grants to lowincome homeowners in high fire um areas or high hazard areas. Um the grants help pay for defensible space like the like the roof windows and defensible spacing. So, when we think about it, when homes are safer, community risk improves, insurance models reflect that lower risk and stability increases. But safety before disaster is only part of the solution. We have to improve recovery after a disaster. So in addition to these reforms, the department is also working on legislation focused on improving disaster recovery and consumer protections. Several legislative proposals are currently being discussed um to help improve post- disaster recovery. And we built this approach uh based on feedback from wildfire survivors, our investigations into insurance complaints and years of claims experience. So these efforts focus on three major areas. Improving smoke damage restoration standards, strengthening the fair plan um accountability and closing insurance coverage gaps that survivors often face after disasters. We want to make sure homeowners and renters are able to recover faster and fairly after a disaster. We want people to make a full recovery after a disaster, not a partial one. So many um these past fires, so many folks were underinsured and were not able to re build back without knowing that they were underinsured. Okay. Okay. So that brings us to smoke damage recovery act. That's Assembly Bill 1795. Uh, one proposal is a smoke damage, okay? Also known as AB, I already said that. This was introduced in 2026. This bill focuses on improving how smoke damage claims are handled. One of the biggest complaint areas after wildfire has been smoke damage.

Smoke damage claims are complicated because historically there is no clear public standard. Uh, when it comes like like a earthquake, um, there is no standards for smoke damage. Um so let's see so ABN 1795 would establish science-based standards for testing and restoring smoke damage homes. Um it creates uniform claims handling practices so that insurance companies follow consistent procedures and develop training and certification standards for professionals who inspect and restore smoke damaged properties. Homeowners should not have to worry about whether their homes is uh safe to return to. In addition to smoke damage, we're also addressing delays and coverage gaps that survivors have experienced. And that brings us to the disaster um recovery reform. That's Senate Bill 876. Um this bill focuses on speeding up disaster recovery and improving protections for policy holders. Some key elements include uh requiring insurance companies to have a formal disaster recovery plan for handling claims, increasing penalties for unfair claim practices, um also requiring insurers to provide regular status updates when adjusters change within 5 days of that so that homeowners are not left in the dark. It also expanding additional living expenses by by um coverage of 100% of policy limits. So what the consumer has on their policy, what is covered in their policy. Um which this helps families pay for temporary housing after losing losing their home. Um and this is also designed to reduce delays and increase accountability. Um okay. So um SB876 also requires updated replacement cost estimates when policies are issued or renewed so that homeowners better understand their coverage. This

establishes mandatory building code upgrade coverage. This ensures that homeowners can rebuild to current standards, and we know that those are changing, not outdated ones. It prevents under insurance surprises after a disaster like we've seen uh with these past fires. Another personal um another proposal, sorry, is make uh make it fair act, also known as Assembly Bill 1680. This bill focuses on improving the California Fair Plan, which provides basic insurance when homeowners cannot obtain regular insurance. This bill strengthens oversight on the fair plan and improves accountability. It requires the fair plan to follow recommendations from the insurance commissioner within set uh set timelines and it also requires operational improvements including staff and resources so that claims and complaints are handled faster. Um, previously the fair plan had about 20 employees to cover all um those claims, all those policies that they were handling. Um, if violations occur, this bill also allows for financial penalties up to 10,000 per violation depending and 20,000 for willful violations. And it includes due process protecting through hearings and appeals. Um, it also requires a fair plan to offer more complete coverage so homeowners don't have to buy multiple um policies just to get basic protection protections like liability or water damage. And finally, it strengthens efforts to move policy holders back into the regular insurance market when p uh private coverage becomes available. That is the goal to get people off the fair plan and back into traditional market. So the goal here would be is not to grow the fair plan. The goal is to stabilize it while transitioning people back to regular insurance option. Um yeah, insurance options. And here we call to action. Um um these

legislative efforts are designed to strengthen consumer protections, improve disaster recovery, and stabilize California's insurance market. um communities and local governments can play an important role and we ask that you look into these um um bills um and by supporting these policies uh improve resilience and consumer protections um you can look into these bills by scanning this QR code it gives you more details how you can support that any of the bills and also just want to share since I'm here I want to share the department also has bi-weekly um webinars um and you have um specialists on certain items on um I'm sorry, no, it says this is consumer alerts. If you want to stay updated on new regulations, consumer safety education, you can sign up for our consumer alerts by scanning this QR code. And we have our statewide education series. So, we the department also holds uh by monthly webinars where you have specialists to answer questions to help consumers make informed decisions when it comes to insurance. Um and here is our contact information. A lot of people don't know that they could contact our department for help questions and if we do not know that folks are struggling with certain issues with their insurance changes can't be made. So we always ask folks to um to report any insurance issues that they are um having. So thank you for having me here today. Um thank you for your time.

Thank you Miss Pña council. Anybody have any questions? Question. I'm sorry. Yes. Any questions? Nobody's in the queue. Thank you so much for taking the time to come out. All right. Item seven is our youth advisory committee communications. This report will be given by Amy Reynoso, our vice president.

Good evening, honorable mayor, members of city council, and city staff. My name is Amy Reynoso, and I am honored to serve as the vice president of the youth advisory committee. I am pleased to provide several updates on behalf of YAC. Firstly, YAC will be hosting a parks beautifification event on Saturday, March 21st, 2026 from 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at GOES Park. We invite community members to join us as we work together to help keep our parks clean and beautiful. Community service hours are available. YAC will also be assisting with the Breakfast with Bunny event on Saturday, March 28th, 2026. We look forward to supporting this fun community event for families and children. Our next YAC meeting will take place on Tuesday, March 17th, 2026 from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in the council chambers. We welcome youth who are interested in leadership, civic engagement, and community service to attend and learn how they can get involved. In addition, the Mont Law Scholarship is currently open for students majoring in STEM fields. Applications close on April 3rd, 2026. For more information, please contact public services at scholarships at cityof.org. Lastly, the YAC application for the 2026 2027 term is now open with a deadline of Friday, May 1st, 2026. Space is limited and we encourage eligible youth to apply and take part in serving their community. As always, we encourage our community to stay safe, stay engaged, and stay connected. For the latest updates on YAC programs and events, please follow us on social media at Paris YAC. Thank you for your time and your continued support. We truly

appreciate your partnership in helping make Paris a vibrant, welcoming, and inspiring place for youth and families. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. All right, item eight is our public comments. This is the time when any member of the public may bring a matter to the attention to the mayor or the city council that is within our jurisdiction, but is not on tonight's agenda. Madam cler, you have a request to speak.

Yes, sir. Muhammad Raman. Good evening honorable mayor, city council member and city official and our hardworking resident of city of parish. Hi, my name is Muhammad Raman and I am intend to run city council district one. Let me tell you about me something. I came from one small country called Bangladesh is near to India. I grew up very poor country. Poor country and poor family. My family don't have a food. Weak and weak. You can see me my health. I work a day labor and I finish my college. In meantime I got DB lottery. They call immigration visa DB lottery. And I came here 1996 working 7-Eleven 7 days a week 12-hour shift to send money back home my family and now since 1997 I'm working US postal service as a mailman city carrier my wife also working post office I have a one daughter she's 19 and she's a arbine EC Urbine doing the pharmacist. Last month, City of Parish approved the bill, the 1% sale tax increase. I believe this was not the right time to increase the tax. Many of our resident

already struggling. Our cost of living is going high. Gas pricing rising every day. The food pricing rising. So in this time if city increase the tax you hurting your resident, you hurting your small business. I'm not support this. If however this tax increase for the public safety yes I'll be support this bill like a road work sidewalk street light and neighborhood polishing we really need a neighborhood was police every day I see the mailbox is breaking mail is stalling I see the car Catholic converter is stalling in front your house I see the house breaking. So if those tax increase money goes to public safety, I'll be support those bill. Otherwise the general tax increase, I don't support that. I request city hold this bill until the your new council.

Thank you. Kevin Sud uh good evening, city council. Uh, this is actually my first time here and it's unfortunate because I have to come here because I have a complaint um that I'm trying to get through to the sheriff's department, um, the courts, things of that sort. So, I live in Garland Street, uh, a community behind May Ranch. Uh, we are by Morgan Park. And for some time now, there are there's two family there's a family there's a family that lives on that street. They live in two houses on that street. And what's happening is they have big events there where they have sometimes 60 people out on the street and at times they will block traffic. They'll double park cars in the middle of the street making it hard for people to get in. They'll be standing around in the middle of the street which makes it hard for people to get in. Uh not that long ago they blocked my driveway entirely and I had to come out with my cell phone asking them to remove their car. Um, it became a confrontation. I called the police four times. Um, they showed up after the fourth time. They were drinking in public. Um, they actually backed up into another vehicle. I had all video evidence of this. I tried to show it to the deputies. Um, it wasn't until I talked to Sergeant Gillorenzo who took down the information who took the videos. Um, it's affecting a lot of the residents in there as well. they're just not speaking up about it. Um, but for myself, because I'm next door to one of the families and I'm constantly being bered, my

property is being bered with basketballs, tennis balls from the kids constantly playing in those backyards. I'm talking about 40, 50 balls in my backyard. I'm going to speak up about it. Um, I am a Valverie Unified School District science teacher. Um, I am a respectful member of the community. I don't come to these events often because I'm just trying to live my life in peace, but I feel like this is getting to a point where it's disturbing our residents and our community, our street needs support for this. I've talked to other people who have told me similar incidents where one of their windows was shot out by a BB gun and their granddaughter was sleeping in that room. Um, every Fourth of July they light fireworks. I'm talking crates, crates of fireworks on our street. And there was a young lady over here who was talking about um fire damage. I mean, if there's anything that's a concern for fire damage, that's it. Um and I've talked to the deputies multiple times about this incident. Um and the only thing they do is they come out and talk to them, but it keeps continuing. And that night when I had to have a confrontation to get them to remove their vehicle from my driveway, I called four times. They were drunk driving on the street. They were drinking in public and they rammed into another vehicle and still nothing was done about it. So I'm asking if we can get support for this situation and there can be more.

I'm sorry, sir. What was your name? My name is Kevin Sud. Kevin, have you reached out to your local district representative, Councilwoman Nava? Um, I don't know who that is. I'm coming to the city. Okay. No, and that's perfectly fine. I'd like for you to reach out to her. She's to my left. You copy me if you'd like as well, but start there and then she can forward information to me and uh, Councilman Rab, we still we can get it to the agenda for our public safety committee meeting as well. How can I get her information? Does she have a business card or Okay. Okay. Thank you. If you just remain in front here, have a seat and we'll she'll pass it down to a staff member. That is all. Thank you.

All right. Item N is approval of minutes. 9A's consideration to approve the minutes of the special joint meeting held on February 17, 2026 of the city council successor agency to the redevelopment agencies and all the other entities as listed on our agenda. No one has any comments or questions. Council, I entertain a motion to approve. I have a motion by Councilman Rab, second by Mayor Prom Corona. Please call the vote. 5 motion approved.

Thank you. 9B is the approval of minutes uh from the regular joint meeting held on February 24, 2026 of the city council successor agency to the rail development agencies and all the others as listed on this agenda. There is a minor revision to this minutes which has been disturb distributed to the council. Um at at this point there's no questions or comments. I will call for a motion on the minutes for the regular meeting held on February 24th. A motion by Councilman Rav, second by Councilwoman Aba. Please call a vote.

50. Motion approved. Excellent. Item 10 is our consent calendar items. Consent calendar items are normally enacted in one motion. The mayor or the city council may remove a consent counter item for a separate action. We will have public comment limited to three minutes. Let's start with the public comments. Madam cler, do you have any request to speak?

Yes, sir. I have for item 10 C. Muhammad Ramen.

Uh, good evening honorable mayor, city council and city official and wonderful people of city of parish. My name is Muhammad Rahman and I come to support the harvest landing project is we wait for this will be change our city they bring a nearly 12,000 job 600 house and 90 million they're going to invest our road and sidewalk this is the best thing ever for Paris city and I come to support this project thank you thank Thank you,

Felix Fernandez. Good evening, uh, Mayor Vargas, uh, Paris, city council members. My name is Phelix Fernandez. I sent an email to you all last week regarding the harvest landing project, and I appreciate the responses I received from Mayor Vargas, council members Nava, and Rav. I didn't receive a uh response from council member Vallejo or uh council member Corona. Um based on the meeting of February 7th, I'm convinced that some of you are emotionally tied to your vote and nothing anyone says will change um change your mind, but I'm uh hopeful that you all will prove me wrong tonight and vote unanimously uh to um to move this project forward and let the residents start enjoying the benefits that harvest landing will bring to the city of Paris. I will reiterate uh some of what I sent in my email on March 4th. Quote, "The Paris residents are tired of spending their money in Menfy, Marietta, Tmacula, Marino Valley, and Riverside. The Harvest Landing project will bring so much revenue to the city of Paris. So why are Maris Salava and Elizabeth Vallejo in opposition of this project? Do they not want the city to grow? Are they not listening to the residents of the city which they represent? I am very excited for what Mr. Tim Howard is bringing to the city of Paris and can tell you that all my neighbors and everyone that I speak to are also very excited. We have all been waiting for a project like this for many decades. So, please put your personal feelings aside and move forward with this project and do what is right for the city of Paris and its residents. End quote. While I worked at March Air Force Base for over 30 years, during this time I've seen many airmen move from other locations and look for a place to live. And prior to arriving, um, they do their homework and they don't look at the city

of Paris. They look elsewhere. And why is that? So, I hope today you're able to set your personal feelings aside and do what's right for the city, for the residents of this community, and finally let this project move forward. so that Paris can finally become a premier city like the cities that surround us. And the airmen that move from other locations that come to March Air Force Base will want to move to Paris rather than look at moving to other pre premier cities that surround us. I thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the harvest landing project. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Layos. Buenos City Council. Let us get

I'm gonna I'm gonna say it in English just real quick. Okay. Our Paris residents deserve the best. Uh we are in favor of a community conscious infrastructure and development that truly benefits our Paris residents and kids. Growing up in the Paris Valley, I always remember the flooding during heavy storms, especially on Paris Boulevard. We have come a long way as a city with me, many positive improvement, but there is still more to do. Paris is overpop populated by warehouses. We need access to commercial parks and entertainment so our residents can have local access. We are tired of empty promises by developers that come in and painting a beautiful picture not delivering and leaving behind the fence of warehouses that surround our city and the environmental impact that leave behind and damage our streets. These warehouses need to be made responsible of the upkeeping of our streets that they continue to destroy with these with their semitrs and traffic. We have to learn of our own and our past experience to make sure that everything that is promised with all current and future projects are kept and is in legal writing and being mindful that any decision will open the door to future impact. We want to make sure that our city does all that all the due diligence to make sure that all developers projects deliver on what is promised. As a council and a city, we have to think long term and and the impact of decisions, how they will impact the well-being of our residents. Please make sure that if commercial that if we are promised commercial parks and entertainment that these promises are kept first before trying to push any industrial or or slarehouse uh development. Uh so I have a question for city council. with the warehouse uh moratorum in place are industrial buildings/wwarehouses that are bringing in similar impact as a warehouse considered in the moratorum. Uh I we I'm very in favor of uh commercial parks and entertainment but we are we want to make sure that all the promises that are being um provided and

and presented are actually being kept. We've had experience in the past, not only here in the par city of Paris and other uh cities that uh when developments like this come, we are very uh happy that they're coming in and we're very hopeful, but at the same time, we want to make sure that our city our city of Paris and city council and all city staff that we're doing our due diligence to make sure that to hold accountability on all these developments and make sure that what is promised is actually delivered because Paris deserves the best. We deserve uh commercial parks and entertainment and all the benefits that projects like this will um bring to our city of Paris. Thank you very much. Thank you,

Katie Keys. Well, I'm very honored to be here because I'm so excited about this project. And thank you, mayor. Thank you, city council. Thank you, staff. You know, I grew up in Paris, started in 1942, so I've been around a long time. And this is probably one of the nicest projects I've ever seen come into Paris and improve Paris and put Paris a place to come that has places that you can really enjoy and leave their money here. That's important. And uh I'm part of the Paris Valley Historical Museum which they have worked with us on art projects and they're going to have some beautiful history art available for the city to see and remember our history. It's a very interesting history and we have a lot more history than a lot of the other towns around us. So I'm very proud that they are doing that here for Paris. Okay. And I thank you very much.

Thank you, Katie. Nina Ray. I repeat that. They were clapping.

Mayor, members of the city council, staff, good evening. I'm Nina Ray representing Olive Garden. I'm really in favor of this project. It's being long awaited by our client and I hope you guys do a favorable decision on this project so we can have a beautiful project here in Paris and for the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you

Vanessa Delgado. Good evening. I'm just here um ready to answer any questions if you have them. We're excited to begin hopefully with your approval tonight and I'm thankful that um the previous speaker talked about putting things in writing. Your staff has done that and I am very confident that we can deliver. Thank you. Thank you,

Kevin Wolf. Good evening, mayor, council members, uh, city staff. We've worked together on many projects throughout the years, mostly bringing infrastructure to the city for opportunities just like this. Um, it's a great city, great history. I just remind everybody that as we pull out on the map that this is one valley. Um Marino Valley, Paris Valley, Menipe Valley, these are really just distinct areas in the same economic valley. So as we look at opportunities, not one project has a a benefit that stays within city limits. A project like this does support the entire region. We're working on the housing element of this. We're excited. We've got uh four generations of experience developing uh houses as a builder developer and also working with other builders from out of the area to help them find things that fit in our area. So what we have is we're partnered with Tim and the rest of the team on this project to make sure that uh what we need here in Paris has the local perspective and that we deliver what belongs here. So thank you. Thank you,

Jerry Sapova.

Good evening, honorable mayor, council, and staff. Uh, on behalf of the Paris Valley Chamber of Commerce, um, we are in favor of this project. I'm not going to go over the same thing I went over last time. One of the main things I want to go over regarding the chamber um is the retail alone is going to be able to bring in roughly almost $5 million in tax, especially if we we move forward with the 1% tax. That's in addition of possibly the 15 million that would be coming in if the tax just passes as it is right now. So that's a 30% 33% increase that we would have just in tax revenue by getting this project approved. Um the second portion I want to just go over is as a resident I'm a resident in um in the territory of uh Mayor Prom Malcolm Corona. I'm also in favor of this project. My family's in favor of this project. Uh even this weekend uh we were in Meny to grab a bite to eat and we were sitting down and they had the outdoor courtyard and I'm just like it was probably the one of the first times my wife and I were like we're going to get this in Paris to where we could sit outside and we could really enjoy the the scenery, the area and um so we're just genuinely excited about having this project come through um as long as you guys have your support. I truly believe you guys have put a lot into the um agreement um to make sure it happens. So, you know, as a resident, we trust you um and we appreciate you guys. And I just want to make one quick comment is that when I grow up, I want to look like Robert. That's a beautiful suit. That's all I have to say. Thank you guys.

Thank you,

Carla Cvantes. Good evening, council. Carlos Arvant is here. All the statements I'm going to say right now are my own. Um, so I'm not against commercial and retail. I've came here before the last few years saying we need a retail, saying we needed commercial. Um, but I am against false promises. Yes, we need the retail, we need a park, but I'm worried more so about the 200 or so acres of MBU. Housing needs to be in writing, not just in I'll try my best by Howard Industrial, with a developer that has been known to make false promises. So much so that he got sued and kicked off of projects in Bloomington. Uh we needed the promises in writing. Why risk close to 200 acres to possibly logistics or a euphemism, a parcel hub, distribution center, depot, storage facility? We aren't concerned about the retail. We're concerned about the acreage that we don't know about. the hospital being promised needs to be in writing or at least an oversight of who's going to be making sure that he's keeping with these promises, not just a I I I'll try my best. No, that's not enough. We do need soccer fields. Uh Malcolm Corona, a few years ago, you said that you wanted to make sure that you were dealing with like real issues that you were going to try your best. You've told us to call you out on it. I'm calling you out right now, bro. You do not owe just Jerry Supple. I know you grew up with a guy. I know you grew up with people who are on the kicks thing. I understand that you have personal relationships, but at the end you guys are putting at risk 200 or so, maybe a little less of acreage to a developer that has made false promises. Where is the oversight here? This is going to bring tons and tons of trucks possibly because there is so much flexibility there. The housing um might be built after the housing law is

sunset. That means that he would have no legal requirement to meet that and it's being purposely done. I wanted to call and say call some attention to the previous speaker that said about emotional and this and that. It's very sexist because the reason that we have uh council member VJO and council member Nava putting so much oversight in this is because they care. Like that's literally their job is to care about residents is to speak up for residents that are talking about opposition in every single way that they can. So I understand we do need the retail. We want the commercial. I think uh the soccer park with kicks is a really good thing, but we need to have real oversight about the rest of the flexibility. We don't want to be able to give a developer like Howard Industrial who has made false promises and been sued again building a giant warehouse next to a school so much that Bloomington now has a cancer research being done in that area. This isn't some BS that I'm just talking. This is real data. This is real data happening in universities, prestige universities all over California that are studying that area. You guys are all qualified to make these decisions. You guys are all really, really intelligent. We have people up here that went to prestigious Ivy League college colleges, right? Like maybe not all of you, but maybe one or two. Regardless, I we need oversight on this. Like, we need oversight right away because we want the commercial, we want the retail, we want to be able to have the right to have clean air as well. And I know that you guys have the power to do so. Thank you.

Thank you,

Julio Flores. Good evening, mayor, city council members. Uh, Robert, I also want to grow up and be like you, brother. Nice suit. Hey, my name is Julio Flores. I'm a um representative for the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters who represent over uh I would say 6,000 members who live in Riverside County. Uh we're in full support of this project. I know uh kept hearing uh people throw some shade on Howard, right? Uh but Howard's actually has committed to utilize uh and pay the area standard wages on these projects, right? he has util he's uh committed to utilizing uh carpenters who uh uh depend on these type of jobs and uh this is going to be a great project. It's um you know as a representative I do have the opportunity to visit a lot of job sites especially here in Paris and it's sad to see uh that a lot of these contractors what they pay their workers right we talk about tax fraud crime scenes on these job sites. So when we have a developer like Howard Industrial who is committed to pay the standard wages we're in full support that's a no-brainer. So um we urge you to vote yes on this project. Thank you.

Thank you. That is all. Thank you. Okay. Um, at this time I'm looking for uh council. Anybody have anything they like to pull or a separate motion or a separate discussion on our consent calendar item? I have mayor prom, excuse me, Councilman Rabb, just like to pull item 10E for a separate vote and 10E. E is an Edward. Separate vote.

Councilwoman Alva, if I could pull items uh C and D for discussion and separate vote. C and D as in David. I don't see anybody else in the queue. So, we're looking for approval on 10AB FNG AB FNG. Have a motion by Mayor Pro Tim, second by Councilman Aava. Please call the vote.

50 motion approved. All right, let's just go in order. Um 10 C pulled by Nava for a separate vote and discussion. 10 C is consideration to adopt the second reading of proposed ordinance number four, excuse me, 1471 and 1472 approving zone change 24-05176 and development agreement amendment 17-05136 to facilitate the comprehensive update of the harvest landing specific plan including phase one development as follows. One uh zone change to reszone 5.64 64 acres in the northerly area of the harvest landing specific plan from AI zone to a specific plan SP land use designation and to apply the MBU overlay to 10.66 66 acres currently developed with the Velverie Elementary School and two develop agreement amendment for specific project improvements community benefits. The applicant is HIP SoCal Properties LLC. Councilwoman,

thank you. Mayor, if it could please pull up the renderings that I've shared ahead of the meeting while I uh give my comments. So, while they're pulling those up, um could we uh jump over to the next slide, please? All right. So, as you can see here, uh these are some of the renderings that I was requesting for from the applicant at the prior meeting. Um it if you could go on to the next slide, please. Um I basically wanted to highlight just how large this project looked like and thank you to resident JC Franco for uh providing these renderings. Um, I'm sure we're all familiar with Walmart, which is uh right right in front of that that rendering there and just uh including the parking lot and that whole commercial component, just how small it looks next to the parcel hub. Um, so I'd like to begin by reiterating that our city's progress should not be tied to these type of uh industries that compromise our health, our quality of life. We have a commitment to responsible and sustainable development that prioritizes our community's well-being. Um, and as it's it has it been said time and time again, surrounding cities do not need an industrial component or in this case a parcel hub to provide those commercial needs for their residents. And I'm sure we're all aware of that. But I just wanted to reiterate and drive home that point that um because this applicant is providing commercial, they feel that in exchange the council should approve a parcel hub which it's it it should not be tied one to the other. Um, so with that being said, I believe that the applicant, because he is offering this as a package deal, should be able to fully meet the commercial needs that he promised at the last council meeting. Um, I think that should

be fully occupied and ready to go and basically ready to shop uh by the time FedEx receives their parcel hub. I know that since the last meeting he's uh retracting some of those promises. So again, comments have been made by uh some of our speakers that they don't want to fall ill into false promises and and and again between the first reading and now we've already seen some backtracking by the applicant. So, if you'd like to um to basically see what you what has been promised, I feel like there should be no no reservation from the developer to be able to provide 100% of what it is that they they uh are promising as far as commercial. Um, I would like to take the time to thank Councilwoman Vjo, who is one of the most recently elected council members here, for her commitment to want to do better uh by our community, by our residents. Um, and uh let's see. So at this point because the first reading uh seemed to be uh had three-fifths of the votes and they seem to be in favor of this project. I guess now I'm left with the last plea of some negotiation perhaps reducing the the footprint of the parcel hub. Um and again for the developer to be able to fulfill their promise of bringing 100% of the commercial component as well as a park that they have been selling and the housing is not part of the package deal because this zone this land was zoned for residential. So that's nothing new or innovative that the applicant is is needed to fulfill. It's it's it's something that that's what was zoned for and that's what should come. Um, so, uh, so I'm going to read this right off

my script. I want to make sure I don't miss anything. Um, I request as a condition of approval, the development agreement shall include a provision requiring that the covenant expressly state that in perpetuity, the developer is prohibited from requesting or seeking any modification, amendment, or recision of the covenant from the city. This requirement shall be expressly incorporated into the covenant itself. And if I could have it uh go on to the next slide, please. All right. And there's another another image here. As as you can see, it's right along the 215 freeway. It next slide, please. And the next slide. And that's just an example of what Rialto is left with a real life. We um are promised over 700 truck trailer parking. So, not small EV vans that you see uh from FedEx, but the large trucks. And when it comes to a parcel hub, they're known to be four times um their truck traffic tends to be four times greater than a regular warehouse. So while we are in a moratorum for warehouse and industrial type uses, it's ironic that we're approving something something that has even greater impacts and how we're how council has decided to put this near sensitive receptors such as the park that's coming and the schools and whatnot. Um it is there another slide left here. All right. So can we go back to the very first slide? Another thing that I would just like to reiterate um and maybe our city manager uh could confirm, there is nothing that prohibits this applicant from coming back in the future and requesting uh industrial type uses for future phase 1 MBU as well as phase 2. Correct.

Um as conditioned um there is a requirement that a covenant must be recorded on the properties you see here. um that uh warehouses are not permitted in perpetuity. Um we can expand on that. Um and there's also uh that's a condition of approval. Um additionally, the specific plan um prohibits warehouses, but like anything in due process. Anyone can come back and ask for that modification any time in the future just like any other process.

Thank you. So basically that is another one of my concerns is that we will see not only 70 acres of parcel hub and industrial type uses and isors if you will. Um it we're we will most likely see way more than that and by that point the school that's right near it will also see those repercussions. So again um I I just hope that our council is able to truly push for better from this applicant. Um, and those are my comments for now. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Councilman Rabb,

it's just a quick question for staff. Mr. Fong in particular. Um, since this project was approved during the first reading, there's been several changes to the agreement that are in writing. Correct. Uh, there are conditions in writing. Correct. Yes. And one of those conditions is that the um the email that you sent to council earlier today that the partial hub will have additional landscape screening. The applicant developer shall increase and enhance the landscaped areas at the southwest corner of Frontage Road and Private Drive A and the northeast corner of Frontage Road and Barrett Avenue subject to review and the plan approval of the planning staff. That's a new condition that's in our our second reading today. Correct.

That's correct. Then there was also uh a new condition uh that we've finite uh finalized some of the language correct regarding um if FedEx wants to receive its building permit uh most of the buildings have to be operational. Is that correct? That's correct. And if the buildings aren't operational for FedEx to receive its building permit, it would need to pay, I believe, $15 million and then 1 million per month uh until uh 1 million a month until the other buildings are operational. That's correct. No, that's not correct. It's actually it's not the FedEx. It's the developer developers agreed to that. Correct, Mr. Howard. Okay. And that wasn't in the first reading uh back in February. That's correct.

Okay. And those have been developed over the course of the last month. That's correct. And we can also bring up the slide to highlight all the condition. I can read them as part of the record, too. For the record. Yeah. So, let me vet through these first few questions and I'm going to have staff do their little presentation. Um, is that all you had council? Just in terms of there's been movement since Yeah, of course. Correct. Um, mayor prom? No, I'll share my comments after the Okay. After the presentation, all right, staff, you want to queue in now.

Uh, good, mayor, members of the city council. Um, after the first reading of this item back last month, there has been uh some amendments that was made by the council the last meeting and some additional revisions since that meeting. And I just want to go over those amendments with you. Um, so the first part is the amendment to the development agreement. The first provision is to have a 10-year um agreement that they would pursue a hospital with good faith effort for a minimum of 10 years. Uh the second condition is to um for the developer to complete the commercial retail box building, the commercial major buildings, inline buildings, one sitdown restaurant, all the off-site improvements. Uh in addition um of the parcel hub uh in addition they would need to also do the complete the family entertainment use and one sit down restaurant in the outline pads and those stipulations are highlighted in the screen before you. Uh the exception as um uh council member Rab mentioned if they can't com have full occupancy they will have to build the building but if they are not open and fully operational they're required to make a payment of $15 million and one month thereafter. So that's highlighted on the screen for you. Uh the second is the sports park. This was mentioned the last meeting. We kind of identify in detail all the stipulation that's required as part of the park completion. It has to be completed prior to occupancy of the parcel hub. Uh they gives the right the first right of refusal to lock academia. If for some reason in the near future date if they don't want to continue the operation the city has the first right of refusal to acquire the property and decide how we want to do. We have a

90-day period to do so. Uh in addition, there's a summary of the conditions of approval that's been updated since that meeting. Uh one is the warehouse and distribution use restriction covenant and that applies to track map 38810 and 38811 that includes all the land that's owned by um Howard Industries. The second is the request for the security guard for security guard and security of surveillance. Uh the third is that additional landscaping at the corner of the freeway along private street and frontage road and then buried and frontage road. And the last part is just to implement the requirement for the sports park. The engineering condition also got updated to provide all the details that's involved in getting that approved and all the engineering requirements for that process and that's highlighted in the screen for you. In addition, the council also requested just to make sure no warehouses distribution. So these were the markup that was created. Remove all anything that's related to heavy industrial heavy manufacturing but light manufacturing is permitted. This list just identifies just for your information all the loud uses in the MBU MBU zone which allows residential, it allows hospitals, it allows um hotels and all the typical retail that you'll be allowed in the commercial zone plus residential. Uh the council also requested a revision to make sure that there is only one parcel hub in the entire harvest landing specific plan that is in the harvest land specific plan already. So, I just want to highlight that specific section that's in the specific plan. Uh, in conclusion, staff recommends the adoption of the ordinance 1471 and 1472 approve the zone change and the development agreement subject to the findings and information contained in

the submitted approval and as modified by the council. And that concludes uh my presentation. Thank you. Thank Corona.

Thank you, mayor. Uh you you know I I do want to thank all the speakers for coming out. Uh I don't I don't know if we've ever had so many speakers for a a second reading, but I I I do understand and I fully respect that this is a controversial issue. Um and and I don't think it's a it's a commercial component, right? And I don't think it's a park component. It's obviously uh the the parcel hub component, right? And and I just want to reiterate by our own definition of our city that we all agreed to the parcel hub is not a warehouse, right? If it was a warehouse, it wouldn't even come to us because we do have a moratorum. Now, is it a large building? Absolutely. Will there have lots of truck traffic? Yes, it will. But by our definition, it's not a warehouse. Um where it stands right now, where where it's situated right now, um some people have have brought that up. Why wasn't it moved up north? Why was it moved here and there? It's because we we people here, people on our council, we requested that it got moved away. At at one time, it was going to be right in the center of the whole uh specific plan. And uh you know, if you move it up north, it's going to be close to the school and close to the housing. So, the only place to move it was was down south. Now, um you know, it was vetted by the by the planning commission. I they they did request that it was going to be the to make it smaller, but there was also some things that planning commission um didn't request and that was put in the park, for example, in phase one. So, since the last meeting regarding this issue, I've had I I absolutely do reflect on it. My mind isn't always made up when I come here. In fact, the last time uh I I was kind of on the fence. I was leaning towards it, but it was really on the fence. And and every time we kept asking, hey, what about this? What about that? Where are you going to do this? The answer was always yes. And so I I I got more confidence, but I I I want to make make clear um weighing the pros and cons and ensuring that we have everything that we need to close the loopholes, right? And since that time, things have changed. And I want to thank my my colleague uh Councilwoman Naba for

for finding finding what could have been a potential loophole in there. So, of course, I had then then I had to go in there and kind of go through everything and ask questions. And I was on the phone with our staff the the I think pretty much almost every day since uh since we had the last project. So while speaking to family and friends and co-workers and neighbors regarding this project and sharing the benefits and concerns um the majority not not the vast majority I want to make that clear. I know there polls going out and it was 84. No it's it's not 84%. Right? If you tell them hey do you want shopping and do you want um sports parks? Yeah. most you're going to get 90% of people saying that, right? But if you tell them, hey, it's going to come with a large building and maybe truck traffic, right? Some people are going to even question that. So, um, but since that time, right, um, stuff has changed and I would say we've made it even slightly better from from the first reading. It's it's it's been changed slightly, right? Some of those concerns was uh I know my my colleague uh VJO she was talking about the entertainment center and that's something a lot of residents have been wanting. They've been begging for right and we don't we don't we still don't have one right like a place I mean we have we have the drop zone during the summer and couple places but we don't have a place for people to go enjoy and um so I'm I'm I'm glad to know that that's that's part of the conditions we put that in there. Um, but I I do want to make it clear that that we um let me kind of go back and go to my notes. Um, yeah, but I I do want you to understand that whether you support this project or you oppose this project, your voices have been heard. I I've been listening, right? And and to the resident that that that that called me out, I I appreciate that. Actually, if you think I'm messing up, if you think I'm not being transparent, if you think I'm not being honest, I I appreciate that you call us out. I I think it's important that our council calls out calls out all of our council when they feel like like like they're not listening. But I do want to

make it clear I did grow up with Mr. Seovva, right? Um I I still consider him a friend, but I don't owe him any favors, right? He he's never done anything um you know to help my campaign or anything and but I do appreciate him as a friend still, but I don't owe him any favors. In fact, I don't owe Mr. Howard any favors, right? I'm the only one that supported him that hasn't taken money from him and I will I will never take money from him. So, if anyone thinks like, oh, hey, you're selling out like selling out for what? Right. I genuinely believe that this project is beneficial for the city and I but I think we can make it better and we can make it stronger. Now, I'll bring that up in my notes in a bit. Um, but this project does, as stated, it does bring much needed commercial uh where nearly all must be built and 194,000 square feet must be built and operated prior to the parcel hub being built. And this is also in addition to the entertainment center, right? And have we talked about who's coming? Is that something to I guess we'd have to ask uh uh Mr. Howard about that because he said he was going to update us on something amazing. Um the applicant is investing with subsidies $22 million, right? That's money that our city just doesn't have. Now, of course, if we had a sales tax, and it's good to know that it sounds like the chamber might be supporting it, but um but the sales tax, if if we do get that, that's that's going to allow us with this with this project, that's going to allow us to make the infrastructure needed to be able to bring future development, right? I don't want to have to say like, oh man, like if if we don't get the FedEx, then then then we can't get the commercial. But that's kind of the situation we're at right now. It might take us minimum five years, more likely 10, maybe more than that to to be able to make the infrastructure improvements to be able to to to have the situation that we're doing um with with with the project that we're getting here with just the commercial. Not only that, but the park

itself, 16 acre park, asking people about how much that would cost, that'd be about $13 million. We don't have that in our parks diff, right? We've done re very good. We we try to protect our money. the the the best we can. I felt like we spent it wisely. Our parks are beautiful, the ones that we have, but I mean, it's a lot of work to build parks, right? We we've had to rely on state government grants to to to do all that stuff, and the parks just get more expensive, more expensive every year. Imagine money we don't have. Um so, it's good to know that that that's going to free up space um for for our own parks, right? Because uh La Liga, they they use they use significant uh space in our parks. um we know who's going to be there, right? It's not they're not building the the spec, right? And and that's one thing I we used to hate, right? I' I've heard council council that uh supported warehouse, they still they still were opposed to that where they building the spec, right? Like h like what we're going to do is build in. We'll see who comes. We know who's going to be there. It's going to be FedEx, right? That's who's going to be there. They're parcel hub. We know what they do. They're going to bring bring uh packages. They're going to take pack packages out. We know that's going to happen. What I do like about FedEx is that is that if you look at at their vehicles now, a lot of them are electric vehicle. They're I think most of them are electric vehicle, especially the the the last mile vehicles, those smaller ones. They're electric vehicles. So, if our concern is emissions, which I'm obviously concerned about, right? It's important that that that we do recognize, hey, you do have a company and and they are bringing more electric uh vehicles. It is very concerning about the amount of truck uh parking that's going to be there. I think that's a valid concern. And uh but I I am happy to know that the that the wall from the freeway is going to be 14 ft tall. So you'll still be able to see the building. That's clear. But is that sufficient um to to block out most of the trucks from the freeway? Mr. Porazami, I'm just asking.

Yes, it should be because there's also a 50- foot landscaping buffer in front of that wall, too. Okay. And we did since then, since the last reading, we did add uh landscaping as well, too. kind of just a like a tree setting, park setting. Yes. There's a condition we're adding additional landscaping.

Okay. And so so to get to the point of a residence, um do do I do I trust the developer? No, I don't I don't trust the developer. I don't trust any developer, right? Because so many times in our city's history before I was here and and even since a lot of them have made promises that they couldn't keep. So I am I am um it was very important to me that we that that I was confident that we had the most robust development agreement, right? And the strongest condition approval that we have ever had for any project in the history of our city because I don't trust the developer, right? So we have all these conditions in there for him. If he doesn't do it, he's going to pay us $50 million and then it was a concern to me. Well, what happens if he just pays it off and then and then what? So, it's important that every single month, every single month, he's going to pay us another 1 million and that goes to whoever takes over the project afterwards. Um, let me get to Okay. So I I think it's important that that that um you know I I I think it's very important that we also recognize that much of the strong language is is uh can be attributed to to my colleagues who didn't support the project right they because of because of their words they they helped make it stronger um whether they support it or not and and I do want to make the residents know that that that you we owe a lot of gratitude to our colleagues the ones that who didn't support it because they actually fought to get these things in here that were also important to me, too. Um, so I do want to I I do think that it's important that we get um some of the language in here to make it a little bit better, a little stronger. Some residents have brought it up to us. They emailed us. Um, one of them is I know the city attorney, I was speaking to you

about it. Um my my my colleague Councilwoman um Nava, she brought up a great point. As a condition of approval, the covenant shall provide that it may only be resended by a unanimous vote. Right? Because it's important to me too that that that if let's say there's a change of council that our our developer or any developer, whether it's him or whoever owns it, that they don't go around changing it. But there's an issue with that where we can't make a uni unanimous vote. Can you explain that?

Uh yes. Um so there is uh case law that says uh city council can't contractually bind a future council's discretion away from them. And although in this incident um one could argue maybe this is not a land use issue, it's a real estate document. It's it's arguable that in the future the developer can come and say it's actually not a binding condition and they would try to resend it and argue in court that um the council didn't have the discretion to bind the future council. So the better route would be to do what councilwoman um Nava read into the record which would be as a condition of the development agreement because the development agreement is a voluntary document between the developer and the city and the developer can agree to whatever he wants to. um that the developer agrees that um the provision um requiring that the covenant expressly states that in perpetuity the developer is prohibited from requesting or seeking any modifications, amendments or recession of the covenant from the city forever. And we would put that in the covenant itself and that covenant would be recorded against the property and it would ran it would run with the land in perpetuity. any new buyer would be put on notice about that and they know that they're buying a property that doesn't require them to come and seek to resend that um covenant and the developer knows it. Um so that's a a more legally sound way of doing it so the developer doesn't try to get out of it in the future.

Okay. So, so I think I think from what I heard that the developer can't request it, but can can his his his coworker request it? No, because the covenant will be recorded against the property and it runs with the land with the property. So, no future owners can request it. Um, uh, no tenants can request it. It's a covenant recorded against the property itself. that he could never come back and build a warehouse, a parcel hub, and anything else that we might request a change of

that that's what he's agreeing to. If he does, he has to get up and say yes, he'll agree to that. That the development agreement will have a provision in there that says that that the covenant in it will have the language I read into the record. And if he says yes, yes, he has the ability to bind himself uh in a contract with the city. So, and and anyone future buyers because he's selling if he does sell the property, he's selling the property as entitled. So, all of the entitlements go with the property.

Okay. Well, to be fair, he did buy the property entitled for housing and he he requested some changes, right? But I I do I do understand the concerns of Councilwoman Nava. I do agree with those concerns. It's a concern of mine mine as well, too. Um, in addition to that, I know we briefly spoke about it last meeting, but I'm just gonna bring that back because I'm kind of stuck on that. I mean, one one another important thing that's very important to me is that since there's nothing being developed in the in that middle parcel area that I I do recommend the um that that that any recommendation of approval of the second reading um be with the exception of the reszoning of the 68 acres zoned MBU northerly of the of the parcel hub. So, I I think if we're not building anything there, we don't touch it. We don't change it. I know there's talks about a hospital. I'm I'm glad to speak with uh Dr. Falsedto. I think he's a he's a very um honest person. He I looked him up because I didn't believe him, but I looked him up and he did he did um come with uh credentials and credibility. He's he's he's had a history of building hospitals. So, if that comes, I can't imagine a situation where a council wouldn't be thrilled to have a hospital. I don't want to speak for everybody else. else. I got to be careful of that. But I will speak for myself. I I would be thrilled to have a hospital. Not saying I'll vote for it, but um with that said, I I think uh I took enough time, so I'll let uh

Councilman Corona, if I may, those two points you made, is your vote basically contingent on those two points because what I'm hearing is that we need to get the developer to approval. So rather than going through and spending time going back and forth, if Mr. Howard is okay to do that, maybe we can move forward on this. Uh, I mean, I I think at minimum I would actually like to to hear my colleagues. I I would I would prefer to get everybody here in a situation where we're all in support here. Uh whether we'll do that, I don't know, but at least we give them a chance to. Okay. You guys don't mind if I take over here, do you? Okay. Uh, Councilwoman Vallejo, you have any comments?

Yes. So, just a few comments that I have is I I know um I try to be as fair as I can and Tim I I've had meetings with you. I've had meetings with your partners with many of your partners, your consultants. So, I really try to see your side because your side is the business side. It's like you want to get as much as you can here so we can bring more more revenue. And I completely agree agree with it. But sometimes I do think about that ever since I have been on council. What we're doing now to these developers, it's is what we should have done years ago. Now we're finally doing that. Now we're taking these developers held accountable to be like, "Hey, we we want more." But then sometimes I start thinking like, is that all Paris is going to be? Are we just always going to rely on a warehouse for more for more commercial? Like everyone knows here that we have way too many like warehouses and also empty warehouses. And sometimes I believe also what if we just leave it alone until a developer who only wants to build commercial and residential would work. That would make everyone happy here. everyone would be extremely happy knowing that that is an option cuz one of my concerns is part of that MBU is housing might be lost. We uh we don't know Tim if you may or may not build housing. that is a possibility and to put that part in under MBU it means that we may lose that housing and I am a strong advocate on bringing more h housing on bringing more um density housing here because then we can have more people live here and then we will have more higher demand for commercial developers to come and build more commercial things here and that is one of my main concerns and from what um a speaker was saying earlier she mentioned

that where is the oversight ITE especially regarding a hospital and I believe that she is definitely is right. What is the like the oversight we're we are making these strong provisions but at the same time we're not really holding them accountable in case things don't go through. And as far as she also mentioned she mentioned clean air. I do feel like we take this for granted. Definitely. We have so many warehouses here and we're breathing in that terrible air and we're reproducing and we're having more kids here, but we're also not taking them under consideration of the health hazards that could happen here. So, I have mentioned in the last council meeting, I am willing to approve it. I'm willing to play ball, but unless if we also make sure that the housing is accounted for because so far from the second hearing, all I hear is housing could come here. We don't know. It's a possibility. It depends on the developer. Will I need it and ready to make sure or some or some type of law legal way where housing will be accounted for inside that inside the MBU? And for me, what I would believe would be most comfortable is the the whole council and I, we have been seeing this project for a long time. There's been a lot of changes and it is still very confusing. When it's time to make a motion, I would feel more comfortable to continue it for next meeting. So then we So then we can all regroup, ask some more questions cuz it it has changed since Friday. And that will make me more likely vote in favor knowing that I have more time to do more research with these new changes. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman. Rav, did you have another comment?

Yes, very briefly, Mayor. Thank you so much for the comments. Thank my colleagues for sharing their concerns. Um I think over the last since the last meeting the developer has met with city council. We've added extra protections for city uh city residents uh ensuring that there are no warehouses developed in that area. I think the commercial aspect is great. The FedEx aspect will provide uh jobs for multiple people within the community. But I think one thing that we're trying we're veering into is that we're veering into adding conditions by surprise. Now we've met over the last month. We met the month before that after the planning commission meeting and worked out agreement with the developer. I fear that this council was veering toward a bunch of public service employees lecturing developers. And the question is why would a developer want to come into Paris if they're going to be bullied by individuals who do not for the most part do not run businesses. And I think that's what we're running into. Full disclosure, I'm a deputy district attorney. I appear in court. I get paid by the county of San Bernardino. I do not have to worry about going to various courouses, billing clients, collecting money from clients. The developers that come to the city, they develop land. Now, should we trust them? No. We need to ensure that things are in writing and the agenda has the conditions in the agenda packet in writing. So, I fear that if we continue to do this, we continue to drag these developers along, we'll get a situation where the developers will not want to come to Paris. Now, out of all the people on this council, myself and Councilman Corona, we were around here in the early 1990s. In the early 1990s, Paris had about 21,000 people in the 1990 census. People did not want to build in Paris. I grew up over on Seventh Street. It was so depressed you could not drive down Sixth Street. The Paris Police Department closed that street down. We had businesses closing. We had Thrifties over here by the old stater brothers. That closed and it was empty till the

swap meet came. We had the old Stater Brothers closed. It was empty for several years before Rio Ranch and now Cardian gets got there. The Popeyes, it's closed now, but before that it was Ngalas. When Nal when Ngalas moved over to Del Taco, that was closed for a few years. So I think a lot of people do not have the historical context. And if we come here and we come belligerent toward people who want to they want to make money. That's what they want to do. But that's what America is about. People applying their knowledge to make money. If we come here too hostile developers, we'll get a situation where people will not want to build in Paris. people will not want to invest in Paris and we will not get middle class residents wanting to live in Paris and we will continue we will be like the next Detroit we will be like the next Gary Indiana and we will continue or we will start down the path of people not wanting to develop in Paris so I think we need to be very very cognizant of how we appear to development community while at the same time fighting for our residents. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Okay. Um, you guys fed a lot. That's that's fine. I don't uh need to discuss um my reasonings as to supporting this project. This project's been supported because of all the residents that have came in support of this project on the first reading. Tonight, we have one person that came to oppose it. It's an environmentalist group that's associated with it that's opposing this project. That does not represent the entire city of Paris of 90,000 residents. I don't vote based on one comment. Um the covenant agreement is clearly being written out and it's going to be a signed document. A sec another reading again. We don't need another reading again. Everything has been cleared out and some additions have been made already as it is and I'm going to call upon the applicant in a minute. I heard the word about trust. Well, we've had some pro we had some projects that went south when it come to a residential projects. It's not it's it goes with any kind of business and it's not ne negativity on the developer themselves. Things do happen. Recessions, whatever the case may be. I'm not here to battle for Mr. Howard, but you know, we did some decisions on some some housing development here and it it went bad on us. So, we've learned our mis from those mistakes and we do put things in writing. I've heard one a couple of times, we need to do better for our residents. Well, this project is doing better for our residents. This developer has bent over backwards, removed every piece of uh warehouse except for the hub. He's going to sign that that covenant. He still has housing in there, lineup of the commercials, everything this committee has been crying for. I don't need to keep on going on and on. This is really a no-brainer for this community. Uh Mr. Howard, you're in here somewhere. Could you please step up to the podium?

I'm not taking him to court counsel. He So, in addition to everything that was already documented, there was an additional two more items that Mr. Corona brought up that the lawyer mentioned or agreed upon. Right. Yes. Councilwoman Nava read the entirety of the condition and I repeated it. Okay. Do you accept those two additional terms?

I just have a point I just have a point of clarification. So obviously Tim accepts the first uh condition which is to uh never request or and also to bind any subsequent owner to never request warehouses within the entire harvest landing specific plan area. The original discussion was potentially removing the 48 acres, not the 68 acres. We're happy to remove the 68 acres. I don't know if we're happy about it, but that's an additional 28 acres outside of the specific plan. But by doing that, you've left the 40 acres, which is subject to a provision within the development agreement on section 4.6 in order to find a uh use best efforts to find a hospital use. And so what that would do if we removed the 68 acres and agreed to bind the 40 acres for 10 years, what that would do is it would create a disincentive in order to place the hospital if the hospital wanted to come to the 68 acres. So you're you're kind of with if you leave 4.6 in the development agreement, I I it's just not in the interest of the city because what you're doing is you're you're trying to shoehorn the city the hospital into the smaller acreage. And so what we would like is the 68 acres to be removed and we would then use our best efforts in order to find the hospital use for the 68 acres. It doesn't make sense to have phase 1 and phase MB2 m uh phase 1 and phase 2 MBU completely locked up for years and years and years. So we are agreeable to remove the 68 acres um with the removal of section 4.6 six within the development agreement or uh separately to remove the 40 acres from the specific plan area.

Understand that? So, when are we going to pull up a map so we could see what we're dealing with? Madam uh city manager, did you have a comment?

Yeah. Okay. Um I I believe um Mayor Prom uh you requested that the 60 acres where there is no project proposed at this time only simply be reverted back to the underlying zone which is the um as if you look on the left side it's the area in the red the 40 acres you're referring to where the hospital is locked for 10 years is the purple area to the north which is the 40 acres that you see there under phase 2 MBU um that the way the condition reads out or the DA is that the phase 2 40.2 40 acres um remain set aside for 10 years for the hospital. Um I guess one option could be if the hospital ends up being in phase two then at such time excuse me in phase one under somewhere in the 68 acres then the 40 acres could be released of that uh of that um u lock or of of the hospital. So, all he's simply saying is if the hospitals actually ends up being in the 68 acres, then the 40 acres would be released of the 10-year lock.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Only if it's only for a hospital, right? Yes. And nothing else. Correct. So, and then after 10 years, it gets reverted back to its original. Right. Because we have a covenant for 10 years for the hospital. Right. Yes. And in the purple in the 40 acres. Correct. Now, when you talk about 40 acres, it's the if you look on the right side. Okay. It says phase 2 MBU40 over there.

Thank you. That's that right now. That's the area um that's reserved set aside for a 10-year lock for a hospital. Um and I believe what u Mr. Shard is rever stating is that if the hospital needs more space, then they want to be able to to uh move it to MBU to the phase one. But I think in in in your concern that there is no project at this time in the uh in the uh phase one MBU 68 acres you wanted to revert back to the current zone. Um what I'm suggesting is that if the hospital ends up coming back being in the 68 acres we'd obviously reszone it at the time to accommodate the hospital. Then at such time, the 10-year lock on the 40 acres would be released for the hospital because now the hospital is going to be in phase in phase one and the 68 acres.

Okay, does that make sense? But but the condition that Councilwoman Nava brought up um that also applies to the 40 acres as well too, right? That currently stands forever. That that that stays in perpetuity. In per No, no, no. I right now the way the condition re is read for the hospital, it's only for 10 years for the hospital. Okay. The impetuity issue is about warehouses. Yeah. The where Yes. The perpet. Right.

And we'd rather have the hospital restriction be with with respect to the 68 acres because again a hospital is going to have a zoned piece of property or an unzoned piece of property. They're going to choose the zoned piece of property which is the smaller which is this 40 40 acres. So the city is going to the city would disincentivize the hospital a bigger hospital. Number one. Number two, we got rid of all warehouses. We got rid of all uses that the city didn't want in MBU. If we were to take out the 68 acres and to have the 40 acres subject to a hospital restriction for 10 years, there's nothing we could do with with the property of of normal MBU, which I think the council would love to see other uses such as, you know, a hotel comes along. We'd rather have it we'd rather have some MBU zoned or even business. I mean, I don't want to I'm not, you know, I don't know if Business Park is your priority land use, but it's a it's a great land use. Again, we can't do warehouses. So, you're talking about, you know, the mom and pop carpet, hardware, uh those types of business park uses. And so, you know, we studied 100 acres worth of property. You know, we're willing to take well 200. We're willing to take out 68 acres, but there should be some type of MBU because again, we're agreeing to do everything in phase one. And I'm not sure if if everybody's caught it here, but the sports park, which I think the intent was to have it in phase one, it's not just in phase one. It's required to be built before the occupancy of of of the FedEx. So, I think there's been a lot of of give. All we're asking for is to have some benefit of those 48 40 acres to be able to use that for MBU to have it zoned for MBU and the 68 acres can come completely out

to build what specifically? Sorry, the 40 acre. So, the 40 acre or the 68 or both? Well, honestly, it's it's the city's choice. Um, okay.

My opinion, which I obviously I'm a little biased, right? But I I I am objectively trying to say that removing the let's see removing the 40 acres is is the most beneficial for you because it leaves the 68 acres for the for a hospital and then the hospital restriction would apply to the 68 acres. the 40 acres would remain um subject to our proposed MBU designation which provides a whole host of of uses that are allowed and that's a that's so that's smaller right we're locking up the 68 acres

you're saying you want to swap so this way the hospital can be built on the 68 acres and put a lock on the 40 the smaller partial I you can't speak outside the microphone so Um, Mayor Prom, you spoke to Dr. John Rafetto and and so he's been he's been guiding what what we need to do is give the hospital operator the clearest path. So he doesn't know if it's 40 or 60, right? The 68, whatever you want to do with that, that's fine by me. what what the attorney is saying is if we put it over there, we've given them the most flexibility that they've asked for.

Okay? So, whichever way, you know, when you're in my business, you serve a lot of masters, right? So, if the hospital says to me, Mr. Howard, we want to be at 68 acres and not 40, but you've only got me 40. I need to get on my horse and run down here and speak to council and staff and figure out a way to get that done. So, I think if we can if we say the 68 acres um that just that gives us the most flexibility and it gives that operator the most certainty. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah, it does. But I I want to make sure that we word it to where it's only that that would only be for a hospital and nothing else.

So So uh two options. So, um, along the lines of you reverting the 68 acres back to its current zone, being that there is no proposal in either one of those future MBU sites, that can happen. The covenant stays 10 years on the 40 acres. If the hospital needs 68 acres, they'd come back. You still need a conditional use permit. You'd come back and ask for the reszone of those 68 acres to accommodate the hospital. And then the only right thing I mean the thing to do now is release the 40 acres of the hospital covenant because you're not going to get two hospitals the super hospital. No,

I mean maybe you could but all we're saying is all they're asking is to if the hospital ends up moving to you keep the you keep the condition as is with your proposal. Only thing that would be added was if the hospital is located elsewhere in the MBU phase one or anywhere else, then you would re you release the 40 acres of the 10-year u covenant because he met his requirement because he met the requirement. Because you make the requirement elsewhere and that is still subject to your review anyway. The hospital location would have to come back um as a legislative action to reszone it and give it its proper zone anyway. anywhere in the 68 acres at the time. Is that

it? It's a little different because okay,

we we would not be able to do anything with either the 68 or the 48 40 acres until we found a hospital, right? We're obviously required to use best efforts to locate a hospital. We're going to do that. All I'm asking for is it applies to the 48 40 acre parcel or the 68 acre parcel. And if you remove for example the 68 acre parcel from the specific plan um that then we can't do any anything at all. We don't have any MBU subject to this the our proposed specific plan. And if you swap that out you can't we wouldn't be able to propose anything for MBU on the 40 acre parcel because that section 4.6 would would still apply meaning it would still burden the 40 40 acres. So, so the concern I have though, I mean, you you've already taken housing, right, for the for the FedEx, right? You that I'm talking about down south. You've already taken housing, right? We haven't put the housing anywhere else. Currently, there's housing right there. Uh, you know, in the in the in the 68 acres. There's currently housing zone housing right right there. Where do we plan on replacing that housing at?

Well, hopefully in the MBU because the MBU allows for a mix of uses, including residential or commercial. Okay. So, it's one of the 50 possible uses, but it's not it's not specifically for housing. Well, we do have a mixeduse overlay that includes that includes residential. And I think there's a condition of approval to submit a housing plan within, you know, 60, you know, 60 days, etc. So, 45 days. 45 I thought it was 60, but yeah, you 40. I thought I remember 45. Whatever it says, we're agreeable to it.

Okay. Okay. Um, yeah, I've been hearing so much about MBUs and and I was, you know, when I first heard about it, I was kind of like, wow, like I've been hearing for a while I haven't heard about MBUs. But this is the only area in the whole city that that has MBU. So, it just it's it's it's a little uh I don't want to say concerning, but um I guess confusing. So, the underlying specific plan is MBU, though. I I totally get it now. Yeah. But but to specifically put housing where it's only housing, I think that's a concern that some of my colleagues have that that we don't have an area that's specific housing and I wish that we could make sure everything in the yellow.

Are you talking about the area that you're now want to put to MBU for a future hospital that might not be housing or which which map are you talking about? If we got if we got rid of if we got if we left section 4.6 as it reads now, we would not be able to put housing on that area. It would it would the section 4.6 and the development agreement would prevent housing or any other use on those 40 acres. Okay. Because it reverts back to the original. Yeah. And all I'm saying is just have the hospital designation apply to either the 40 acres or the 60 acres. And the way

we're saying we're agreeable to either one. So we're saying we're agreeable to either But if the housing goes to the 60 acres, then can we revert? Can we can not revert, but can we can we uh move the the 40 acres to housing? No, you would need a development a you need a development agreement amendment. Okay. I'd have to come back. But again, no, you guys are asking for, you know, we want highquality end users, right? We've gotten rid of what the city believes are lowquality end users. Mhm.

So, Olive Garden, Sam's Club, they've been sitting waiting, waiting, waiting, right? We want a delivered zone property where you just need to come in and get a cup. Again, these are all cup uses when people are going to have to come back in. So, these aren't permitted uses. These are simply allowable uses. If we were to be able to land a hotel, which I know is very difficult in this market. I know there's a lot of other projects that have, you know, hotels in them within the city, but maybe that's not the best example, but let's just use that for hypothetically. If we were to land a hotel, they're not going to go to property that's not zoned for a hotel. They're going to go to, you can't just, you know, snap your fingers and do a reszone. It's going to be a 12-month, 18-month process. Or you can go across the street to Meny and you can simply just pull a cup and it'll be approved in, you know, 3 months or four months. That's what you guys want is you guys want to have conditionally permitted uses, not permitted uses, but conditionally permitted uses so someone can come back in and say,

"Hey, planning commission um and obviously it could be appealed up to city council, but hey, planning commission, I want to bring this to your city." Now, if you want to have it all uses go back to um the city council, you guys can make that happen as well. But I'm just simply saying you're going to we want and I believe the city wants not the 168 plus 40 the 108 acres tied up. You want one of those large parcels tied up

in order to have aos, you know, in order to ensure there's best efforts for a hospital for 10 years. I don't think your intent hopefully not is to basically burden all 108 acres of MU. But shouldn't the hospital I mean I I think that's more for a push for you guys to say hey if if we want to un unfreeze this land we should probably get a hospital then 100%. Right. But so why don't we why don't we just say let's freeze it up until a hospital's built and then it frees up the other land. I mean it's been empty for so long. We're not in a rush to to build that unless it's a hospital to call the question at this time. I mean are we just engaging in masturbation? We have to get them to we have to get them to agree to the two. They they they're good with condition one

100%. What what's the condition one? Let's clarify that one. Removing wareh not agreeing to never ask for warehouses within the entire harvest. Well, just to be clear, agreeing that the covenant that's being recorded clarifies that you will never or no future owner will ask for resent rescending it, modifying it, amending it. Correct. So, the only thing left, and I'm I'm really not trying to belabver point. I'm simply just saying we're agreeable to having either the 68 acres or the 40 acres removed from the specific plan, whatever the city's choice is.

But if the 68 acres is removed, then the then section 4.6 of the development agreement should apply to the 68 acres, not the 40 acres. I I if I may,

no one is asking to remove 68 acres from the specific plan. All it's simply stating at the request of Mayor Prom is to just revert the underlying zone back to the 68 acres. The 40 acres stays as is under MBU. If the hospital ends up moving in phase one 68 acres, of course, we'd have to reszone it to the appropriate zone at that time. Then the 40 acres should then be released from a hospital. That's correct. And that and and and then you can get it you can have some other use. So the 68 acres would then revert to the previous MBU table

to what? No, it would revert to the area in red. whatever you see there, the 20 acres, the, you know, half a lake and the MBU, that would go back to that zone, to that underlying zone, and then when you have a project, you'd come back and reszone it to whatever it needs to be. If it's MBU in the future, then it it will be MBU, but but the underlying zones MBU, and the MBU uses that we've proposed are superior. They're the higher uses and it'll revert to the new and improved MBU. I So, so did does that make sense? Yeah.

Okay. All we're saying is you go back to the new So, the current the the current specific plan, the new proposed specific plan has a new MBU restrictions. So, it just revert to the MBU under the current under the new permitted uses. That's it. the uh low the 111 yellow area that stays and the 40 acres stays MBU with the restriction. If the hospital happens to move to the 68 acres at such time, you come back with the cup and reszone it to the MBU zone that it needs to be in. And then the 40 acres are released of the lock and then it opens it up to any other whatever use is allowed under the new and improved MBU. I don't know how else to say it.

I'm happy with that. We'll agree to that. But before I just want the city to realize that the zoning will then be on the 68 acres will be the previous MBU zoning designation. It's going to be what you see on the screen. It will be the MBU with the current under the current specific plan. The new MBU is what the applicant implying that they want to go back to the old MBU for warehousing use. No, that's what I was trying to if the 68 acres is removed from the specific plan area. The zone the zone is different than the permitted uses. So it goes back to the new MBU zone. That's it. And so then it's just a CP

and then you just need a CUP. So you're saying that 68 acres we could come back with a use as part of the new permitted land use table. So city manager if if hospital guy says I want to go over here and be bigger cup. Correct. Yuo, right? Exactly. And we and we release your 10-year hold on the 40 acres because you met your obligations in finding a hospital. Yeah. You you know, Mayor, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tim, you know what I'm dealing with. It's like Thank you for your All right. All right. Do you agree to that? Good. Let's call the question. No. Do you agree to both those conditions one and two? Sorry.

All right. At this time, I'm entertaining a motion to approve. No, I'm going to uh Well, if you want to do that, but I'm not, you know, I still I I know some of my colleagues, they were one of my colleagues was considering to possibly support the project on conditions of Okay. Well, I'm calling the question because she's talking about bringing it back for another reading. I'm not I'm not proposing that. Okay. I'm I'm rather just calling the motion calling on the question for this item to approve it as we just discussed to pro to approve it.

No. Okay. Um point of order for our city attorney. Is there do I have to make a uh a substitute motion if So is there is there a motion to approve um the second reading subject to the two amendments discussed right now that the developer agreed to and all the other agreements that who made a second? Has anybody made a second? I'm calling the question.

I understand. Councilman Corner asked if he has to make a subsequent okay motion until there's a second motion the second on this motion. Okay. But I do want to make it clear we did hear from one of my colleagues that she had a concern. I I would like to hear her concern a little bit more in detail but okay. Following on the question council, there hasn't even a first yet. I'm waiting for you. You're not. You're not. Oh,

okay. Yeah. All right. We have a motion by Councilman Rab. Is there a second? I will second it. All right. Call the vote, please. Rob Vargas, yes. BJO Nava, no. Corona, abstain. Did you want to call your second safe substitute motion?

I want to give more time to my colleague to kind of explain what what are what are the other concerns that she may have and then uh if she could possibly if there's a way to support the project or or to my other colleague too. Councilwoman,

my concern was only how are we gonna how like what about the housing element that we could potentially lost because from what I was hearing from the attorney earlier mentioned was we're we have an MBU and it could be for residential but it's not for a fact that we're going to have it. So that means if no housing developer comes, that means that that that residential land will be lost. That was already zoned for it. So what are we going to do with that housing? It's going to be lost. That means that we're going to lose the housing. We're going to lose the density and we're going to lose lose the amount of homes that that we could have added in there. So is a question for the developer or staff?

Yes. Okay. So with the clarification that your city manager gave that the 60 acres would be subject to the new MBU land uses. It would not lock up the property for residential uses and we could come back with a residential project. So we could not that we will we could my concern was that the 60 acres was being removed from the specific plan area. Oh. So that that was my that was that was the confusion. So that 68 acres is going to stay and be subject to the new new MBU land use

uh per land use permitted use table and we can come back and propose without a reszone resident a residential projects if if I may for clarification the reszone reverting back includes a portion of that's 20 acres that will go back to SFR. Yes. Okay. Can can you explain that again? Can you go back to the the screen? Bring back the presentation. So the the the rem the area in red will look now. Well, okay. You you're you're misleading because there's a section down below in the dash red area. Yes. In here.

Yes. So within the within the dashed area, that's what the zoning will look like as with the new condition. Currently, it's all in green, which you see on the right. that area all in green under MBU 68 acres is covered under that red dashed area. So now you'll have um 20 acres of um single family residential zone and then um I don't know how many acres would that be. The the area in the red would stay MBU and then I mean you have a lake there so anybody can you can potentially build a lake there but you know it'll whatever project comes forth in the future we'll reszone it to the appropriate zone. So, so this is what it will look like in lie of the uh of the green area on the right.

And a point of clarification on the orange and the yellow on the right side of your screen is going to be residential. That's the that's the 650. We know that already. Don't don't don't confuse it. We're stay here on the left. Well, the concern was there wasn't going to be any housing brought. So, yeah, I'm easily confused. So, I was just clear the record. No, please stick with what we're doing over here. So there is opportunity um if there is housing proposed there's 20 acres set aside under the uh the new uh condition because it's going to revert back to the area in the in the red. But if if a hospital isn't built there if a hospital is not built there. Okay. Right. And and if a hospital is built in the 40 then it reverts back. Okay.

Well then you have to come back and ask for the approval. It could be anything else too. So if if a hospital is built in the in the 68 acres, right? which is something I think we all want. I think I think most people in our community do want. Um, you know, we've already took housing from the from the south. Then we're taking housing here, which is for a good cause, right? That those 20 acres, that's that's for a good cause. But where would the other housing be located? The only other land would be that 40 acres. So, if the hospital was built, would you commit to to placing housing in those 40 acres?

No. That was the whole point is we wanted to have the MBU. That was what I was trying to articulate before is we want to have either the 40 acres or the 68 68 acres available for the flexibility of the land uses with the MBU which could be res residential commercial. So I keep hearing that it could be right. It could be we want to make sure that it is if what I'm hearing and I kind of agree to it because housing is so important to us. We gave up 30 acres of highdensity housing down south. Where is that housing going to be located at? Now, we're bringing 615. We're guaranteeing 650.

It was already going to be built. That was already zoned there, right? We're we're losing 30 acres. Where is that housing going to be located that's not already zoned for housing? So, there's a airport land use issue, I think you guys understand, which you've overrode a connection with um with the prior housing units. So to add more than 615, I mean hopefully we can, but that would require another a that would require another AOC approval. Well, ALOC wouldn't be able to deem it consistent and the city would have to override would have to override ALOC again.

I mean, for for housing, I know I know that uh I mean it's right next to housing anyways, you know. I know we don't have a flight pass right there. I I don't think they they they run over that 40 acres. We can't commit se 50% of the acreage to to residential. We just can't. Okay. So, the talk was Top Golf and and hotels and right all the that's that's who we're talking to. I mean, quite frankly, you know, it takes a lot of time for 615 units to get absorbed.

I I just for for for colleague consideration, the applicant is clearly not, you know, uh he's he's clearly stating that. So I rather than going back in circles, I think we we are fully aware of where your position stands and maybe that will help them make their decision. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much. Anything else, Councilman? Well, Councilwoman,

yeah. Um, no, she does have a legit concern, right? I I am too concerned about the housing aspect of it and she does raise a good point and I know some of her residents are concerned. I mean, is there is there maybe I don't know if you could talk to the developer on your own and kind of discuss this, but I mean, I would love to have your support on this project. Councilman Novice, obviously goes to you, too. I think I personally support this project. I supported the first time. Um, but I I do want to make sure that we hear all voices here. So, I mean, it's kind of it's kind of your call. If you think that you need more time, I will be willing to support that.

Councilman Rab, did you have an additional comment? A question for Mayor Pro Tim. Um, is it do you think that you need the fourth vote to be in support of this project? Are you worried about being the deciding vote on this project? Is that the

Um, no. No. I'm I'm not I do understand legally we only need three votes. I get that. But I think part of part of uh being a team is is making sure that we give the opportunity at least. She's she's obviously made a made an effort to to to get there. It seems like she might need a little bit more. if at the next meeting she's not there, then I'm I'm happy to support it as is. Um, but I I do think that that even even that information would be beneficial for our community as well too. So, she does bring some good concerns. I share some of those concerns as well too, I support the project as is, but it it would make it better. And and if she does need more time and she thinks she could benefit from more time or my colleague, Councilwoman Nava, I'd be willing to um support them in having more time to talk to the to the development. question would be then for my two colleagues. Is there anything that you think that could transpire maybe over the next month or so that would make you a yes vote on this or maybe get your ideas heard on this issue?

Um uh if I could start I I've been very vocal again that the parcel hub is an area of issue for me that's over 700. You know I I sound like a broken record but yeah so that's an issue a point of concern there. I know the planning commission requested to go smaller and the applicant denied that. So, that's also an area of concern and from what I'm hearing tonight, there's a lot of um flexibility and and back and forth that's going on between council and the applicant. But, um I I I and it's not to harass or anything of that nature. It's just that I want us to work as a team and you have your needs that you have to fulfill and we as a council also have our needs to fulfill. We can talk about jobs. Automation is happening a lot within these FedEx uh parcel hubs. The pay is very low, $20 an hour, 1965 starting off. Um, and a lot of the work will be contract work. They're not FedEx employees. I know when we hear about FedEx, we we assume that they will have great benefits and whatnot, but with a parcel hub, that is a completely different um objective. Uh and again if we want better for our community that for me also means demanding better jobs right we want uh we want sustainable jobs to be able to uh provide the livelihood that I think we are all deserving here in the city of Pur without having to drive out without having to go to Orange County and San Diego County to meet those needs and also the applicant has already uh from the last council meeting our first reading he's already making concessions to pay the city. But what happens if he doesn't have the funding to pay the $15 million plus the $1 million additionally? I think that's putting a lot of trust in an applicant when we have heard from various council members that they don't trust developers. But again, if this developer were to choose

to say, "I'm bankrupt. I can't pay." No one would be held responsible. and those residents that are so eager um for these commercial components to come to our city, they will miss out. And again, this council in 2026 will be tied up. Well, why did you allow a parcel hub to come in exchange for what? For vacant uh vacant commercial. So, so long s long uh winded answer, but again, if the parcel hub could be reconsidered, I know uh that in the planning commission they denied to go smaller. Um, but that's something that I really truly would be adamant about. And as well as fulfilling the entire commercial plan that you have been um, working with our residents, you promise the residential that's not coming in this plan that we're not holding you up to. But again, it's something that the developer is expected to fulfill and they make it seem like they're bringing the skies in the moon when in fact that's what they were supposed to do anyways when it comes to residential. And again, we um haven't seen any tenative track maps for residential. We don't hear any potential home developers that will be building that out. So, as of now, we don't have these residentials uh in anytime in the near future is what it sounds like. So, those are my points. Um, and I appreciate council for the opportunity to take uh my points into consideration. Um, and again, we what I I believe we have different opinions of what we can do to do better in our community and and for me that's something that that I uh truly plan to stick stick with. Thank you.

Just for the record, the builder who's going to build homes is here in the audience and even spoke during public comment. Were there any uh track maps submitted for phase one? I mean, that would have been a great incentive to counciloman. Councilwoman, this is a conceptual drawing that happens next. You got to first approve it before he keeps on spending more money on this project. This was all vetted through the planning commission. What comes before you is a zone change with conceptuals. You're not going to see what you're asking for. That doesn't happen. That's not the way it works. Councilwoman Valo,

I would like to thank uh Council Member Rev for for trying to ask that clarifying question because I do agree with Council Member Nova. Like I I feel like there's so many changes now. We just got confused with one portion and I need more time with the consultant to see what can we do to add more housing to make sure that we don't lose that extra housing. I just feel like we're going at this way too fast for the new changes that were just made. And I just want to be sure that what I'm approving is what the residents want and deserve because I I I don't want to lose anything here. And and from the looks of it, it sounds like we're going to lose a good amount of residential if we make these current changes right now.

Anybody else? Mayor Prom. Yeah. Yeah. I think those are valid concerns. Um, you know, I I I do want to thank Councilman R for for asking your colleagues as well, too. Um, you know, I I if if you if you are willing to make a genuine effort to meet with the developer, meet with our staff, you know, a lot of changes have happened, guys, since we got our agenda uh packet on Thursday. On Friday, where they were making changes and and I got to be honest, some of those changes were getting better, but it was a lot of a lot of changes happening real fast. Uh controversial issue, we get it. Um, we did the we did the first meeting a month ago. Here we are one month later. It's it's been in development for about 6 years. So, we're not we're not going too fast. Uh, I do want to thank you uh uh Mr. Howard, you still haven't shared about the uh entertainment component aspect of it. Uh, I was I was hoping that we could hear from you on that one. Um, but but with that said, I I would motion to uh to continue it for the next meeting. I I believe we have one scheduled for March 24th. I know we canceled that, but in case that we were going to have a meeting, we we reserve that.

Can we I don't know if we can bring a second reading back to a special meeting. Okay. Yes, you have to continue it to April 10th. Okay. Wait, sorry. Let me make sure. April 14th. Sorry. I mean, is that something you willing to do or I mean, let's you took a re or a 10-minute recess and discussed it. But I mean, if we have to do that, guys, like we want to make sure that we vet this project. I think we've done a good job, but if my colleagues need more time, I'm willing to support that.

All right, let me um talk now. So, we've gone through quite a lot of information. What I don't understand is we approved this at the last meeting and now you council mayor prom you relig on your on your vote and we want to keep on postponing and postponing. It's beyond me, but uh at this point I I can't just bring up the uh applicant if he's willing to pro pr prolong it. This has to come from the deis. We were here to vote on this second reading. So I need a motion.

So hold on. I think I got to make some clarification with with the comments. So the meeting that we had um the meeting lasted until about 11:30. I did support it. I voted for it. Since then there's been a lot of changes. So I want to clarify that. It's not that I voted for it and why don't you vote for Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. What's very frustrating is you are the one that created these changes and yet you still can't make a vote. I voted for it. No. I supported I I said I supported it. You voted. Why are we rushing a meeting? Because Because my vote is is is neutral. I'm coming here with with a clear with a clear head. Okay. All right. I need a motion.

Hold on. No, hold on. Hold on. So, I want to make it clear that my vote I I said I said verbally I support it, but if we could get more of our colleagues to come here and and join the table in this, I think that's better for everybody here, that's better for our community. Well, I I'll tell you this, Mike. You're not you're not always going to get a 50 vote and that's one and that's perfectly fine. But on a controversial issue, when I have a colleague that said, I am very open to it. So, make a motion on the table to do that. Make a motion. The motion was made. What's your motion? The motion was to continue the item for the next meeting to allow Councilman Councilwoman um VJO to have more time to discuss with the with the developer and discuss with staff. Is there a second? Second.

Do we need any clarification on anything? Staff call the vote. VJO Corona Vargas. Yes. Rob Nava, no.

Okay. So, the date uh we did we say dates specific? Yes, we did. April the next regular scheduled meeting. All right. Okay. Uh moving on to public hearings. Are we going to have enough time, staff, to do this in one hour? I'm not going to go beyond 10 o'clock. Sorry, mayor. U I requested to pull item D from the consent calendar. My bad. You're so right. Hold on. No discuss. Item which one? Item D. No. And and and I think David still had another one too. E

just for a separate vote. Okay. Yours a separate vote too. Yes. So let's do uh 10D first. Entertain a motion uh to approve this. We had no discussion. Right. I need a motion guys. Item 10D. May we hear what the concern?

Yeah, let's let's read this out. So tend is let me put my glass 10 is consideration to approve final partial map 24-05220 FPM 38818 excuse me FPM 38518. This is the final approval of tenant tenative partial map number 38518 to consolidate six parcels totaling 195 acres into three parcels to facilitate the construction of three industrial warehouses buildings totaling 3,316,317 square ft located on south of Mapes Road between a street and gets road in the general industrial zone. The applicant is IDI Logistics.

Okay. So um go ahead. Um um so so I I I do understand, you know, as soon as I saw the agenda, I too was was kind of shocked like what what the heck is this item? After going through the through the staff report, I I I was made clear. I know our city manager made that clear to me. We're not voting on warehouse. That's not what we're doing. Um city manager, if you could kind of explain in brief detail of what this item is. Sure. This is just a a recordation for a final map. And the project was approved about two years ago and this is just procedural to record an uh uh boundaries for lot lines for the the project which is a condition of approval.

It's just procedural but we're not voting for aware. The warehouse has already been approved in 200. That is correct. Then nobody here was on here when we voted for that warehouse. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Entertain a motion to approve. Motion by Councilman Rav, second by Mayor Pro Tim. Call the vote. Brad Vjo Corona Vargas. Yes. Navan, no.

Thank you. My motion passes. 10E is consideration to adopt proposed resolution number next in order denying the certification of the EIR and adoption of the statement of overriding consideration and denial of associated cases for Paris Gateway commercial center project specific plan amendment SPA22-05280 financing tenative partial maps 2285279 TPM 38576 and 24-05150 TPM Excuse me. 38985. This is a conditional use permits CUP's 22-05295, 24-05141, and 24-05142. And the development plan reviews DPRS 22-000028 and 23-000021. This is a proposal to facilitate the construction of Paris Gateway Commercial Center in two phases on 20.28 28 acres located on the north side of Ramona Expressway between the I215 freeway and the Webster Avenue within the commercial zone of the Paris Valley Commerce Center specific plan. The applicant is Mike Nagar and Associates on behalf of the Optimus Building Corporation and the Pope Family Estate and this is just for a separate vote looking for a motion to approve. I have a motion by Councilwoman Nava and second by Mayor Prom. Call the vote.

VJO Nava Corona. Yes. Rab Vargas, no.

Thank you. Motion passes and that concludes our consent calendar items. We only have one last item and that's the public hearing and I asked com uh staff is are we going to be able to conclude this in now 50 minutes? If not, I'm going to push this to another meeting unless this is a time-sensitive situation. I believe we can finish it, but it's really discretion of the u I will leave that discretion of the council to decide. Well, I mean that's all based on questions, too. I mean, this is the applicant. Michael, are you can you are you willing to push it to another meeting? Good evening, council members. Michael Nagar. Um, we have a signed lease with AutoZone. They're preparing uh construction plans. It's a signed lease, Council Member Corona, and um because we know that the council likes that. Um it may not be a big deal if you want to hear it tonight. It shouldn't take too long. It's up to you though. Of course,

I'm holding you to the 10:00 hour. I'm not going to do this again to my community or my staff. We have a dead We have a cut off at 10:00. It's a hard stop tonight. We don't have a presentation. We're going to defer to staff.

Perfect. All right, let's go forward. Item 11 is a public hearing. Uh 10A is the modification 25-00007 tenative partial map TPM 25-0012 TPM 39413. The conditional use permit CUP25-0000009, a proposal to modify the site plan, building square footage, and building elevations of the commercial component of the approved Expressway Commerce Center project located at the southwest corner of Ramona Expressway and Paris Boulevard in the commercial zone of the PVCC specific plan. Uh, applicant is Lars Anderson, Pacific Development Partners LLC. This is going to be introduced by our director of development services, Mr. Kenneth Fun. Uh,

good evening, mayor, members of the city council. This item be presented by our contract planner, Matthew Evans. Thank you. Welcome, Matthew.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you for that introduction. Matthew Evans, for the Expressway Commerce Center project. So, background and location. Uh the overall project site is located south of Ramon Expressway, west of Paris Boulevard, east of Indian Avenue and north of an existing warehouse. In September of 2023, the city council approved a mixeduse commercial and industrial project which included reszoning 13.6 6 acres of commercial to light industrial within the um PVCCSP and approvals for a 305 approximately,000 square foot industrial warehouse building and two commercial buildings totaling approximately 7,000 square ft. The proposed modification to the project is being brought back to the city council for consideration as the code allows for the approving authority for the project to be the same as the original approval. As a matter of record, uh the conditional use permit request for the drive-thru uh use has been withdrawn by the applicant since the time posting of the uh agenda. So, just a little background on the original project. You can see here you had the 305 approximately,000 foot warehouse with the two um retail buildings. Um the pro the uh two retail buildings were 210 square feet and 49 um00 ft perspect um u together and the proposed modification as you can see here you have the uh approved project on the right the uh proposed project on um excuse me the proposed project is on the right the approved projects on the left uh the modification proposes to increase the uh square feet of the commercial retail site from 69 9 6,900 ft² to 11,681 ft for a total increase in size of 4,771 square ft.

Building 1 is a uh 4,300t retail. Uh this is in two suites uh 2700 and600 um together. And then you have building two which is that 7,381 ft auto zone as the end user. So, building elevation one, you can see here you have some four-sided architecture um for the um building one retail. Um it the again the drive-thru use is not proposed for this location at this time as the applicant has withdrawn that. Moving on to the Autozone building here you have the north and east elevations. That east elevation is the um elevation that you see from Paris Boulevard and the north elevation is the interior uh facing north. Uh here you have again more forsighted architecture. You have the south elevation and the um rear elevation which is the west elevation. So this is the uh view perspective um from Ramona Expressway and Paris Boulevard looking southwest. So, um, as you can see here, um, some perspective renderings, the original approved project, um, with that warehouse in back, it had the, uh, retail up front trying to kind of mix or match the, uh, some of the building materials and colors that were being used. And then you have the, uh, rendering, uh, as proposed below, which has the new um, larger uh, AutoZone building and the new larger retail building. Here's another rendering. This is looking um west um from Paris Boulevard. And of course, um you have the uh monument sign that was required uh during the approvals. This is a monument sign that includes um a uh city seal on

both sides as far as it as well as a digital monument sign and that is going to be located on the corner at Ramona Expressway and Paris Boulevard. So environmental determination, an addendum um to the previously certified final um EIR uh for the expressway commerce center project was um prepared for this project which concluded no significant impacts would result from the proposed modifications and the impacts would be similar to the original project or classified as impacts with less or significant levels. So recommendation uh staff recommends that uh the city council adopt resolution resolution number next in order adopting addendum one for the previously certified environmental impact report uh for the project and um as well as tenative parcel map 25-00009 um and the major modification 25007 to modify development plan review 19-000012 to facilitate the construction of two commercial buildings totaling 1 thou 11,681 square feet on two parcels based on the findings contained herein and subject to conditions of approval um with modification to condition of approval number 43 um which reads as follows the enhanced corner monument monument monumentation and digital sign for the southwest corner of Paris Boulevard and Ramona expressway prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall submit plans for the monument sign the plans shall I'll include corner cut back at the southwest corner of Ramona Expressway and Paris Boulevard for commercial for the commercial project to include an enhanced entry monumentation consisting of tiered landscaping and a digital monument sign designed with decorative materials and appropriate height and area for the purpose of identifying the development that the

development is within the Paris Valley Commerce Center specific plan and as to advertise city functions and activities. ities. And of course, this sign would be subject to planning staff review and approval. The monument sign shall be constructed prior to the occupancy of the first building within the commercial center. And that concludes my uh presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Matthew. Um just to confirm again, applicant has no presentation. Thank you. Going to open up the public hearing at 9:17 p.m. Madam cler, do you have any request to speak on this item?

No, sir. We'll close the public hearing at 9:17 and back to the Disbody have any questions. Guess everybody likes this project. So I again these are conceptuals and there is uh and Mr. Burgerer I saw him. Where is he? Oh, thank you for coming out Mark. I know this was a long drive for you. I just have one comment and that's it'll be discussed with staff later on but I this was just a rendering but I hope it's going to be a little taller the digital billboard so we can get more graphics on there so they'll they'll talk about that. Okay, I got council or mayor prom in the queue

which is not a not question but but are we okay to take comments

time? Okay, I just want to be clear that we had the um the res sufficient time but I closed the hearing now. That's fine. Yeah. Yeah. I don't have any questions. Um, you know, I I I do want to thank you for it. It It does look like it's gonna be a bigger project. We already know what's going to be. Um, I I I'm not gonna ask because it's not coming to us, but I was just curious to know what the other ones what you had in mind for the other ones, but I'm not going to ask you because I don't want waste time. I do want to make it clear. I know we did see a rendition, a rendering of the uh of the warehouses. We're not voting on the warehouse. The warehouse has already been been approved. Uh, I myself did not support it. Councilwoman Nava didn't either. Um, and Councilwoman VJO was not here, so that's not what we're voting on. All we're doing is voting on the commercial component. Um, so, so I do want to make that that clear and uh, transparent to the residents. Thank you. I have no one in the queue. Uh, at this point, I'm looking for a motion to approve. Well, actually, I'm calling on a motion on the resolution. Oh, I'm on the wrong one. No, I'm I'm right. I'm tired, folks. Okay, let me um Do you want to speak on behalf of the the developer or you want Mark to come up here to answer approve? He understands the conditions of approval.

Um can you clarify? You're asking for something? Yeah, at this point I'm just going to simply ask you understand all the conditions of approval and if you're if you do accept them. Yes, we're good. Very good. Yeah. Then at this time, I'm going to call for a motion on the resolution. Just to clarify, the motion on the resolution states to deny the um drive-through component, but that's already been revoked by the applicant. So, should do we need a substitute motion or you know, the the motion is presented on the on the slideshow. So, we removed that because they withdrew the CUP application. So, we we slide maybe

it can you bring up the slide? That's the That's a court motion. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So, I there's a motion and a second. Okay. So, we have a motion by Coun Mayor Pro Tim and a second by Councilwoman Nava. Please call the vote. 50 motion approved. Very good. Thank you. All right. Item 12 is our business items. We have none. 13 is council communications. Start with Councilman Rab.

Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Last Tuesday, I had an opportunity to speak to the CART team, youth coalition. Um CART is a center against racism and trauma. We met at the senior center across the street uh with about a dozen youth. They expressed several concerns to me. One was the lack they perceived lack of events for teenagers. I would recommend that staff or sorry the parks commission um consider hosting a movie night for teens. I know we have the movies that typically are shown for more of the younger crowd, the you know 3 to 12 crowd. They mentioned that if there's a movie, maybe a PG-13 movie, maybe we can review it, make sure there's nothing too out of the ordinary. we could have maybe a teenonly uh movie night. People 13 to 18, 19 years old could come and have a movie night. They also mentioned uh another thing parks committee could look into is they mentioned a roller rink and I know you know people aren't really building roller ranks but perhaps there's a a thing we can rent out like a roller kind of like how we had the um the ice skating here but more of the roller rink at maybe one of the um the uh festivals that we have or something like that. maybe charge them free or charge them $2,3 something just to get the teens out so they could have something to do. But overall it was a conductive meeting. They mentioned third spaces. So just spaces for people to congregate and gather and the importance of uh building walkable communities which I think we've been moving toward. Um the Saturday before that I attended with Mayor Vargas um school board member Katie McClendon had an event for both of the um youth groups she organizes. One out of Alverie, one uh the rights of passage out of Paris Elementary. We met at a um a garden or a a horse. It was they had horses and all kinds of things in a garden over in Marino Valley and they talked about uh their program and it was great to see all the things that young men are doing and young people are doing in general. So, we were there for a few hours, had a nice barbecue meal and I just want to give a shout out to Katie and all the people that make that program uh possible. And that concludes my comments for today.

Thank you, Councilwoman Vallejo. Thank you, mayor. Uh the only things I would like to say is number one, uh thank you to all the speakers who spoke because it's those comments that the council really needs to know so then we can know in any decision we make that we are very aware of all the surrounding possibilities that we probably didn't know. And secondly, I just want to say to all the women out here, happy International Women's Day. Uh without you guys, none of us would be born. So you women are amazing and um all all the women here in these rooms uh they have motivated me to become a better leader. So thank you to all the women here and uh you are much appreciated and you guys are adored and I appreciate you all. Thank you.

Thank you Councilwoman Alva. Thank you mayor. I too would just like to thank all our speakers for tonight's meeting. I appreciate the dialogue and that's all I have for tonight. Thank you. Thank you Mayor Prom. Thank you mayor. I did attend the culture walk. Uh I thought it was a great event. My first time going, I didn't go to the opening thing. Um you know, there there were plenty of people, but you know, maybe we could talk to the staff over there and see about maybe a Friday might be better. I I feel like we could have had more people there, but it was a great event. Um on on this last Sunday, I I attended with the with the mayor uh at Marcato Park that Azis Wow.

Aw. And it's a it's a uh community service based uh faith-based organization based in Colton through the World Mission Church. They brought 37 young people. Some coming as far as Victorville, some coming from Rialto, just like like there was maybe four of them from Paris. And they came here to to the area of Marcato Park to do a cleanup. Not in Marcato Park, all around the area around Marcato Park by the train tracks on Paris Boulevard. And uh you know, I do wish I had the pictures, but they they had a tons of trash, tires and stuff like that. So, so we do we do want to want to thank you thank them and uh they're greatly appreciated because we had trash on our on our community and they helped it removed. Uh so uh so thank you so much if we could reach out to them for future uh for future community service events too. Um I do want to give a uh a big thank you and congratulations to our our our wonderful women for Women's uh History Month. A special shout out to our uh Councilwoman uh Elizabeth VJO who's going to be recognized by our state assembly for being an an amazing woman in our community. So, thank you so much.

Thank you. That's all the comments. Thank you. Uh, just a couple to touch on. Uh, pets on parade. I want to thank our municipal services, animal control, and code enforcement. We had a great turnout for our uh, pets on parade. Uh, very interesting little boys and girls out there running around playing, having a good old time, and the, uh, parade part itself was good. And they offered free uh um they call that the shots vaccine vaccinations. Yes. Spain.

Yes. Uh and the second one is uh ESGR patriotic employee recognition. Let me try to read through this quickly. But uh the city of Paris is honored to be recognized by the employer support of the guard and reserve a program of the United States Department of Defense and patriotic employee employer award. This recognition reflects the city's strong commitment to supporting employees who proudly serve in the National Guard and Reserve, balancing both their civilian careers and military responsibilities. This award is especially meaningful because it's nominated by an employee who serves in the Guard or Reserve, recognizing employers who provide exceptional support to service members. The city of Paris Municipal Enforcement Services Department under the leadership of Robert Tjo is proud to support employees who dedicate themselves to both public safety and national service. The city values the leadership, discipline, and commitment of the guard and reserve members bring to the work uh workplace and to the community. Nearly half of the United States Armed Forces is made up of Guard and Reserve members and civilian employers play a vital role in ensuring these service members can continue to serve our nation. Paris remains committed to supporting the rights of service members under the uniform services employment and re-employment rights act and ensuring that employees who serve are fully supported in their careers. We thank the employer support and guard and reserve for this highly recognition. So congratulations I that's it for me. I just I do thank all the residents as well and folks who came out to speak and to my colleagues. I know we're not going to agree, but we can at least agree to disagree. So, good meeting tonight. And I'll move on now to item.

Yes. No, I'm coming up. Item uh 14, our city manager report. Thank you, mayor. Be very brief. We have a t uh take a hike event this Saturday, excuse me, next sat this Saturday, March March 16th. And uh we also have the breakfast with Bunny, our annual uh Bunny Breakfast with Bunny on Saturday, March 28th. Um you can go online to our website to register and obtain more information. Thank you. Thank you. Takes item 15. We are adjourned at 9:28. Thank you everybody for coming out.