City Council - Regular Meeting

City Council, successor agency to the Redevelopment Agency, Public Finance Authority, the Public Utility Authority, Housing Authority, Paris Joint Powers Authority, and the Paris Community Economic Development Corporation of the City of Paris. It's Tuesday, December 9, 2025. Call time is 6-7. Actually, 6-45. I just learned that joke about 6-7. All right, item two is our roll call, Madam Clerk.

Mayor Pro Tem Rab. Here. Council Member Vallejo. Here. Council Member Nava. Present. Council Member Corona.

Present.

Mayor Vargas.

Present, thank you. Item three is invocation, which will be led by Pastor Chris Vargas, no relation to the mayor. He's from our Victory Outreach here in Paris. And then if you'd all still remain standing for item four, which will be our Pledge of Allegiance, which will be led by Mayor Pro Tem Rab.

Mayor Vargas and City Council, thank you for the honor of me praying tonight. If we could just bow our heads. Lord, we come before your holy presence. My God, we thank you for this night that you have given us, Lord. And I pray that, my God, that your presence would be here in a very special way, Lord. I pray that you would be, my God, though, my God, you would be with your city officials, my God, that, Lord, that you would just give them the wisdom, my God. You say within your word, my God, in the multitude of counselors, Lord, there is wisdom, Lord. And I pray, my God, that you would have your way tonight, Lord. We thank you, Lord. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Please remain standing as we pledge allegiance to our great nation's flag. Right hand over your heart, ready, begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Pastor. Item five is report on closed session items. City Attorney Soltani.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The council met in closed session pursuant to government code section 54956.9 D1 in three cases. No reportable action was taken. The council met pursuant to government code section 54956.9 D2 to consider whether to commence litigation in one case and the council authorized litigation. The council met pursuant to government code section 54956.8. For real property negotiations, no reportable action was taken. And finally, the council meant pursuant to government code section 54956.94. In one case, no reportable action was taken.

Great, thank you. I have six presentation announcements. Six A and B will both be introduced by our assistant city manager, Wendell Bugtang.

Thank you, Mayor. We have Michelle Rubicaba from Nielsen Merksamer, our state lobbyist, to give the presentation.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. I'm so happy to be back here with you today, again, to give you a wrap-up of the legislative session that just finished up here in November, October, September, sorry, September... All right, can I do these right here? Okay, really quickly. So, as you know, Michelle Ruvalcaba, I am your contract lobbyist. I represent the city in Sacramento. It is my honor and privilege to work with you and your city manager and her team, representing the city with all of its political and budgetary needs. Jeff Neal, who is not here with me today, is also part of our advocacy team, but he sends his hellos. Really quickly, just so that you guys can see kind of in the numbers realm, this is what the end of the 2025 legislative season looked like. We had about 2,300 bills that were introduced, 1,500 of assembly bills, 800 or so Senate bills, 900 of those bills made it to the governor's desk. He did sign 794 bills and vetoed approximately 13% of all bills. It was an interesting legislative session. Unfortunately, we did start off with some catastrophe with the LA wildfires, which did kind of create a lot of pressures in the legislature, not only legislatively, but in the budget as well. We also had a national debate on redistricting this legislative session, which was unexpected as well. And so some of those topics really kind of took over the time and effort of our legislative members. Also, some of the big topics that we looked at this year was affordability, both the Democratic caucus and the Republican caucus really wanted to focus on how can they help Californians bring down some of their bills. There was a lot of bills on making sure electrical bills came down, trying to have gas prices come down as well. There was significant interest in conversations around AI, especially guardrails for children this legislative session. AI, I think, will continue to be a hot topic for 2026. And then significant conversation, as always, around housing, specifically housing around transit centers. One of the critical bills that came up this session was cleanup to AB 98, which I think the city of Paris is aware of. It was targeted for warehouse and logistics. And even though the cleanup bills, the Carrillo bill, did not give a lot of relief to the city of Paris in particular because we are included in what's called the warehouse concentration region, one of the new amendments in law is going to be some protection that will allow cities, if you're making a good faith effort to meet these requirements, to not have any penalties assessed. So even though there was more flexibilities for cities outside of the warehouse consultation region, I think at least that language does give us a little bit of cover. And I have spoken already to some of city staff on what we're doing to comply with AB 98. Another pretty significant bill that went into effect was SB 707 having to do with the Brown Act and I think that if we haven't given you enough information already please reach out to my office and we'll give you a more complete memo on the requirements that will be coming to all cities in the state of California. Significant requirements, including two-way telephonic or audiovisual access for meetings. Finally, here are some California city-sponsored legislation. CalCities does a good job of representing all cities. I obviously am a specific representation for the city of Paris, and I supplement their efforts. But some of the bills that did get signed is AB 492, so requiring DHCS, which is a state agency, to give notice to cities or counties when new alcohol or drug recovery treatment facilities are licensed in the area. That was signed by the governor. Also, AB 476, which strengthens penalties for metal theft, mostly copper theft, which continues to be an issue in the state of California. Unfortunately, AB 620 by our assembly member, Corey Jackson, was vetoed by the governor. He was trying to allow cities to rent zero emission vehicles so that you can meet those clean fleet requirements the state of California has put on you. Additionally, AB 650 by Assemblymember Papin would have helped cities with their housing element under RHNA, also vetoed by the governor. I believe that she is going to reintroduce this bill next year. SB 346 by Senator Durazo, allowing short-term rental properties to be provided to the city for listing purposes so that you can audit and have audit authority over those properties. And then SB 454 by Senator McNerney, helping local efforts to remove forever chemicals and PFAS from water supplies. So those are some of the Cal City sponsored legislation that went into effect. Political dynamics. So I've been, for the last couple years, come to you. We've had a little bit of transition in leadership in the legislature. It's hasn't been as static as it has been in years past. We do have a new Senate pro tem, Senator Monique Limon. She's a Democrat from the Santa Barbara area. She's the first Latina to hold this position, so we hope to see her leadership, see what's important to her, and that will drive a lot of the Senate agenda. In addition, the California fiscal situation continues to be dire. We are going to be looking at another deficit year in the state of California. The LAO, which is the Legislative Analyst's Office, a nonpartisan party, has said that we are looking at approximately an $18 billion deficit. deficit in the state legislature or for the state of california and that's mostly due even though revenues have been coming in higher we have constitutional requirements to like pay schools through prop 98 and so they're going to take a lot of those funds and then of course um some significant federal impacts to the state of california from HR1 to healthcare coverage access. So that will continue to be a big conversation in 2026. As you know, in November, we had Proposition 50, which I mentioned earlier, the redistricting debate. It did pass, and most of the impacts will be in Northern California. However, here in the Inland Empire, we will have... District 41, which is a Republican Ken Calvert's district, if could move from a Republican to a Democrat. It'll move from being representing of Riverside County to LA County. So a lot of shifting there. We'll see how that works out. Finally, looking ahead to 2026, I am hearing some rumors of potential legislation having to do with sales tax. Bradley Burns, or rebate agreements. Nothing has materialized yet. I know that that is an important topic for the city. And so I'll continue to keep my ear out for that and report back anything that we see there. Midterm elections in 2026 as well. I think that there's that's going to be something to look at. And if you haven't looked at or if you don't look at There have been significant initiatives that have just recently been filed. So it's going to be a pretty full ballot this in 2026. And then, of course, Governor Newsom coming to the end of his term leaving California. And what does that mean for his status and how he works with the legislature? I think that he's had a pretty strong hold of the legislature. He gets what he wants. And we'll see if that continues as we term him a lame duck governor. And that is it. I am here for any questions. Again, thank you for the honor of representing the city. I really enjoy it, and we hope to have a good, positive, successful 2026.

Thank you, Michelle. Councilman, do you have any comments or questions? You've been relieved. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle. Next, we have Jason Browdy with Kyleen Associates. He's our federal lobbyist to give a federal update.

Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, staff. It's always a pleasure to be here. You know, as a native Californian, it's also nice to be here in the warm weather. It was snowing when I left D.C. a couple days ago. So thank you for the warm welcome, literally. You know, here in Washington, D.C., as my colleague from Northern California and from Sacramento mentioned, it's always a pleasure to work with you. A lot going on in D.C. and a lot not going on in D.C. as you probably see on television and in the news. First off, I'm Jason Browdy. My colleagues, Greg Kiley and Kim Van Wye, along with a new colleague that you'll meet when you come to D.C. named Michael Lane. So I look forward to having you all meet him as well. Just kind of want to go over some of the funding that we've been working on together over the last few years that we were successful on. And we've been working with your staff to get that finally across the finish line and into your pockets for the city. The first is $3 million that was for the new community room extension at the Bob Glass Gymnasium located right here at Parasite City Hall. The second was $1.6 million, just over that, for the expansion of the Paris Senior Center. And then finally, $200,000 that's both Congressman Takano, Senator Alex Padilla, and then the late Senator Dianne Feinstein pushed forward for $200,000 for body cameras for your city's code enforcement. So appreciate your help on that and council and mayor for all of your leadership on that. Now, this time around, the mayor and council members, you came out to D.C. and we helped push forward a fire truck for this last go-around at funding. The congressman, Mr. Takano, put forward $2.6 million for a new fire truck to the House Appropriations Committee. With the congressman being in the minority... As a Democrat, he was only able to get $850,000 across the finish line, but that's still a great chunk of money that we're hoping, hoping, we're on the five-yard line right now, that we hope will get past either later this year or early 2026. So that's where we're at right now with that new fire truck. and I will keep you posted as soon as that comes across the finish line. Actually, some of these earmarks as they're known did make it. Crossed the finish line when the government reopened. I actually was able to get some of your neighboring cities some funding because it was in a different category. But this category is in the House HUD bill. And that bill has not been signed into law yet. Only agriculture and military had been signed into law so far. So we are hanging tight on that. And as soon as we hear about the good news, we will all celebrate together on that. So what we're looking forward to this year, I mean, obviously one of the biggest things we do is these earmarks, and this year we're going to be working with Congressman Takano, Senator Padilla, and now Senator Adam Schiff, who took over after Senator Butler, who was there temporarily after Senator Feinstein passed away. Now, what project are we looking at? Staff and I have been in communication on this, and right now a fire station is is really the biggest need that the city has in terms of federal funding. Obviously happy to talk to you about other ideas that you have as well, but this is sort of the big project right now that we see as something that we might be able to get across the finish line. The federal government does have some rules about what's allowed and what's not allowed. Fire stations generally are pretty good, especially after the LA fires and everything that's been going on with all the fires across the country. earlier this year, I guess it's already been a year now since those terrible fires. So still on everybody's radar, I think, and fires are something I think we should focus on. Of course, happy to talk to you all offline or answer any questions about other ideas that you have. So other federal opportunities, you can see the mayor here with Senator Alex Padilla. I believe, Mayor, that was last January when you came to D.C., and then also we hosted a few of you all into D.C. in March, and look forward to you all coming in January and hopefully in March as well. But other federal opportunities. One of the biggest things right now is...

I just want to make a note that he was standing on a stairwell.

Yes. Yes. We did not do a good job scaling this, Mayor. Um, anyway, so, uh, a few, a few things we're working on right now, uh, community CDBG, which is known as community development block grant funding. We have seen the Trump administration. Threaten, uh, cuts to that. However, uh, you know, we talked about, uh, the league and, and, and the national league of cities, us conference of mayors, the California league of cities. We've all pushed back on that. And so far, knock on wood, we've been okay. And, of course, we will keep pushing to keep those current CDBG funding levels the same. I know how important that is to all the residents here in the city, and we will do our best to keep that. I mean, obviously, every city in the whole country is dealing with this right now. We talked about H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill, as it's officially known. And there's definitely some provisions in there impacting hospitals and rural health care facilities as Medi-Cal will be cut dramatically, and there will be funding implications in that bill, along with other tax, both, you know, no tax on certain types of overtime, certain types of tips, things along those lines, and other tax provisions in that bill as well. Look forward to, you know, working with you to... you know, just make sure that the city is not hurt too much or, you know, however we can also help the city with that bill as well. And we'll keep you posted on that. Things are still slowly being implemented on that. So I would say stay tuned on that. We also worked with the city on a grant that you all are applying for, the Mayor's Action Fund Grant to end childhood hunger. We actually got Senator Schiff to write a support letter for that and we will keep our fingers crossed I know I checked earlier today that is still pending but whatever we can do and we are pushing that along so stay tuned on that as well just some photos here you can see the mayor here on the left with Councilman Corona in front of Congressman Takano's office. You can see on the right here, that was during the U.S. Conference of Mayors when Senator Schiff and Senator Padilla hosted mayors from all over the United States and California. You look a little taller in this one, Mayor, as well. We were also proud, I mean this from the bottom of my heart, you guys are one of my favorite cities that we work with, truly. It's always good to be at these good events with you all. I was proud to be at the US Conference of Mayors, we've noted in January. In March, we were at the National League of Cities. I even came to ICSC with you all in Las Vegas in May. And then just a couple of weeks ago, the National League of Cities annual conference in Salt Lake City. And I look forward to being in a few of these conferences with you this upcoming year as well, along with my staff and my team. Again, happy to answer any questions. And thank you for everything that you do. And you all make my life a lot easier because you're such an easy and great city to work with. So without that, I will turn it over to you. Thank you, Jason. Appreciate it.

Councilman, do you have any questions or comments? Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Good job. Is the IT still in the room? IT, if you guys can hear me, I need some help with my little tablet here on the dais. All right, moving on. Item seven is our Youth Advisory Committee Communications, which this report will be given by Melanie Lopez, the president of the Youth Advisory Committee.

Good evening, honorable mayor, members of city council and city staff. My name is Melanie Lopez, and I am honored to serve as the YAC 2025-2026 president of the Youth Advisory Committee. I would like to share a few exciting updates on behalf of YAC. First, we are proud to share that YAC successfully hosted our first women's volleyball toy drive tournament on Saturday, December 6th, which was a great success, which helped support Luera family and association. Next, this Friday, December 12th, we will be hosting our monthly YAC open mic night from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. We encourage all our youth to join us, participate, and showcase their creativity. Also, YAC members are proud to support the PTA at Triple Crown Elementary during their Christmas event this Friday. Our volunteers are excited to help bring holiday cheer to the students and families. We are also thrilled to participate in the City of Paris Christmas Parade this Saturday, December 13th. Our members look forward to volunteering and encouraging and engaging with our community during this festive celebration. Additionally, YSC will be assisting with Breakfast with Santa on Saturday, December 20th. Our team is excited to help create a magical experience for Paris families during this beloved annual event. As we wrap up the year, YSC would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a wonderful holiday season. As always, we encourage the community to stay safe, stay engaged, and stay connected. For the latest updates on our programs and events, please follow us on social media at ParisYAC. Thank you for your time and continued support. We truly appreciate your partnership in making Paris a vibrant, welcoming, and inspiring place for youth and families.

Great. Thank you, Melanie. Okay, moving on, item eight is our public comment. This is the time when any member of the public may bring a matter to attention to the Mayor of the City Council that is within our jurisdiction and it's not on the agenda. Madam Clerk, do you have any requests to speak?

Yes, sir. Kevin Pearson?

Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. Kevin Pearson, Public Affairs Officer with Eastern Municipal Water District. I want to give you an update on some work on 4th Street slash Highway 74 that we have upcoming and ongoing. Tomorrow night on Wednesday, we will be doing paving at the intersection of 4th and G Street as we complete that portion of the sewer line on G Street. That will be a phased reduction in lanes, but we will definitely keep traffic open both directions. one lane each direction during the working hours from 8 p.m. until 5 a.m., although we anticipate being done a little earlier than that as well. Regarding Highway 74 work, starting on the weekend of December 20th and 21st, we will have our detour in place at Navajo Road. Our contractor has reached the point where they are ready to start work within the intersection for the manhole for that sewer line on Highway 74. So that phase detour will be for westbound traffic. We'll divert folks northbound on Navajo Road and then use a detour route that goes to San Jacinto, down to Covey, to Ellis, and then back onto Highway 74. That work will begin very, very early on Saturday morning and be completed by 3 a.m. Monday morning. We will be sending out notifications to the public this week, as well as e-blasts, social media posts, changeable message boards will be up along the roadway as well. and our contractor will have signage as well as flag men along the entire detour route for the duration of the work as well. In conjunction with that, we've also identified two weekends in January where we will be doing the same work. The first will be January 10th and 11th, Saturday, Sunday, and the subsequent weekend will be January 24th and 25th. We're hopeful that it might just be three weekends, But if we do have to extend to more weekends, we will come back to the council in January with the February dates as well. So certainly if the council or staff have any questions, we're here to answer those for you as well. And we appreciate the staff, including Brad and John and everybody in the engineering department for their ongoing coordination with this project. I know it's a difficult one and really complex, but your staff has been wonderful to work with throughout this as well.

Thank you. Thank you, Kevin.

Franco Pacheco.

Hello, council, mayor. My name is Franco Pacheco with the Inland Valley Alliance for Mental Justice. I'm here making a public comment to bring awareness for the final vote for the March JPA. The D1 project, just give me a second, sorry. There's a little bit of background on this project. The proposed 46-acre Meridian D1 Gateway Aviation Center project includes the development of a gateway air cargo center consisting of approximately 180,800 square feet Cargo building with nine grade level loading doors, 31 truck dock doors, and 37 trailer storage positions, and 122 stalls for employee parking. We're opposed to this project, and we would like to emphasize to the public that this meeting's happening on December 17th at the Riverside County Administration Building. And this project is gonna increase noise pollution, air pollution, an increased danger of planes crashing with the military activities at the base, and it's gonna threaten the existence of the March Air Reserve Base. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

JC Franco.

People are tall. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is JC Franco, and I'm a pro-business resident of Paris who supports responsible developments, especially developments that strengthen our economy without compromising our health, our property values, and the long-term livability of our community. In two weeks, the Planning Division will review Harvest Landing, and I'm here to express my strong opposition to allowing this project advance in its current form. And to be clear, I'm not against development. I'm against development that brings disproportionate impacts to Paris. Projects that overload our streets and intensify truck traffic, degrade air quality, and ultimately reduce the quality of life that families like mine choose Paris for. We cannot discuss harvest landing without acknowledging that our region is already under significant pressure, as the previous presenter mentioned. Even without going into detail tonight, it is clear that multiple large-scale projects around us are moving forward at the same time. Each one may seem manageable on its own, but the combined impact on Paris, as well as other commuters from other regions, that more traffic, more pollution, and more noise, and more strain on our infrastructure is a negative thing for all of us. This council recognized that reality when you enacted the 45-day memorandum. That moratorium was a responsible and forward-thinking decision on your behalf, and I commend you for it. Harvest landings should be a large part of that pause, and it should not move forward given its large logistics and warehouse development component. It makes little sense to enact a moratorium to protect residents and then allow a major industrial project to keep advancing while that pause is in effect. If we are truly reassessing our direction as a city, then this project must be evaluated through the same lens. We also know that Paris is capable of doing better, as it did in 2011 with the original harvest landing plan, had minimal to insignificant comparison to the current warehouse component in the planning project. As a resident and a parent of two little girls, I want to see Paris move forward with development that adds values, not projects that compromise their lungs, their time, and our wallets. I want to be transparent. My vote and the vote of many residents here depends on...

Excuse me.

I want to be transparent. My vote and the votes of many families like mine depend on your commitment to guiding Paris towards higher quality, more livable future. I urge you, do not allow harvest landings AND DO NOT ALLOW OTHER LOGISTICS AND WAREHOUSE PROJECTS THAT ARE IRRESPONSIBLE TO THE CITY, TO OUR FAMILIES, AND TO OUR CHILDREN. THANK YOU.

THAT IS ALL.

THANK YOU. ITEM NINE IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES. NINE A IS CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 2025 OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ALL THE OTHER AGENCIES AS LISTED ON OUR AGENDA. Nobody has any questions or comments. I'll call for a motion. I have a motion by Councilwoman Nava, second by Mayor Pro Tem. Please call the vote.

5-0, motion approved.

Thank you. All right, 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 calendar item for a separate action. We will have public comment limited to three minutes. Councilman, do we have any items they want to pull for a separate vote or a separate discussion?

I'd like to pull item 10J, the code of conduct, just for a quick comment.

Anybody else? All right. We will be voting on 10 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I. That's it. But I'm going to go to public comment requests. Madam Clerk, do you have any requests to speak?

Consent calendar, yes. I have 10 I. Okay.

Okay. I mean do you have.

19.

19. All right, I'm going to lower this down to two minutes, folks. And if you can call the first five, and we can come up to the front of these reserved seats, please, so we can get you going.

Griselda Gonzalez. Yesenia Contrera. Alexis Morelos. Madison Montag. Matt Nichols.

Go ahead. Go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Criselda Gonzalez. I'm the general manager at Flower Fusion, a food manufacturing bakery actually located here in the city of Paris. We've been in business for about ten years here in the city, and we manufacture cakes for major grocery chains, and we ship them nationwide. I brought some cakes to show you some of the items that we produce. We are here to just kind of share with you some of our concerns that we have. Currently our company employs at an average over 60 individuals, some of them high school students, just to show them some real world experiences. And we try to give back to communities as well. Our current lease location in the city of Paris is at max capacity. And we are struggling to keep up with the growing demand with the grocery chains. And for this reason, we purchased a second location here in Paris as well, 3091 Indian Avenue. And this facility, the intent was to remove the outdated metal warehouse and replace it with a new modern food manufacturing facility. However, we learned that there was a proposed 45-day moratorium on the warehousing and distribution uses. when we engaged with local consultant to begin the entitlement process. Until then, we weren't aware that this property would be affected. So as written as a memorandum, it would halt our project. And even though we are a primary, interest in using for that facility as a food manufacturing. It's not a large-scale manufacturing warehousing, excuse me. Our property is under two acres, and it's actually smaller than some of the larger distribution centers that this memorandum targets. So yet, it would still prevent us from building a modern food manufacturing facility, forcing us to remain in an overcrowded space while paying for a property that we can't use. This creates...

I'm sorry, but your time's up. Thank you.

Yesenia Contrera.

Hello, Mayor and Council. I am here to speak today on behalf of Paris Neighbors in Action in support of an industrial warehouse moratorium. I think that this is long time overdue. We're already oversaturated with existing warehouses and warehouses that are yet to be built, which have obviously affected our air quality, our roads, and our overall quality of life. I think that a moratorium, which would ideally be extended beyond the 45 days, would give us the opportunity to think about the future of Paris and the direction that we really want to see our city move in. Along with the consideration of the new Good Neighbor Guidelines, I think this is a really opportune time to just, again, think about how we can improve our city and create healthier and safer communities for all of your constituents.

Thank you.

Alexis Morelos.

Good evening, council members. My name is Alexis and I'm a member of the Inland Empire Democratic Socialist America. I'm here with a fellow comrade tonight to urge you to vote yes on adopting agenda item 10I. The Inland Empire is oversaturated with warehouses and the consequences that become plain to see. More warehouses means more semi-trucks choking out our streets and freeways, pumping out massive amounts of CO2 and particulate matter. These trucks also tear up our roads at a scale that's hard to ignore. One trip by a 20,000-pound truck causes the same road damage as 10,000 trips by a typical sedan. That damage doesn't stay within city borders. A warehouse built in one city sends pollution, potholes, and repair costs through every community those trucks pass through. A new warehouse in Paris means more pollution and more broken roads from Reno Valley, Riverside, Hemet, Menifee, and every surrounding city. That is not sustainable, and that is not economically sound. As air quality declines, respiratory problems rise, especially among children. In San Bernardino, pediatric asthma hospitalizations rates sit at 24.4% compared to the state average of 17.3%, about one and a half times higher. When weighing the cost of warehouse development, the health of your constituents, especially their kids, must be part of the equation. And while warehouse developers promise jobs, those jobs are deeply undervalued. The average wage sits at around $22.54 an hour, with weak benefits and high risk of injury. When those injuries do happen, the same jobs fail to provide workers health care or stability they need to recover. This is not the kind of economic development that builds long-term community well-being. Tonight, I am asking you once again, approve the moratorium. Cities across the Inland Empire, such as Chino, Colton, Jurupa Valley, Riverside, Rialto, and San Bernardino have already taken action. Rialto even extended their own moratorium to a full year. I urge you to do the same. 45 days simply is not enough time to fully consider the environmental, economic, and public health impacts at stake. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madison Montag?

Okay, hold on Madison, can you call the next five up?

Paige Gusney, Aliana Pacheco, Ezra Varela, Tatiana Flores, Bill Balanchik.

Okay, Madison.

Good evening, council members. My name is Madison Montague, and I'm here to speak on behalf of the industrial community in Paris. Specifically, I'm here to request that if the city votes to adopt the moratorium pausing warehouse development, that the city also toll the expiration of entitlements and pending business building permit applications for already approved projects. The staff report states that the entitlements will not automatically be told during the pendency of the moratorium. This is extremely concerning as some approved projects have no remaining extensions available. If the moratorium lasts the full two years as permitted under the government code, those projects could lose their hard-earned entitlements through no fault of their own. That outcome would expose the city to significant litigation risk and unnecessary legal costs that would ultimately be borne by Paris residents. These applicants invested heavily in CEQA and planning submittals at the city's direction, allowing approvals to expire during a city-imposed moratorium raises serious equitable and constitutional concerns. The same is true for pending building permit applications and plan check, which could be forced into new building code cycles if not told. Developers who have acted in good faith and followed every city requirement should not be penalized. If the city pauses development, it should also toll the expiration of existing entitlements and pending building permits. Thank you.

Thank you.

Matt Nichols.

Good evening, honorable city council members and Mayor Matt Nichols represent various industrial stakeholders throughout the city and in an empire. speaking tonight in opposition to consent item 10 I. I'm gonna focus my testimony on the legal standard under state law that's very specific for moratoriums and why review here is that the proposed ordinance does not meet those legal standards. Government code section 65858 authorizes moratoriums only where the city council makes written legislative findings demonstrating a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval, the continued permitting or entitling of projects would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare. The findings of the proposed ordinance before you allege very generally adverse impacts. They do not go the next step. which is required to show that continued processing of those permits and entitlements would have the actual result of an immediate threat to public health and safety, as required under state law. Paris is already at the forefront of warehouse and industrial use regulation and has some of the most comprehensive development standards and regulations for industrial. This includes the GNG, before you tonight, and zoning code updates. Those in and of themselves are proof that, that the city is well situated to adopt ordinances of that nature and further regulate. It does not need more time. Second, applications for new warehouse and distribution uses already require discretionary approval. So the city council pending commission already have gatekeeping authority. Third, the city's existing regulations are already the most robust of any other jurisdiction And the city has ultimate discretion to approve or disapprove any such projects without a moratorium.

In sum, the moratorium is not a...

Thank you, sir. Your time's up.

Paige Gosney.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is Paige Gosney. I was before you last month when this first came up as a business item. Back again, again in opposition to the moratorium. I represent the developer. I'm here tonight on behalf of the developer of the Paris Airport Logistics Center project. The site for the project is located adjacent to the Paris Valley Airport. It is, it always has been, zoned a general plan for industrial uses. And in fact, given its location next to the Paris Valley Airport, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission has mandated through its airport land use plan that industrial uses are the only viable uses that would be allowed for the site. The project application has been deemed complete. The final EIR is with the city and it is tentatively set for consideration in the first quarter of 2026. The applicant has invested significant time and expense in moving the project and the entitlements forward based upon the city's direction and the existing regulations, including with respect to preparation of the project EIR and successfully obtaining a consistency determination from ALAC, which took a couple of years. I submitted a letter in advance of the hearing tonight. As outlined in that letter, Case law is clear that even the mere filing of a development application does not constitute a current and immediate threat to the city's health, safety, and welfare. From that perspective, it just defies logic, frankly, to find that a fully entitled project, regardless of whether a grading permit has been pulled, And or a project such as this one that has been deemed complete and for which the CEQA is complete and is simply awaiting its scheduled hearing would constitute a current and immediate threat. You know, the deemed complete CEQA complete stage, the project impacts have already been fully analyzed. disclosed it's no longer a speculative future risk but a fully studied proposal the city should accordingly re amend the moratorium if you indeed adopt it to exempt both projects that have been fully entitled and approved and those for which CEQA has been completed and the project application has been deemed complete thank you very much thank you Ezra Varela

Hello.

Hello, City Council and Mayor. My name is Ezra, and I want cleaner air.

I have asthma. I've also noticed many kids in my school, in my school district, have been coughing a lot. Also, the increase of trucks by my school and home is making my life harder and also harder for me to breathe. A ban on warehouses is a good step in helping kids like me that deal with breathing problems. I also worry my little brothers will also soon develop asthma. Please consider banning any new warehouses in my city. No kids should have to worry about wearing their areas clean enough for them to play outside. Thank you for thinking about the kids of Paris.

Thank you.

Aliana Pacheco.

Hello City Council and Mayor. My name is Aliana Pacheco and I'm the president of my sustainability club called the Earth Angels. My club and I are trying to protect our environment and advocate for better protections for youth. We are trying to bring awareness to endangered species in our area, such as the burrowing owl, monarch butterfly, and kangaroo rats. I have seen all these warehouses that are destroying natural habitats and contributing to worsening air pollution and trucks passing by my home and school. Even if I wanted to walk to school, it would be a very difficult route because it is now being overrun by all these trucks coming from these warehouses. A warehouse moratorium would be a good first step in protecting the youth of Paris and improving our air quality that we breathe. Many of my classmates have asthma and I can't help but notice it's probably related to all this truck pollution coming from this warehouse. all the warehouses in fact, being built near my school and neighborhood, this best protection, the best protection this city can give us is a complete ban on warehouses because we have so many already. And it would be nice to see something else than these gray blocks like across the horizon. I hope you guys know that I want something better for my future other than being a warehouse worker. I hope you guys support this monitorium or even ban warehouses in cities like Redland is trying to do. You guys even painted the food for less to look like the warehouses. And you know what even is more disappointing? A child has to come up here and say, stop polluting my lungs. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bill Blankenship.

Good evening, honorable mayor, honorable members of the council. My name is Bill Blankenship representing the NAOP Inland Empire chapter of the Logistics Association, the association that represents the warehouses that we're trying to put a pause on this evening. Staff, thank you for all your hard work. I know you went to a tremendous amount of work. There's been a lot of discussions before this council over the years about moratoriums. There's never been one that has, I guess, gone maybe this far. And each and every time your staff has done complete analysis of the approval process and three years ago you adopted a very prescriptive good neighbor policy that governs the way the ware warehouses are set in the community in addition to that the logistics community provides a tremendous amount of infrastructure and if this moratorium is adopted tonight you take a chance of losing some 250 million dollars in diff dollars and and RBB&D dollars. Those are all dollars that are needed to build the badly needed infrastructure in the city. And I'm really baffled why at the very end of the agenda tonight, we're going to talk about a fiscal emergency. That should be talked about up front. And it doesn't make sense why we're having this discussion now when the city is looking at a fiscal emergency. So I really ask you, implore you, and respectfully request that you do not adopt a moratorium. You do not go down this road. You're later going to look at a good neighbor policy. You already have a very stringent one. You layer that on top of AB 98. I challenge every one of the council members to sit down with staff and look at the projects are coming through and see if you layer AB 98 standards on top of your good neighbor policy what that does to projects and if you get a better project and by layering a Riverside policy on your good neighbor policy Thank you Tatiana Flores Hold on one second young lady.

Can you call the next fight please?

Louie Lopez, Godfrey Guachida, Luz Gallegos, John Sisley, Franco Pacheco,

Hello, Mayor and council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Tatiana Flores, and I'm an organizer with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. I'm here once again to express my support for the proposed moratorium and to urge the City Council to adopt the moratorium without delay. Paris is a frontline environmental justice community with elevated levels of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and other pollutants directly linked to health concerns such as asthma, bronchitis, cardiovascular stress, lung irritation, and long-term respiratory disease. A moratorium would provide a pause to evaluate these risks and to develop stronger air quality measures, including requirements for health risk assessments, enhanced mitigation strategies, and the integration of zero emission technologies, as well as AB98 implementation. A concern constantly brought up by residents when discussing warehouses is the growing volume of heavy-duty truck traffic. This traffic has intensified public safety concerns and strained the city's and surrounding areas' roadway infrastructure. All of us here can say that we deal with congested intersections, increased collision risk, and road deterioration, and a temporary halt on new warehouse approvals will allow the city to update circulation elements, truck routing plans, and designate commercial truck routes that avoid sensitive receptors, including neighborhoods, schools, and parks. The moratorium period is an opportunity for the city to conduct a comprehensive community impact assessment and gather meaningful input from residents, workers, businesses, and environmental health experts. This is just a temporary pause. And, you know, I would even argue that it should be extended from the 45 days to really allow for this to be reviewed and really get input from residents to see how they want Paris to grow in the future. Thank you.

Thank you.

Louis Lopez.

Good evening, Mayor, council members, staff, community. My name is Louis Lopez. I'm a business agent for the Ironworkers Association. Local 433. I don't have a script or anything, just straight from the heart. I do want to start off with one thing I did write down. It's a quote. If you're not growing, you're dying. And just a little with me, I'm 53 years old. Not to give my age away, but in the last 53 years, this country has come down. a long way with growth, okay? That means building everything. I'm good. I've also been in two combat zones, and you wanna talk about air quality? Try air quality there. I'm just stating that because I feel great. But I also, like I said, I didn't write anything, but hearing a lot back here and representing a lot of my members that live here in this city, which Council Member Corona, hear a lot of good things from my members about you being their math teacher. But anyhow, it's about the growth. I raised eight daughters, and there's a lot of times my kids didn't know the bigger picture about what they want and what they need and everything else, but I was financially responsible for that family in the future of it and like the last speaker here or prior to this You're gonna cut off a lot of resources to the city. There's been a lot of community benefits implemented to the city through a lot of the labor agreements and the agreements with developers here that wanted to put back parks and and street lights and better streets and everything else. So I really ask on part of Ironworks Local 433 to not pass this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Mayor Pro Tem and City Council. I am here in full support of the warehouse and any warehouse moratorium or any development that will compromise the health of our city as a whole. Our Paris City families deserve better. We need to halt all future warehouses and start building affordable housing and quality jobs. These warehouses are taking over the beauty of our city. As a city, we must pause and take a universal view and comprehensive approach to what our city residents consider what Paris should look like and the needs of our families, our kids, Our city deserves better. No más warehouses in Paris. No más bodegas en nuestra ciudad. Do not compromise the well-being of our families. Our local residents that work, live, play, and breathe in the city of Paris deserve better.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Godfrey Wachira.

Hello, my name's John. I represent the Union Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Refrigeration for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. I'm also a delegate to the Building Trades Commission, State of California. Chances are, right now, behind me, is somebody not paying attention to this meeting, ordering... Chances are, behind me, right now, is somebody not paying attention to this meeting, ordering something online. Maybe folks think it comes here on a unicorn flown by a fairy, but it's not. IT COMES OUT OF A WAREHOUSE AND IT WAS BROUGHT HERE BY A TRUCK. INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY IS FOR REVENUE, TO GENERATE REVENUE. ARE THE FOLKS AGAINST THIS, ARE THEY GOING TO SUBSIDIZE THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE CUT OUT BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET THE REVENUE IN THIS CITY? EDUCATION, LIGHTS FOR CHRISTMAS, COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAMS. I MEAN, THE LIST IS ENDLESS, RIGHT? THE MONEY THAT COMES OUT OF THESE COFFERS IS GOOD. IT'S GOOD MONEY, AND IT'S USED FOR GOOD THINGS, RIGHT? YOU ALREADY HAVE A PLANNING COMMISSION. YOU ALREADY HAVE A CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU DON'T WANT THE WAREHOUSE BUILT, YOU SAY NO. IT'S THAT EASY. YOU DON'T NEED A MORATORIUM TO DO THAT. YOU JUST SAY NO. WHEN YOU PUT UP A MORATORIUM, YOU TAKE IT OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE COMMUNITY. YOU TAKE IT OUT OF THOSE HANDS AND PUT IT INTO FOLKS They would rather not have the warehouses here. The same folks ordering online. Even asthma medicine comes in a truck from a warehouse. Thank you. Thank you.

Godfrey. Godfrey Wachita.

Thank you. Hello, I would like to ask a question first before I begin. I provided an email with a visual aid. I was told at the last meeting that I could provide it ahead of time and that the council or the staff could put it up. So I was just told I have to ask the permission for the mayor if we can provide that for the visual aid.

That's to be passed to the council. You were told to make copies so we can all have them. We have them on the dais. Okay.

Okay. So my name is Franco Pacheco with Inland Valley Alliance for Environmental Justice and alongside with Paris Neighbors in Action. I provided the council with a map showing all of the warehousing in Paris, statistics, and what's approved, what's in secret review, and from the map there you can see Paris doesn't have a lot of land left. We are number three in the Inland Empire in the most warehouse square foot space per capita per resident. And you heard a lot of scared developers here tonight, worried about stuff. But I would argue, I doubt any of them live in the city of Paris. The one gentlewoman that was up here, I don't think her warehouse is even considered in the moratorium because it's so small. So it wouldn't be an issue for her. And then we heard about kids begging the council to pay attention to their health. to their lives, to quality of life. I think if we want to provide good protections for the city of Paris, we can go as far as Redlands is doing right now with the complete ban on warehouse logistic facilities. That doesn't mean all industrial. That means the big box, heavy burden, heavy traffic burden, heavy air pollution burden on its residents. And we have more than enough. We are the leader in the region. So a warehouse moratorium only makes sense for city of Paris. So that way when developers come in, they don't have you in a chokehold, threatening you to pull a project because you don't want to approve their warehouse. Thank you. Thank you.

Godfrey Wachita.

Hold on one second, sir. Call the next five.

Ismael Gonzalez, Robert, Jess Ellings, Julie Liu, Omar Kabayan.

Okay, sir. Oh, thank you. Good evening, council members. My name is, sorry, my name is Godfrey Washira, and I'm with CARE California, and we're here to urge you to vote no on the moratorium. We know the pattern. It will be 45 days, and then it will be extended one year. and then it will be extended for another year. This pattern has played out in many other jurisdictions. This is a de facto ban on industrial development. But we understand the concerns about traffic and air and other environmental issues, but freezing projects and construction, is that the answer? Let's be clear. A moratorium doesn't just stop a project. It stops paychecks. It's an attack on working class. the folks who build the warehouses and the folks who work in the warehouses. It is sad that today the environment is used to attack the blue collar workers in the state. Let's be clear that the environment for responsible development is already in place. There are technological and policy advancements that have taken place in the last couple of years that have addressed the issues being raised and continue to provide and improve on solutions. Modern buildings today are cleaner and more efficient than before, right? And that is progress. You keep going on, you get better and better. We have the Cal Green requirements that are really strict, right? And projects have to meet those requirements. We are advancing towards cleaner transportation models. more efficient energy usages. We are advancing on that. Furthermore, if you look at it, today in your agenda you have an item on industrial development. Again, the state has brought in stricter requirements and laws. The market is demanding more sustainable construction practices and buildings. That is, we already have in place an environment where we don't need this moratorium. This is just a de facto ban on industrial development.

Thank you, sir.

Ismael Gonzalez.

Good evening. My name is Ismael Gonzalez. As many of you might remember me from the last city council meeting, I am a neighbor I live in Moreno Valley, just 10 minutes away. I have a lot of family and friends who live here in the city of Paris. And I just want to come here and reiterate the points that I made in that first city council meeting and the points that I made in my emails to each of you. As many of the people prior to me did not mention, I am a local, I am proud of it, right? The developers, the people that have spoken before me have not mentioned anything like that. I also want you to take notice that the people representing developers are They just said tonight they're considering withholding or maybe just not even giving the city, quote, $250,000 as gift money just for over a temporary ban, you know, like. A temporary ban is temporary, right? But it doesn't mean that there couldn't be future developments, right? So why are they in a fuss now saying to withhold money from the city? Consider that, you know? A lot of the unionists here... Where were they at the City of Redlands City Council meeting when they also voted 5-0 to vote for a draft of a moratorium? I did look at that video, and I could not see any unionists at their City Council meeting. So why here? Why here? Is it because the City of Paris, Meade Valley, and these areas around us are 80% Latino? 80% black and indigenous people of color. I'm not sure why. They did not have any unionists saying oppose a moratorium. And for the unionists here, I do understand that you guys have family. I think everybody else here has family.

Thank you, sir.

Robert?

Good evening, Mayor, Councilwomen, Councilmen. My name is Robert, a.k.a. Mad Dog. That's what my brother Ironworkers gave me after I got out of the Marine Corps and joined the Ironworkers. I've been with them for 45 years. And tonight, the only fair vote on this moratorium is a no. I repeat, it is a no. proposing the ordinance that will stop potential developments that could bring hundreds if not thousands of jobs and dollars to your area is terrible to say the least and why not keep the decisions that you already made on the previous projects all this time and money put into it and They've shown a mission standards and development guidelines in California are the strictest in a nation and But then what we're doing here is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And so I feel the residents here talking about the warehousing and stuff, but do they have a solution to the moratorium? I haven't heard nothing. I mean, I've always been taught through the Corps, through my ironworker brothers, My business agents, if you got a problem, find a solution, or two or three different solutions to it. I haven't heard that. So I'm just saying, give us the projects that you just basically approved of, and then see where's that gonna bring the economy for Paris. So again, I'm asking to vote no on this moratorium. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, Elling's.

Good evening, council members, honorable mayor. My name is Jess Elling's. I'm asking you to move forward to not to move forward with the moratorium on the warehouse construction. These projects improve local jobs are important for local jobs. They also allow people working near their home when residents work close to home. Their health and well-being increases. They reduce, incur less stress, and mental health improves. Today's warehouse projects are designed with sustainability in the forefront. Many achieve LEED silver or higher, reducing energy consumption and emissions. They also comply fully with Calgary standards, which require low-carbon materials, reduced waste, and energy-efficient systems. We should also recognize that California missions are the strictest in the nation. Our policies have gotten cleaner over the years, continuing advancements in building construction, low-carbon materials, and reduced construction technology improve these outcomes. These projects demonstrate that economic opportunity, environmental responsibility can move forward together, and I encourage council to allow these sustainable job-supporting projects to continue. Thank you. Thank you.

Julie Liu.

Good evening, City of Paris, Mayor and City Council. Clearly this is a very tough topic tonight, so obviously I'm here to oppose a moratorium, you know, here for pro-labor, pro-construction workers with healthcare, pro-construction workers with retirement, pro-construction workers that have a job with dignity, with safety, pro-construction workers with skilled and trained apprenticeship programs. PRO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS THAT HAVE A FUTURE TO LOOK FORWARD TO, THAT HAVE A GOOD AND STRONG QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS WITHIN OUR NETWORK. With work, our work comes way more than what many people think. Again, people are concerned about environmental impacts, but if everyone commits to not ordering online at all, we are so concerned about our health, make sure that we don't eat fried foods, make sure that we're making sure we're working out, all these things, you know, then we obviously will be going in a better place with health, right? But, I mean, everyone's ordering online, you know, and with all this work, construction work that's going on, it will help the Inland Empire carpenters Stay near home. We are. What do you call it? I'm sorry. This is a tough topic tonight. As you can see, I'm stuttering. But, you know, we have to drive out to the Inland Empire. I'm sorry. L.A. County, Orange County, San Diego County. NorCal, you know, out of state many times in order to stay as busy as possible. So working from home makes a huge difference more than people think. Sorry for the stuttering. It is a tough topic. But, you know, if the whole country understood labor and supported labor overall, you wouldn't have to be fighting for every little thing. Thank you.

Thank you.

Omar Kabayan.

Mr. Cobian. Cobian, hold on a second. You have a couple more left, right?

Yes, Ralph Velador and Jose Garcia.

Okay, Mr. Cobian.

Good evening, council, staff. My name is Omar Cobian, representative for the Carpenters Union. I'm speaking in opposition of this possible moratorium. Fun fact I heard today, $110 billion of energy projects have been canceled due to the BBB, the big beautiful bill they call it. Countless of projects, thousands of projects have been put on hold or canceled due to the economic uncertainty right now. Millions of federal tax dollars for infrastructure have now been put on hold. Our unions are constantly under attack. Right now this administration is a full-blown assault on our unions, our way of living. A moratorium will only add to that attack from a local city. But what I wanna ask council members up there right now, I mean, I don't wanna call anybody out, but there's a few council members that have fought really hard to bring this topic to fruition. So with that fighting so hard, I imagine you've fought equally as hard to have a plan. What is your plan to ensure that private developers that are coming to your city are going to meet with us? Because I'd like to sit with you guys at our training center and have that discussion. I wouldn't think that you would pass moratorium canceling potentially hundreds of projects and thousands of man hours without having a plan to see how your residents, union carpenters, are going to continue to work in the city. I wouldn't think that. When you fight to ensure that local jobs and union wages are brought under private contractors, commercial jobs, the residential contractors that are coming in, using non-union, unskilled labor, labor brokers, cash pay, a literal construction, a crime scene on some of these projects. If you ever want to see a video, I got plenty of them. And we can show them from your seat.

Thank you. Thank you.

Ralph Bellador.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, guests. As you see, there's literally a house full of workers behind me because these type of things do matter. And just like the gentleman before me was talking, we are under attack. We don't ask for handouts, we ask for opportunities. This city, like many other cities, are underwater when it comes to trying to build infrastructure, put in sewer water, street lights, pay for essential services, heck, pay for police and fire. We see it everywhere. And these developers that come to town basically give you what you want so you can pay those things so we can all live in a safer community. Please, every time you make decisions, it affects us working people. We are also your voters, not just a few people that are sitting there that are against it. We're the multitude of people that are with this moratorium. Where are they at? I know the folks that are against the moratorium aren't here. These folks want jobs. We don't ask for anything more than a job. And by putting a moratorium in place, all you're doing is adding to the economic uncertainty. Like the gentleman before me had said, there's thousands of jobs that are being canceled today. What is that going to do to our economy? What is that going to do for our children and the families that we have to support, that we put to school, the kids that I'm putting in college right now? What is that going to do to them? How am I going to pay my mortgage? How are these gentlemen going to pay their mortgage? It comes at a zero liability on this city. All it does is add to the city. It's their property. Allow them to build. Allow them to build with us. We build America. Again, we're not asking for a handout. We're just asking for you to vote no on this moratorium so we can continue to work in the city we love. Thank you. Thank you.

Jose Garcia.

Good evening, Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Jose Garcia, a lifelong member of the Labor's International Union of North America. There's not much that hasn't been said. This is affecting our whole community. You have to look at both sides. You can't just be on one side. I would really like to ask the people that are speaking against what their parents do. because most of the people my age work with their hands. We're not a computer tech era. So you gotta remember us. We're so close to retirement. We worked all our lives serving this country by building for this country. We don't only build warehouses. That's just the name. You can put anything in a building. McDonald's is an empty building till you put workers in there. This place is an empty building till you bring workers in here. So we gotta understand that people have dedicated their lives to this trade, to the trades. And without us, infrastructure would be crazy. And we all know that if we brought in retail, 10,000 cars are more traffic than 50 trucks. That's proven fact, or however that number is. Retail brings more traffic. So when are we gonna call the number? Where are we gonna draw the line? How many lives are we gonna affect? I even hate to bring my poor wife into this. She worked 28 years for a retail company. They just went out of business a year before she got to retire. She's having to retrain right now, just so that we can plan for the future, because the future's grim for the trades right now. If you guys are paying any attention to the federal funding, it's not there. You're not gonna have any infrastructure without private development. Private development, I'd like to see a map of how much money private development has been done here. Please, do not bring this moratorium forward. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

That is all.

All right. Item 10J was pulled by Mayor Potem for a comment.

Yes, thank you, Mayor Vargas. During the last meeting, I mentioned regulating the use of the social media and people that are working on social media with the city. That's currently not in the Code of Conduct, but I had discussions, extensive discussions with the city manager, and I'm okay proceeding with the Code of Conduct, provided we address that later on through subsequent conversations, maybe in a subsequent social media policy, addendum to the current social media policy.

So thank you. Duly noted. All right. There are no other comments. Council, I'm looking for a motion for 10... 10 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, well, all of it now. I have a motion by Councilwoman Nava, second by Councilwoman Nava, second by Councilman Corona. Please call the vote.

By vote, motion approved.

Thank you. All right, item 11 is our public hearings. 11a is consideration to adopt proposed resolution number next in order. Approving specific plan amendment 25-00001, a proposal to amend the Green Valley specific plan to rezone 3.4 acres from open space zone to public facility zone located generally in the northeast corner of Marietta Road and Watson Road to facilitate the construction of a future fire station as planned for and identified in the specific plan. This is going to be introduced by our Director of Development Services, Mr. Kenneth Fung.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. This item will be presented by our Senior Planner, Nathan Perez. Thank you.

Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council, on October 1st of this year, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Green Valley specific plan amendment to rezone 3.4 acres, generally located at the northeast corner of Murrieta and Watson Road. from open space to public facility zone. And also, they made a determination that the proposed SPA is in conformity to the general plan. Concerning the location that's shown on the slide, the Public Safety Committee, CAL FIRE, determined that the fire station is the most suitable site due to its location, which fills the gap for fire coverage in the southern part of the city. So the SPA before you is required to establish the appropriate regulatory framework to allow the future fire station in the southern part of the city and for it to proceed. Also, the proposed specific plan amendment conforms with the goals of the general plan's land use and safety elements to enhance public safety, especially providing a fire station in the southern part of Paris. So in conclusion, the Planning Commission recommended that the Council adopt the fifth addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report and approve the specific plan amendment to facilitate the construction of the future fire station. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Nathan. Councilman, do we have any quick questions before I open up the hearing? Seeing none in the queue, I'm going to open up the public hearing at 8.02. Madam Clerk, do we have any requests to speak?

No, sir.

Anybody wish to speak on this item? Hearing and seeing none, we're going to close the public hearing at 8.02, and I'll call for a motion on the first resolution. A motion by Mayor Pro Tem Rabb, second by Councilwoman Nava. Please call the vote.

5-0, motion approved.

Thank you. 11B is consideration to introduce the first reading. A proposed ordinance number next in order approving zone code text amendment 25-00007. A proposal to amend the Paris municipal code requiring conditional use permit and city council approval for warehouses and distribution centers larger than 50,000 square feet in the light industrial and general industrial zones. This will be introduced by our Director of Development Services, Mr. Kenneth Fung.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. This item will be presented by our Principal Planner, Rafael Garcia.

Good evening, honorable Mayor, members of the City Council. The item before you tonight did go before the Planning Commission previously. Also on September 30th, 2025, Councilmember Corona directed staff to initiate this code amendment. requiring a conditional use permit as well as City Council approval for specifically warehouses and distribution centers that are over 50,000 square feet in area within the light industrial as well as the general industrial zone as I indicated earlier this item did go before the Planning Commission for consideration they voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the City Council The amendment would provide greater oversight and discretion for large industrial projects to ensure that they do not negatively impact surrounding areas. Under the current regulations, these types of projects typically only require a development plan review, and they are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. As part of this, the Paris Valley Commerce Center specific plan will also be amended in order to be consistent with the zoning code amendment that's before you tonight. However, due to procedural requirements, the specific plan amendment will be coming before the city council in February. As part of the amendment before you tonight, there are gonna be a couple of specific code sections that are going to be amended, specifically land use table section 194420, which would be amended as shown on the screen. What it would basically require is for warehouses as well as distribution centers It would require a conditional use permit for any warehouse over 50,000 square feet as I previously stated the Authority review table as part of section 1954 30 would also be amended Requiring that these types of requests come before the City Council currently they only require Planning Commission review and approval As part of this, the Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council introduce the ordinance and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Guidelines pursuant to section 15061B3 and approve the zoning code text amendment 25-00004 to amend chapter 1944-1954 of the zoning code requiring conditional use permit for industrial warehouses and distribution facilities That concludes the presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions that the members of council, members of the audience may have pertaining to this item. Thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you, Raphael. We'll open up the public hearing at 8.06. Madam Clerk, do you have a request to speak?

Yes, sir. Franco Pacheco?

Hello, my name is Franco Pacheco. I was going to say, I think I put my thing for the wrong one, but I'm in support of this. And I would think the only question I would have is if it's going to go back to Planning Commission after the CPU is requested. Thank you.

Thank you. Who's next?

That is all.

All right, I'm going to close the public hearing at 8.07. Council, if nobody has any questions or comments, I'll call Councilman Corona.

For the city manager, I wanted to clarify. So if the item comes to us, does it then, like if you could explain the process for residents of, say, a warehouse that's 51,000 square feet, you know, if they submit an application, how the process goes?

Sure. Yes, good evening. This code amendment would in essence require any warehouse or logistics distribution center that's over 50,000 square feet to apply for conditional use permit which is discretionary. So it's not permitted by right. The conditional use permits are approved by the Planning Commission unless there's like a rezone or an EIR that requires an override. So this makes it discretionary and it's no longer permitted by right.

And then, so when it comes to council, does it go back to Planning Commission?

It doesn't necessarily need to come to council if there is no legislative application attached to it, or if there is no overriding consideration in the Pears Valley Commerce Center, or if there's no EIR, then it doesn't come to council. But typically, larger buildings over 300,000 to 400,000 square feet do require some EIR, which might make it to council, but not necessarily. But it's still discretionary, and that requires findings need to be made as to whether this is a use that's adequate in a particular neighborhood. Does it comply with all the requirements of the code? So it's discretionary that you need to make certain findings. It's no longer just by right.

That's it.

All right, I'll call for a motion on the first reading of the ordinance. I have a motion by Councilman Corona. Second by Mayor Pro Tem Rapp. Please call the vote.

5-0, motion approved.

Thank you. 11C is consideration to introduce the first reading proposed ordinance number next in order. and adopt proposed resolution number next in order regarding zoning code text amendment 25-00005 and specific plan amendment 25-00002A, proposal to amend the zoning code, the Paris Valley Commerce Center specific plan and the Paris Industrial Good Neighbor Guidelines to update industrial development standards aimed at enhancing protections when industrial warehouses and distribution projects are in proximity to sensitive receptors. This will be introduced by our Director of Development Services, Mr. Kenneth Fung.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. This item will be presented again by our principal planner, Rafael Garcia.

Good evening once again, Mayor, members of the City Council. As you all know now, for several months the city has undertaken the process of looking into our industrial development standards. As part of this, just as a reminder, on September 17, 2025, the Planning Commission voted by a vote of four to zero to recommend approval regarding this amendment, specifically to amend the Paris Valley Commerce Center specific plan, the zoning ordinance, as well as the industrial good neighbor guidelines to update the standards and compliance with AB 98 in an attempt to enhance protections, REGARDING WAREHOUSES AND DISTRIBUTION PROJECTS, SPECIFICALLY THOSE THAT ARE WITHIN PROXIMITY TO SENSITIVE RECEPTORS. IN OCTOBER 14, EARLIER THIS YEAR, CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED THIS ITEM TO TONIGHT, AND TONIGHT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS BASED ON THE COUNCIL DIRECTION THAT WAS PROVIDED BACK IN APRIL 8, 2025, TO PREPARE THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING New industrial development standards specifically aimed at reducing Any public health as well as safety impacts? staff has compiled a wide variety of industrial standards from the city zoning code as well as the good neighbor guidelines and at the same time while attempting to address the requirements of assembly bill 98 We've also looked at the city of Riverside, and we've summarized this into a total of 10 areas. I'm going to be going over a few tables here. The tables are going to show the development centers for each one of these areas, and the purpose of this is to show some of the changes that are going to be proposed and what the Planning Commission recommended. That text will be highlighted in red. So the first item we're going to go over is the structure size. one thing to keep in mind is that the way that development standard is outlined now is that it's based on the proximity to a sensitive receptor so if you are within 200 feet of a sensitive receptor the maximum building size of an industrial building would be limited to 10,000 square feet if it is between 201 to 800 feet the maximum square footage would be 100,000 square feet. If it is over 801 feet up to 1,500 feet from a sensitive receptor, the maximum building size would be 400,000 square feet. And if the building is over 1,500 feet from a sensitive receptor, then the lot coverage would be 50% along with a floor area ratio of 0.75. So the purpose of the standard is to restrict building size based on proximity to a sensitive receptor. Now when it comes to height, something very similar, there are two different height standards. One is for any building that is within 200 feet of a sensitive receptor. So if you are within 200 feet, The maximum height of an industrial warehouse would be 35 feet if a rezone is proposed in conjunction with that request. If there is no rezone involved, then the maximum height limit would be 50 feet. If the building is beyond 200 feet of a sensitive receptor, then the maximum building height would be 45 feet for any application involving a rezone and 50 feet for any application that does not involve a rezone. Now, when it comes to setbacks, keep in mind that there's a wide variety of setbacks that are typically required as part of a building, front, sides, and rear. As part of this, the front setback, as recommended, will be 35. If it is a side setback that is adjacent to a sensitive receptor, the side setback would be 60 feet. And if it is adjacent to a street side, like on a corner lot, then the setback would be 35 feet. Also, if there is a rear yard that is adjacent to a sensitive receptor, the setback would be increased to 60 feet. Now, when it comes to landscape buffers and tree sizes, a few things to keep in mind here is AB 98 currently requires one of two buffers. The first is it requires a 50-foot buffer when there is no rezone involved. However, if there is a rezone involved, that buffer width requirement is increased to 100 feet so long as the building is within 900 feet of a sensitive receptor. So the trigger there is the 900 feet. Are you within 900 feet of a set of receptor? And if so, the buffer would be 50 feet. If a rezone is required, it would be 100 feet. Also with regards to tree landscaping, the code will require a combination of either 36 or 48 inch box trees. And for memorialization sakes, we did include the landscape percentage as well as the required number of offsite trees. Now with regards to the distance from the bay doors to a sensitive receptor, this is the specific distance from a bay door. So the side of the building that has all the bay doors is going to be required to be a minimum of 300 feet if no rezone is proposed and 750 feet if a rezone is proposed as part of the project. That is more than what was required by AB 98. When it comes to the truck entry gate stacking distance, it will be 150 feet with an additional 75 feet required for every 20 dock doors above and beyond that. Wall height will be 14 feet for any new walls proposed as part of any type of industrial warehouse. And the housing replacement is a requirement specifically that's required as part of AB 98, which requires a housing replacement ratio of two to one, meaning that if the project was to remove or demolish any residential housing units, it would be required to replace those units as part of the project scope. Also, staff has provided an increase radius notice requirement. that would be a thousand feet for any type of project involving an industrial warehouse. Now we've approved the new ordinance would apply to all warehouses and distribution projects that are not deemed complete by February 12, 2026. Now with that said, the Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council introduce the ordinance and find that the project is exempt from CEQA guidelines pursuant to sections 15061B3 and approve the zoning code text amendment number 25-00005 based on the findings contained herein and adopt resolution finding that a project as adequately covered by the Paris Valley Commerce Center specific plan EIR and pursuant to CEQA sections 15061B3 as well as 15162 and 15308. And approve specific plan amendment 25-00002. And adopt the resolution finding that the project is exempt from the CEQA guidelines pursuant to CEQA sections 15060C3, 15061B3, and 15308. And adopt the amendment to the Good Neighbor Guidelines based on the findings contained herein. That concludes the presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions members of the council may have pertaining to this item. Thank you.

Thank you, Raphael. I'm going to open up the public hearing at 8.18. Madam Clerk, do I have any requests to speak?

Yes, sir.

How many do you have?

Seven.

Okay. Let me call the first three up. Three minutes?

Yeah. Omar Cobain.

Cobian.

Cobian. Sorry.

Nicole Torsten. Jason Baez. Brent Orozco.

Go ahead, Mr. Cobian. Good evening again. Omar Cobian here with the Carpenters. After reviewing the... I remember when... Senator Eloise Reyes brought up AB 98 and it became controversial. But I still remember up in Sacramento how the Carpenters knew that there was gonna be some changes. We did not, believe it or not, we stayed neutral and we let the legislators legislate and work things out. We feel that Sacramento made their decisions with AB 98. And I feel like it was well thought out after. And I know there's a trailer bill coming out, and it might be changed a bit. But why are we trying to do something that's above and beyond what any other city has done? 1,500 feet setback? That is... it's almost double what AB 98 has requested. So I'm just curious, I don't know, you guys have just adopted a 45-day moratorium. I'm assuming that's probably gonna be extended out for a year. What is the urgency to adopt this new ordinance that was obviously given to council or to planning commission? This is not their idea. And I have a feeling I know where it came from. I'm just asking why would we want to rush Let's take that 45 days. If you guys decide to take a year, let's put a good general plan together. Let's create some realistic guidelines so developers could come into the city and do business. So I'm not in favor of moving forward on this ordinance right now. I think it needs to be put on hold for now. Let's... You have your 45-day moratorium. Let's take a step back and let's think about this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you.

Nicole Torstett?

Good evening. Can you hear me? Good evening, Mayor, Council Members, Nicole Torstett. Industrial and warehouse activity generates nearly one-third of the city's general fund, supporting police, fire, parks, and youth programs. That revenue is directly tied to the continued development of planned industrial areas like Paris Valley Commerce Center's specific plan. Declaring a fiscal emergency while freezing the city's top revenue source creates a fundamental conflict. We can't say we need new revenue while halting the engine that provides it. The PVCC properties were carefully planned, entitled, and financed under existing zoning. Changing those entitlements now through down zoning or by adding new restrictions beyond AB 98 creates uncertainty for property owners, for employers who have invested here. It risks slower job creation and reduce future tax revenues, creating pressure to raise local taxes to offset the loss of industrial revenue. AB 98 also provides some of California's strongest environmental design standards, all of which Paris can enforce today without adding new barriers that push investment to neighboring cities. I urge the council to support AB 98 while maintaining the confidence in the existing Paris Valley Commerce Center specific plan and good neighbor guidelines. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jason Baez.

Hold on, Jason. Can you call the last four, please?

Brett Orozco, Larry Bustos, Ismael Gonzalez, Bill Blankenship.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you so much, counsel. Jason Baez with Labor's International Union of North America here tonight to encourage you to not move forward with this moratorium. These projects produce... We're doing good neighbor guidelines.

Is that what you meant? We already did the moratorium.

I'm sorry. That's OK. Good neighbor guidelines. OK, so these projects produce excellent jobs for local people. These jobs are very important for a lot of local community members, as many of them who work in these facilities are not able to work far away like the rest of us. because of small children, elderly parents, and other family members that they have to take care of. So they depend on these local projects to be able to take care of their family. There's also many good jobs such as accounting, sales, management, and technician positions that produce excellent careers that people establish lives with here. And then furthermore, there's also logistics jobs and maintenance jobs that certain people seek out because of inabilities that they have to do heavy, strenuous work. And rather than pull from the government for financial assistance and live like that, they choose a road of integrity to work these small jobs, to have some... some good integrity and be happy with the lives that they're living. Furthermore, those of us that travel every day, the strenuous, treacherous missions that we go through to give our families the very best we can possibly give. These projects are a lifeline to us, and they give us the ability to connect with our families, to spend time and live as normal people do. And some may say that we choose these lives and we choose these careers, but that doesn't omit us from being human beings. We still are human beings who love our families and are willing to go the furthest distance to give them everything we can possibly give them to live a good life because our families depend on us as fathers, as spouses, providers. And taking away these jobs from us can affect that dramatically. Now, on a personal level, this career has enabled me to put two of my daughters through top universities. My youngest daughter is at Gold School of Law at USC right now at this very moment. I could show you on my location.

Thank you, sir.

Bray Orozco.

Hello, my name is Bray Orozco. I work in construction, I'm a laborer. Right now I have a sensitive receptor in my house that I take care of. And I can't rely on any assistance to take care of my family and my situation like that. When these type of things pass and it makes it harder, it just makes it difficult. All I wanna do is I wanna go home. I wanna go to bed with a little bit of hope and I wanna wake up with a fighting chance. We come to these meetings and we talk and we just try to fight for what we want. If we have to take a loss, hey, it hurts, but we take a loss. But when these things get harder and harder, it's like we don't have a fighting chance anymore. And it's like you're just taking away the hope that we have to continue to fight for the things that we need and that we want. So again, I'm just a worker, and I try to take care of my family. And, you know, the more difficult it gets, it just gets harder and it gets scarier. And, again, you know, losing that hope for a future and for continued work in the area and to keep me here taking care of my family, you know, that's just a scary thing. So just consider all these aspects and consider everybody that's talking up here. And I understand there's both sides, but, you know, again, we all just want a fighting chance. And, you know, when these things pass, it just makes it harder. So I appreciate your time and thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you.

Larry Bustos.

Can you call the next, hang on Larry, can you call, how many left do you have?

Ismael Gonzalez, Bill Blankenship, JC Franco, Paige Gosney.

Go ahead, sir. Okay, thank you. Good evening, honorable mayor and council members and staff. Thank you for your time. My name is Larry Bustos, and I am a construction worker. I am also a 20-year member of the Laborers International Union of North America. I'm here today because this item will hurt us, not just on paper, but out in the field where people are trying to make a living. These projects are how local workers support their families. And coming from somebody that has 20 years in and spent probably about three quarters of those years out of town, away from my family, and missing birthdays and holidays because I had to support them, I would tell you firsthand that local workers being able to stay in their community greatly improves their quality of life. When we make it harder to build, we make it harder for people to stay employed. We slow down progress, delay opportunities, and push out the work for our city. That is not what our community needs. All we're asking is simple. Keep these projects alive so our members and local workers can stay on the job, learn to grow, and build a better future for our family right here at home. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ismael Gonzalez.

Hello again. I just want to reiterate I am a MoVal resident. I also want to emphasize that you guys adopt this good neighbor policy. As far as I can see from the agenda, it reads to update industrial development standards aimed at enhancing protections when industrial warehouses and distribution projects are in proximity to sensitive receptors. Nowhere did it say that you guys are contemplating taking jobs away. As far as I'm concerned, all the labor unionists behind me will have and continue to have a job. It does not affect them. But one unionist did mention that he did have a sensitive receptor in his house. I think all of them probably have sensitive receptors in their house. Children are on the rise of getting asthma in our region. The Inland Empire is... the worst region for air quality nationwide. By no coincidence, we also have the most warehouse area per capita. Those two things are correlated. No one's threatening to take away jobs. The moratorium that you just passed is not gonna take away any jobs. Those jobs are hypothetical. They're being considered, but the jobs here right now in the city, they're gonna stay here. All we're trying to emphasize here is that we move the trucks to a better location. We reassess the land uses that the warehouses have in relation to these sensitive receptors. We need to take a look at how they affect our children, hospitals, other sensitive receptors as defined by AB 98. And I want to show you a comparison in my own city that I'm working hard against for them to realize this message as well. But they're actually... about to be litigated by the California Attorney General because he keeps sending them letters trying to address these concerns of AB 98. But unfortunately, my city, City of Moreno Valley, has failed to respond to their, you know, points in feasible time. So please be leaders in the region. So my city, Mobile, just 10 minutes away from here that you guys can do it so we can do it too. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

J.C. Franco.

Good evening once more, City Council. I think for me, as I mentioned, I'm a pro-business resident. I believe it's the democratic oath of all of us to listen and balance out the sides that we're hearing here. And I think to simplify what I've been hearing, the arguments against this good neighbor policy is You depend on us and therefore you should continue doing this. We will sue you because you are looking out for your residents. We drive and have a long commute and other commitments that we chose and therefore you should adapt to that even though we're not residents of this city. To me as a pro-business resident that those are not sufficient arguments. Those are not strong arguments to be making at this council. before this council, and then therefore I believe that the actual good neighbor policy is to ensure just that, that developments are gonna be done so that they are good neighbors to our community. I understand that the AB requirements are not as stringent as this, and I think we should continue to push that through all forms of our planning and zoning policy, because that's the premise of what the good neighbor policy is, We are respectful of one another, environmentally, fiscally, and across all other issues. So for that, I support the good neighbor policy. Thank you. Thank you.

Bill Blankenship.

Good evening, Honorable Mayor, Honorable Members of the Council. My name is Bill Blankenship, representing NAOP Inland Empire Chapter. I've spoken on this issue before the Council quite a few times now, before the Planning Commission, I need to point out that one aspect that you're comparing yourself to or comparing a potential ordinance to is the city of Riverside. The city of Riverside spent about five years writing this good neighbor policy, never adopted it, never. And why would the city of Paris want to adopt something that the city of Riverside dreamed up, created? It doesn't make sense. You already have a very robust good neighbor policy. You layer AB 98 standards on top of it. And then the SB 415 standards. You have a very robust good neighbor policy. You don't need to do this. And other cities, and there's been many of them, who have contemplated moratoriums. Your city contemplated moratorium and then adopted a very robust good neighbor policy. So I'm not sure why you're adopting this tonight. Once again, the cart seems to be before the horse, as the old saying goes. And I would urge you not to adopt this this evening. It doesn't make sense. I would challenge staff that they have not compared all the projects that are out there. You heard that there's some 8 million square feet of projects that are potentially going to have to go back to the drawing board. you adopt this good neighbor policy but it's kind of hazy on if they can even do that because now there's a moratorium so there's absolute chaos now I know you guys don't want that the city has had a great partnership with the logistics industry there's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built in the future you heard me THROUGH A NUMBER OUT HERE PREVIOUSLY WHEN I SPOKE, $248 MILLION, AND THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE ALL OF THE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE. GOD ONLY KNOWS HOW MUCH MORE IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FACILITIES THAT ARE BADLY NEEDED IN THIS CITY. they need to be billed here. So I ask, please, let's put the brakes on. Let's not do this this evening. Let's have that meaningful conversation about that fiscal emergency, and then let's navigate from there. Thank you again. Good night. Thank you.

Paige Gosney.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I actually want to begin by thanking you for carving out from the Good Neighbor Guidelines on behalf of the Paris Airport Logistics Center project, projects that have been deemed complete, CEQA complete, at least as of February 2026. This is one project that's going to benefit from that. I would hope you'd extend that some wisdom after 45 days on the moratorium to carve out projects that similarly meet that standard from the moratorium. It doesn't make sense to exempt them from amended code guidelines, amended good neighbor guidelines, but then have them pause for potentially up to two years. But I appreciate that and want to thank you for that wisdom. That being said, there still are a number of other projects that are going to be subject to these code amendments and good neighbor guideline amendments that really, to Mr. Blankenship's comments, go too far. I understand, I appreciate the city's desire to aggressively regulate industrial uses. I've said before, and at the meeting in November, you are at the forefront of industrial regulation. That's a fact. Your good neighbor guidelines, your existing code amendments, all of it is at the forefront of industrial regulation. But I think you don't take into account or don't truly appreciate the enormous benefits and infrastructure and revenue that that industrial development brings into the city. What I fear is going to happen because these code amendments and good neighbor guideline amendments are so strict, are so stringent, is that you're going to have projects that the market demands but that cannot be built because they cannot comply with these standards. So yes, there are other industrial uses that could go on that property, but they're not uses that the market could support or demand, and therefore that would never be entitled or developed or built. So what you will get is vacant land, undeveloped property, undeveloped property that's not contributing DIF fees and impact fees into the city's coffers, that's not raising property tax revenue. That's not building infrastructure that your residents need. When you get complaints about potholes in roads, road conditions, drainage infrastructure, road flooding, all of these issues, all of these public improvements that private development built that industrial development built. When those are not being built, when those are not being maintained, you will have residents at this dais complaining to you, asking where the hell did the money go and why isn't this stuff being built? And when that day comes, you're going to look back at this hearing. If you do adopt this moratorium, excuse me, adopt these code amendments, and you're going to remember this day and remember that that was the reason that was when it started. So you've adopted a moratorium tonight. That's done. You've got 45 days to reconsider it, and I hope that you do. But you can pause these code amendments. The purpose of a moratorium, right, is to study, to develop, to vet, to develop the regulations and adopt the ones that you feel are best for the city. You now have that time. There's no rush. There's no need to adopt those regulations tonight. I would urge you not to do so. Thank you.

Thank you.

That is all.

I'm going to close the public hearing at 839. Come on up, Mr. Pacheco. It's probably the last one you put the wrong number.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council. The good neighbor guidelines is a good step and then the moratorium is obviously thank you for proving that and I hope it gets extended. A couple of things I want to address. A pause or increasing protections won't affect what the city gets in revenue because what we have existing now is not going away, right? We're already making money now as a city with all the development that we have currently in the city. So what I would like to see also with this Good Neighbor Guidelines is at what point do we say, Enough of the land in Paris has been developed for warehousing. Is it 50% of the land? Is it 75% of the land? Is it 90% of the land? Because at the rate that these developers come in and these warehouse projects get pushed to this city, it seems like the whole city of Paris is going to become one big giant warehouse, right? As far as these actual good neighbor guidelines, I would like to see that the setbacks be increased. I feel like we could do better. And it's also important to note that when AB 98 was passed, it was meant to be the minimum, right? For those communities like in the Central Valley that getting hit really really hard by logistics and it's very it's straining farming communities communities of color and all sorts of things so it was very important for them that that this bill at least gave them some sort of protections as relates to us we do have protections but we see what happens when yes we have protections but we have over development and an excessive amount of warehouses coming in and So even though we have those setbacks, even though we have these rules in place, if you keep on putting more and more and more, it kind of negates those protections. Right. So I would like to see something like that be placed into the good neighbor guidelines, too, as far as limits. You know, 50 percent of the city or 25 percent. Obviously, you want other developments in the city to come in. And we heard a lot of complaining from developers tonight. a lot of complaining from people about jobs, but we failed to mention the fact that AI and as it relates to warehousing, a lot of it's getting automated. So these hypothetical jobs that are talking about, they're not going to be there pretty soon. I was at a recent school board meeting where they're gearing up the kids to work in AI, which I thought was I have my own personal opinions about that, but I think it's very important to consider that we need to start focusing on other things. So please consider putting in a provision in there that actually restricts how much industrial warehousing is permitted as far as percentage of land for the city. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to close the public hearing at 842. Councilwoman, any questions or comments? Councilwoman Alva.

Thank you. To begin with, I'd like to thank all our speakers tonight here this evening. And I'd also like to thank our planning commissioners for an excellent job in reviewing this matter. I wanted to go ahead and dive right into the tables. If we could pull those right up, please. And while we're pulling those up, I wanted to highlight that the maximum structure height that's listed, whether it be a rezone or not, I'd like to propose for that to remain at 35 feet. And with that extent, I'd like to... move down the table and basically refer to the rezone figures as the one that I'd like to propose as the ones we should be leaning towards. And then one more thing is I'd like to increase the... If we go down the table for the setbacks.

Let's see.

It was the truck loading bay doors. We have 300 feet, no rezone, 750 feet for a rezone. And again, I'd like to... refer just to having the one figure and those would be the reason figures and I'd like if there is an opportunity to increase that setback. And those are just some of the comments I'd like to begin with, thank you.

Just for clarification, which setback specifically?

So yeah, the truck, you have it on the screen there. So we have the 300 feet for a no rezone and a 700 feet rezone. And like I mentioned, I'd like for us to just focus on the rezone numbers. I wouldn't want to have the two varying numbers. And given that we have 750 feet proposed for a rezone, if there's any engagement from my council colleagues to increase that setback, those are all my comments. Thank you so much.

You got all the other ones she was referring to? All right, Councilman Corona. Thank you, Mayor.

Okay, so I do want to be clear. I know I mentioned before, it seems like we're rushing it. I think this item was brought up almost a year ago, and it took this long. It kept getting pushed off. It was at the end of the meeting, so it kept getting pushed off. It went to the Planning Commission. It was at the end of a long meeting. It kept getting pushed off. So here we are almost a year later. and we barely have this item to us. I do appreciate all the speakers with regard to this specific item. I know that there's kind of these comments that, hey, we're not being pro-labor. I don't know if there's a city anywhere in the area that's as pro-labor as the city of Paris. I know the city of Paris was one of the first cities to do a project labor agreement, which it expired, and then we brought it back, and we actually strengthened it. And with the fact that so many of the laborers even working on these projects is because of the sentiment of this council that, you know, talked to the developers, told them, hey, any of your projects should have, where we strongly encouraged it, right? I don't think it was mandated, right? But it was very strongly encouraged that all their projects should have a certain amount of labor on there. And you go to the other cities, and it's not the case. So I think the comments was mentioned whether, hey, another city, they did a moratorium. How come they didn't have anybody over there? I think because not every city is as pro-labor as the city of Paris. But I do appreciate the passion that's being brought here. But there's obviously a passion from the residents as well, too. And the residents are very passionate. And they've been screaming. and posting on social media and just telling us, all of us, I'm sure, about that, hey, we do appreciate that the warehouse has brought in some things, but when is enough enough, right? I'm wondering if you could post the picture, the first picture. Yeah, so this is a layout of Paris. And if you see on the north side, now, to be fair, part of that area on the north is part of Marina Valley. And part of the east on the west side of the freeway is Mead Valley. But you can see that this area is saturated, absolutely saturated with warehouses. I don't think there's a single place in the Inland Empire that has this much warehouses in one location. It's not just the north of Paris, right? It's down south, right? It's near schools. It's near homes. It's near other sensitive receptors. There's parks that have warehouses nearby, right? And now some of the people are telling us, hey, why are we gonna stop the warehouses? We're not closing the ones that are already open, right? What this does is it makes sure that the ones that are being built are the best quality for our residents, right? Because I fully understand, I appreciate it, right? You guys build them. But after the six or nine months when it's being built and you go off somewhere else, our residents have to deal with it. Our residents have to deal with the traffic. Our residents have to deal with the pollution, right? You send your kids to nice colleges, but our kids have to stay here, right? So I encourage you, right? Send your kids off to college, but encourage them to come back and work at a warehouse and see if they can pay their student loans with a warehouse job. So I definitely appreciate all the infrastructure that we've had. And the city of Paris has taken a big advantage. But this logic of just, hey, we've got to keep building warehouses and keep building and keep building is not sustainable. And the warehouse development understands that as well, too. All they're going to do, as soon as they build to 100% capacity, they're going to go on to the next city, right? Meanwhile, we've got all the traffic. It's terrible. It's terrible out there, right? The kids are begging us. They're saying... Don't make our air worse. The kids are telling the adults this, right? And not just these kids, right? I have students all the time, and they keep saying, you know, like I have to teach them, right? But, you know, with the little break time, right, they're telling me, hey, why do you keep approving another warehouse, right? And I'm like, geez, well, you know, sorry. You know, it's for infrastructure or whatever, right? You know, so I've lived in the city of Paris for 40 years. I know we had a speaker say about vacant land. I've been here when there was a lot of vacant land. Never bothered me because vacant land was potential land. Right? And the goal of some developers, you know, what they did to Orange County, right, we just got to build every single plot of land, put concrete on there, whatever it is. We got to build it up, right? That's what developers do, right? I'm not going to fault them, right, when they come from Orange County and they come over here and they want to make money. I get it, right? But to me, empty land was potential land. And if we keep building land, keep building and building and building, the next council, 10, 20 years from now, 50 years from now, they're not going to have anything to build on. So we're stealing from the future generations, from the two young speakers that came up. We're stealing from them. We're stealing from their potential. So what we're saying is that with this, with the Good Neighbor Guidelines, we just want to make sure that the projects that do get approved are the best possible projects with all the best possible community benefits as well too. And I think this does it, and I do want to thank the Planning Commission for Excuse me, if you could post the other picture as well, too. I do want to show you guys a graph, just for clarification. So this was compiled from data from a reliable source, and it lists all the places compared to per capita, right? And you can see Paris, of all the cities per capita, Paris is number one in Riverside County when it comes to cities. Obviously, Meade Valley's community, it's pretty much connected to Paris, right? And then you have Ontario there too. So who's going to look at that and tell our residents, we need you to support more warehouses? We know that you have a lot. We know you have more than any other city in Riverside County, but we want you to do more, right? Tell our kids that, hey, I get it, right? But I still want your parents to approve more warehouses, right? Right? So I said this last meeting, and I'm going to say it again. Here's what I want you to do. Go to your cities that you're from. Right? Go to those cities that you're from with the clean air and the parks and talk to your council and tell them, hey, council, listen, Paris has done their part. They've done their part. They've done more than their part. We want you, Riverside or Eastvale or Rancho Cucamonga, or Orange County, where the developers are from, right? And we want you to support more warehouses, because Paris is doing their part. Meade Valley is doing their part. But we want you to do more, right? So I fully support with the good neighborhood guidelines. I know someone said, why are we going above and beyond the state? Because we're the city of Paris, and our residents deserve the best. Right? So it's not an attack on anything, but we do just need to have smarter building, and we want to work with the development. And I want to make it clear, part of this is the development. All the developers, right? They got too greedy. They just got too greedy, right? And that's kind of the issue. And on top of that, I do got to mention, man, because it was just mind-blowing to me. But imagine an organization that's come up here, that's been against warehouses, that's spoken against warehouses, and now they're saying, hey, I think we need you to not enforce this and not enforce a moratorium. And I'm thinking, why would they do that? Because that organization sues the developers. They get a payout. So if there's no warehouses, then that organization doesn't get a payout. It's rich. It's amazing. I just couldn't believe it. They lost all credibility with me. And there was a time where I actually supported them, and I can no longer support that organization or any other organization because it's not just one.

There's a lot of them that

So with that said, I definitely support it. I definitely support the changes that the amendments that my colleague, Councilwoman Inaba, brought up as well, too.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We've got a lot of work to do, so the clapping stuff just delays me from speaking, so please. Mayor Pro Tem Rep?

Yes, I'd like to thank once again all the speakers for coming out and expressing their concerns regarding this important item. I'd like to thank Councilman Corona for bringing this to our attention to codify the good neighbor policy. Not only will it be... My mic is on. If there's a way we can turn it up a little bit. Not only will it... enhance the good neighbor policy. It will ensure that this policy is codified within our municipal code protecting future generations. I think the issue that prompted Councilman Caroni, correct me if I'm wrong, is the fact that there are going to be several warehouses that are going to be built on MAPES. One is going to be Caddy Corner from Rob Reiner Elementary. Now this warehouse project was approved in 2010, July of 2010. Now I understand we were in the middle of the recession during that period, but this warehouse is going to be Caddy Corner from Rob Reiner Elementary, down the street from Railway Elementary, further down the street from Pinnacotti Middle School. And you look at the demographics of each one of those schools, and you ask yourselves, these schools are majority Latino, age 75, 80, 90% Latino. If these schools were 70, 80, 90% white, and I can say this because my mother was white, there were 70, 80, 90% white, would these projects have been approved? And we all know the answer to that. And we can no longer hide behind that. And our residents are asking for stronger prohibitions for the warehousing that are getting built in their backyards. Go up to Brennan on Ramona Expressway. Those people on Brennan, this project was approved before any of us got on there. They open up their house. There's a truck bay directly outside of their house. Go over to Ryder. There's mobile home parks, an area that is predominantly Latino. You go on Ryder Street. There's a warehouse with a little strip of land. abutting right against those people's homes. So I think we're looking at the city. We're seeing these projects that are not even built, that are approved as part of development agreements, that are going to be built over the next few years. They're not subjects to the moratorium. We're hearing from our residents. About a month and a half ago, I was at Winco shopping. I ran into the Fuellen family. And Malcolm, you know Mr. and Ms. Fuellen. A couple that has lived in Paris since 1986. They brought their house right across the street from the high school. Their daughter graduated from Paris High in 2005. They moved over on Murrieta Road. And they said, hey, we understand the warehouses are coming. They came in on the north. They provided amenities to our city. And I've You know, I've approved some of them in the past, in the North End. They were in flight zones. They provided amenities. They provided park equipment. But at what time is the city going to say enough? And this is not to kill the warehouses. This is to ensure that the guidelines protect our residents, and our residents are asking for it. Our residents are asking for it. Wherever we go, whether it be on social media, out in public, at the schools, Malcolm Corona, working through the neighborhoods, we want to ensure that our residents are provided protections from the industrial development. And I think the issue is that Councilman Corona brought up is when these projects are all completed, if we build out every single inch of Paris 10, 15 years from now, we're going to be in the same position we're in tonight. But at least we have the possibility to use that land for something that may be more amenable to the residents and the residents of the community. The vacant land mentioned its possibility. When my father was growing up in the 1950s, that vacant land was potato and onion fields. it provided substance to the people. Rather than taking all this stuff from Chile and Mexico and all these foreign countries, the residents had produce that was immediately from the area. And you look at all the people that are unhealthy today, and you wonder why we can't do that again. And I see Ms. Tobar in the audience. That's an old school parish resident. What, class of 63, parish high? That's the people we're protecting here today. The people that live in this community, the people that have roots in this community, and as someone that graduated from Paris High School, whose parents are buried down the street, three of my grandparents are buried down the street, one of my great-grandparents is buried down the street. I have a vested interest in this community, and I support Councilwoman Nava's changes to the good neighbor policy.

All right. Councilwoman Vallejo.

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I also want to echo with what all my council members were saying, and I also want to echo Council Member Nava's changes. And I also believe that I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to have more health safety for our residents. No one can argue that we don't have a lot of warehouses. We do have a lot of warehouses. And that's a fact for everybody for years. Our city has been known as like a laughing stock online saying like, oh, it is a warehouse city. I don't want to go there. And the only reason why these guidelines and the moratorium is so valuable is because we need to reset what we have been doing for the past years here. The council from back in the day, they didn't really ask for much. It was always the minimum and it was always to what the developers wanted. But when are the residents gonna get what they deserve? We need businesses, we need commercials. We have such an opportunity to create something that we can give to our future. I focus on the future. I focus on my future children, on my future neighbors, to see what Paris can really be. And right now, we are on the forefront. We are at the finish line. And we have the opportunity to create something great. and this is the time to do it. And I get really hurt when other people say like, oh, you guys aren't thinking about the unions. We do think about the unions. We are pro unions here. It's just oversaturated on warehouses. And I hope you guys can really see that, that we're just here to protect our children. We are here to protect everyone here just to make sure that Paris can actually be a city where people can come and visit and buy things from us because we have a Metrolink right here and we don't even use it. If we revitalize our downtown and make it what people want it to be, we can be making way more money and having a place where we can be here and spend money on. So I really like to thank everyone because I love hearing both sides, but if you look at just the facts alone, oversaturated with warehouses, and we finally have the ability to do something, and just to let everybody know, we are just doing 45 days right now. We are not doing anything else, not yet, but it's only 45 days as of right now to really think about what we can do for our community members. Thank you.

All right, thank you very much. So just for clarification, because I thought we only clarified this one that's showing. Where is that? Rafael, can you come up and bring the prior two slides? I think there was a total of three different? Yes. Nava? You had three different sections?

Well, if you go by table to table, so it would be more than just the three changes.

I just want to make sure you got everything that they're talking about. Go ahead.

Thank you. Yes, Councilwoman Nava made a recommendation regarding the maximum structure height to strike out the no rezone height and limited for both categories, limited to the rezone height.

So that was basically saying she'll stop none of the Omit the rezoned, or keep all rezoned and not the first one, right?

Correct, yes.

The 35 and 45, the stricter.

Right, so they were just the stricter ones.

Correct, yes. And then the third item was for the truck loading bay doors, the same thing to keep the stricter, which is 750 feet, but she opened it up for further discussion if any other council members would like to increase that.

Yeah, and I'm proposing a number of 1,000, 1,000 feet. That's correct, yes.

Just for this one right here, right? Right. All right, you need to make a motion then.

Yes, okay, so I motioned, I'm sorry, is there additional questions? I believe we covered them all.

They got them all. Yeah, okay. I'm just looking for a motion.

So I motion to approve, given what the three additional amendments mean to the item.

Three supporters, you guys, someone's got to second it. You're not the motioner. Elizabeth, you need to get yourself a, you didn't motion it. All right, there you are. We have a motion by Councilman Nava, second by Commissioner Vallejo, please call the vote. I mean, Councilwoman Vallejo. Too many meetings.

5-0 motion approved.

All right, thank you. I get it. Item 11D is consideration to introduce the first reading of the proposed ordinance number next in order to address the Just Cause Eviction Protection pursuant to AB 1482. This item is continued from the November 18, 2025 Special City Council meeting. This will be introduced by our Director of Economic Development and Workforce, Michelle Ogawa.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. As you stated, this is a continued first reading item from the November 18th City Council meeting. To share a little background, the Ways and Means Committee discussed this item over the course of the last year, recommended it for City Council discussion, which took place on October 14th, and as you stated, November 18th, we held the first reading, which was continued to this evening, and the draft before you tonight incorporates additional revisions into the draft from the November 18th discussion, which further enhances the tenant protections in the city of Paris. The ordinance also does still comply with the state statute that allows revisions at the local level within certain terms, so as long as the ordinance is more protective to tenants and the ordinance follows that as well. As written, there are no additional resources required for enforcement or implementation of the ordinance, and the city would maintain our current operations as well as the annual contract with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County to address landlord-tenant disputes. So with that, I'll go through a recap of the revisions from the November 18th first reading. That includes a change to the applicability. So previously, it was stated to align with AB 1482. We've changed that, essentially cutting the time frames in half. So this Just Cause ordinance is applicable when all tenants have lawfully occupied a residence for at least six months or when at least one tenant has lawfully occupied a residence for at least 12 months. And the applicability also includes tenancies in mobile homes unless the owner is in a long-term lease renting space in a mobile home park. The exemption list from the discussion on November 18th remains as is and aligns with AB 1482. The at fault definition was also further revised on November 18th and has been incorporated into this ordinance with one additional change. We removed the incident log as the qualifying documentation for criminal activity on the property. And we also include, maintain the addition of the criminal threat to the landlord as well as the police report documentation to qualify for that basis. What the additional note has been removed is the criminal threat to other tenants. And on legal advice, they're recommending to maintain the language in the ordinance to address landlord-tenant matters rather than tenant-to-tenant issues and advise that should there be issues among the tenants that they should settle that privately within the unit. The no-fault definition aligns with AB 1482 and remains as is in the current draft. In terms of the tenant protections, we've maintained the requirement for multilingual notices Citing California Civil Code Section 1632, that's as is in the revision from November 18th, and we've updated the relocation assistance amount to the total equal to two months' rent rather than one. So with that, the staff recommendation is that the City Council hold a public hearing and introduce the first reading of ordinance number next in order, addressing just cause eviction protections pursuant to AB 1482.

Thank you, Ms. Ogawa. I'm going to open up the public hearing at 9.07. Madam Clerk, do you have any requests to speak?

Yes, sir.

How many?

Nine.

All right, folks, I'm getting close to the hour here. I've got to cut it short. And I'm pretty sure it's going to be the same speaker. So I'm going to cut this down to one minute and a half for each speaker.

If I may also add, we did receive a written public comment from the letter in opposition from the Inland Valleys Association of Realtors, which has been placed on the dais for your review.

Thank you. You said nine altogether? Yes. Okay. Call the first five up.

Luis Gallegos, Maribel Nunez, Jeff Green, Victor Cao, Paul Herrera.

Go ahead, Liz.

I just want to take some time to thank Malcolm Corona, Maricela Nava, David Starr and Vallejo for your comments on the previous matters. I'm so proud of you guys. I'm so proud to be a resident and work here in the city of Paris. But thank you again to the previous Means and Ways Committee and the current Means and Ways Committee to seeing this item through. I am here in full support of Just Cause Eviction Protection in these times of uncertainty. We need to protect our vulnerable families. We need to continue to document the hardships of our Paris families. Families are living paycheck to paycheck. The first thing on their mind is to make sure they have enough money to pay the rent. so they can make sure their kids have a house. The second is making sure they have food. As a city, we must continue to take comprehensive approaches to secure the well-being of our residents. We need to stop building warehouses, logistic industry, and start building affordable housing and bringing quality jobs and businesses. To continue the prosperity of our beautiful city of Paris, for such reason, we are asking as an organization as well as a Paris organization resident that works here as well for the immediate implementation of this ordinance and to include all rental units.

Thank you, Luz.

Jeff Green.

Good evening i'm Jeff green with the inland equity Community land trust and i'm just here to thank you for this ordinance I. very proud of the work you've done, I do want to remind you that there are three stools to housing stability that's provided by rent control the one of them is the just cause of action, but we also need rent control proper. and some sort of oversight like a board or a commission that will enforce these rules. Leaving poor people to hire lawyers to enforce laws is why people just leave and don't fight their evictions when they could win. Thank you.

Thank you.

Victor Cao.

Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Victor Cao, Senior Vice President at the California Apartment Association. For a better part of two years, there have been robust discussions. So thank you to staff for facilitating as well as members of city council. But I've also been listening. Many of the concerns that have been raised in the past, usually I misclassify it as code enforcement issues. This issue doesn't deal with rent issues. We're talking about eviction controls. The problem with this proposal in particular is that it is, in effect, a solution looking for a problem. There's a letter dated for October to the Ways and Means Committee that shows the trends within our community, which is that evictions have been on decline. This is substantiated by research by CalMatters. Our problems with this particular ordinance have to do with early vesting as it relates to the just cause eviction controls. Should a person get in for six months, most of our members are small mom and pop members or 60% of our members. They can't afford to pay two months of rent, as well as properly assess a tenancy within six months. So they need to have the flexibility to be able to make good decisions, not just for themselves, but their families. I've had to deal with members who have had to go through terminal illness and would not be able to afford the relocation assistance that you're asking for, especially if they have to do owner move-in. So thank you. My time is up, and just thank you. Thank you.

Maribel Nunez.

Hi everyone, Maribel Nunez, ICLT and iTenant Union. I think that when we're looking at data, it's just who's doing the data. You heard from Inland County Legal Services that they were able to get like 300 plus issues of tenant issues, a lot to do with evictions. And you know, especially with the current climate, people that are undocumented, they're not gonna fight against their landlord. And landlords know the power dynamics when someone's undocumented. So the data that is being presented by the Apartment Association and other groups is not accurate because a lot of people are self-evicting. So we have to look at some of that as well and the testimonies that's there. I ask that you vote yes with the current amendments. We compromise. We wanted a 2.5-month relocation assistance. And I appreciate Councilmember Rabb suggesting two months. So, you know, we're negotiating here. We wanted to start right away. We know that the ordinance would be implemented within 30 days or so. But we're talking about within tenancy. We wanted to start day one. You guys were okay with six months. So yeah, I think what we have right now is a compromise between the residents. And this is not targeting mama and papa, landlords. And I think that for some of you, we supported you during the election. You mentioned that you were not going to get influenced by the apartment association. And so I ask of you that you go with that promise, that you support our recommendations and working and supporting the community. Please don't be in favor of the- Thank you, Mayor Rowe. Paul Herrera.

Good evening, Mayor, members of City Council. My name is Paul Herrera. I'm the Government Affairs Director with the Inland Valley Association of Realtors. On behalf of our association, our 3,800 members, I'm here to voice our opposition to the ordinance currently proposed. In contrast to language on the agenda, this proposal is not consistent with AB 1482. It layers an entirely new set of requirements on that bill. It is a rewriting of key provisions of AB 1482 to apply in Paris. Despite some comments throughout the process indicating otherwise, AB 1482 was a groundbreaking law. It introduced statewide rent control for the first time. It enshrined within law that tenants have an assumed perpetual right to remain in a rental unit regardless of the dates on the lease. It came about after thousands of hours of research and negotiations. Among the list of supporters of the final bill included dozens of tenants advocacy groups, SEIU California, ACE, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, the State Building and Construction Trades Council, the California Business Roundtable, the California Teachers Association, California Teamsters, the California Labor Federation. The list goes on and on. All these organizations participated in drafting and negotiating AB 1482, not to mention Governor Newsom, who personally engaged in the issue, along with members and leaders of the California Assembly and Senate. We didn't all come together on that effort in order to nudge the ball down the field a few feet. It was because the issue mattered and we're trying to get to a place, and that place was 1482 and a deal that was meant to last until 2030. There was a detailed deliberative process here in Paris as well that went through to a proposal that was proposed on November 18th. We ask you to go back to that proposal.

Thank you. We call the last group up.

Kama Burton, Doug Shepard, Mary Brown Edwards, Claudia Coronado.

Good evening, and thank you so much for allowing me to have this time. I'm here to oppose the ordinance. There's a lot of assumptions that the rental properties are owned by big corporations, big entities, but a lot of them are owned by mom-and-pop type rental owners. It's already difficult enough to have to pay not only their own personal rent, but to also have to take care of other things that might come up with a tenant. This ordinance is going to add more risks and costs without doing anything to increase the one actual thing that makes housing affordable, which is more housing. We need to encourage investment housing, not make it harder. If you think about it like this, if you own a rental and you had a child that wanted to move back in after the current lease ends, that owner has to pay $4,000 to $6,000 just to allow that family member to move back in. And if they decide to sell and they say, let the owner know, sorry, the tenants know ahead of time, giving them enough time to move, they still have to pay this amount. So the state leaders, they have already spent a year crafting AB 1482 to balance these issues. So if Paris thinks they got it wrong, the city should work together with state lawmakers and not try to override the state law on its own. So for this reason, I'm asking that you please reject this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you.

Doug Shepard.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. Doug Shepard, realtor, 40 years representing, helping buyers and sellers reach the American dream, and by extension, the legacy of passing on that dream to their posterity. Respectfully, here tonight, I oppose the eviction ordinance being considered. If you want to address California housing affordability crisis, we must support, not discourage investment type of all housing. Right now, homes are way too costly, too scarce, and those problems go hand in hand. And I'd like to expand on who really is affected. When we say it's mom and pop, 89% of investment homeowners that own one to five, own less than one to five. 66% own less than one to two. And the average age of those owners are 60 years old. These are legacy people. They've worked hard. They've bought property. And here's what they'll do. If this investment doesn't take care of them in their retirement or want to pass on, they will sell it. And they will move on. And that does not give us more rental property. It makes, butters my bread, we get a little extra sale. But it does not help the rental market. And it never has. Time and time again, history tells us it doesn't help the rental market. We urge you to reject this ordinance and appreciate your time. Thank you.

Mary Brown Edwards.

Good evening, Mayor Vargas and city council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm here to share my concerns respectfully to oppose the eviction ordinance as it is written. If we want to make housing more affordable in California, we have to encourage more investment in every type of housing. Right now, housing isn't just expensive, it's also very hard to find. The two problems usually go together, and we're seeing it here as well. The ordinance would make it harder to invest in rental housing, which means fewer options for residents and ultimately higher costs. In its current form, it expands rules that create a kind of perpetual tenancy and in practice will push rental owners to offer shorter leases. That ends up creating more instability for renters and adds to the housing shortage we're already trying to solve. The new draft also doubles relocation payments for no-fault evictions, gives housing providers half the time to evaluate new tenants, and adds new hurdles for addressing criminal activity and under just cause rules. For years, the Inland Empire has been a place where families priced out of Orange County and Los Angeles counties could still find a home. By allowing new housing and welcoming new residents, we've built strong communities for working families. But this ordinance sends a message that investments should go elsewhere, and that would hurt Paris in the long term. I'm asking you to please reconsider this version of the ordinance and return to the version on November 18th.

Thank you. Thank you.

Claudia Coronado.

Good evening. My name is Claudia Coronado.

Can you move that microphone closer to you? Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Claudia Coronado. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I'm here to express my opposition to the eviction ordinance before you this evening. California's housing crisis is fundamentally a crisis of supply. We cannot improve affordability without policies that support continued investment in rental housing. When housing becomes harder to build or maintain it becomes both less available and more expensive. As a property manager and someone that helps landlords, the small mom and pops, day in and day out in both LA County and Riverside County, we have seen how these stronger, more restrictive rent control issues have really reduced housing. The ordinance as drafted would have the opposite effect of what Paris needs. It expands local rules in ways that conflict with state standards, creates near permanent tenancy rights, and incentivizes housing providers to rely on short-term leases. These outcomes will add instability for renters while shrinking the overall supply of homes. Additionally, the proposal would double relocation assistance for no-fault evictions, shorten the period in which a housing provider may evaluate a new tenant, and introduce new barriers to addressing criminal activity on a rental property. For decades, the...

Thank you. Ma'am. Claudia, your time's up. Thank you. That's it?

That is all.

Okay, we're going to close the hearing at 9.22. Council, do we have any questions or comments? Mayor Pro Tem Rabb?

Yes, I had a comment regarding the vesting period. I believe that our vesting period is half. Something must be wrong with my mic.

I will leave our vesting period.

Thank you. I believe our vesting period in this proposed ordinance is half the statewide vesting period pursuant to AB 1482. Is that correct, Ms. Ogawa?

Correct, yes.

Upon further review, I think the best sort of compromise is to keep the two-month relocation fee, but as a compromise, revert back to the state. vesting period of one year, and I think 24, I believe it was 24 months when at least one tenant is occupied. I think we should revert back to the state threshold for that, if my colleagues are open to that.

Can you go back to that slide where he's talking about? Is it on there? Oh. So 12 and 12. No, that's not how it, that's 12 and 24? Or 12 and I believe it was 12 and 24.

Correct, yes. It would revert back to when all tenants have lawfully occupied a residence for at least 12 months or at least one tenant has occupied for at least 24 months.

That's what you want? Yes, my reasoning behind that is that this may incentivize landlords to give the tenants shorter leases, which would result in more instability, less stability for the tenants, their children. I think if there's a compromise, we'd keep the two-month relocation, but we would revert back to the state threshold for that potential component of the bill.

Anybody oppose that?

Maybe I'll save up my comments. Go ahead. So I do have to be transparent in my ignorance on this. The last time I rented was over 15 years ago. And I know when I signed the lease, I thought it would have lasted one year. And I don't think I ever stayed anywhere longer than a year. I don't think I stayed anywhere longer than nine months because I was usually there for the school year, whether in college or as a teacher working somewhere else. So just kind of looking at this, I wasn't aware that after a year, when I sign my agreement, if I'm renting a place from Ms. Ogawa here, she has five properties and I'm renting one of them, and after a year goes up, we sign an agreement for a year, on month 13, I could just stay there as long as I'm paying my rent. Is that correct?

Not quite, so at the end of the term of the lease, there is in the at-fault definition, one of the, if you look about halfway down the list, one of the at-fault eviction bases is refusal to execute a written extension or renewal with similar terms and duration. So at the end of the lease, you do have to show, even at the end of the expiration of the term, you do still have to show just cause. All the just cause protections would still apply. However, if they refuse to enter into a lease, provided that the terms and duration are similar to the existing lease, then you would have an at-fault basis for eviction. And you would follow the proper processes to move forward with that.

So if I said, no, I'm going to sign a lease agreement. I'm going to do it. But you, for whatever reason, you don't want me there. Just say every time you come pick up your check, you know, I'm rude to you. But besides that, I don't threaten you. I don't do anything. And I said, no, I want that renewal. I'm going to keep staying here. Do I have that right to do that? Perpetual tenancy was, I think, the word that was used.

I believe so, yeah.

Is that it?

Good evening. So if I understand your question, you're saying at 13 months, I don't agree to the terms of the- No, I do agree. You do agree. Okay, normally what would happen is if you have a fixed term lease, at the end of the fixed term, if you don't have a new fixed term lease, then it converts to a month-to-month rent. That's under Civil Code Section 1945. So then it would be a month-to-month lease. Okay. At 12 months under the current law, then if you were a sole tenant, it gets more complicated with multiple tenants. But say you're a sole tenant, you're only on the lease. At 12 months, then the just cause protections would apply. And then at that point, yes, you would be entitled to just cause protections, but that doesn't mean you can stay indefinitely. The other thing to remember is that the just cause protections that we're talking about only apply to certain owners. If you're a mom and pop, if you are exempt, mom and pop as we define it, but you would be exempt and so you're not subject to those requirements either. The just cause would not apply.

Okay. So I guess going back to the example, like the perpetual tenancy, I can – like if I follow all the rules, if I keep making them pay my monthly check, she really can't remove me unless she has one of those reasons to do it. But then she'll have to pay me one month of rent. Well, now two months, but currently one month.

Assuming the owner is not exempt from the just cause protection, then yes, they would have to have just cause to evict you at that point, provided you're still paying your rent and complying. But there's no fault, there's at fault, and there's no fault provisions, and they would have to rely on one of those provisions.

Okay, and when do this perpetual tendencies begin? Like when... Was it with the AB 1482? I'm not sure perpetual tenancy is.

The conversion of a fixed-term lease to a month-to-month has been in the statute for quite a long time. It's something that's existed for a long time. And that's just when both parties are continuing to treat the terms as if they were still in effect. absent some kind of additional lease that's defining the term, then those lease conditions just continue on a month-to-month basis.

Okay. Does that make sense? Yeah. I don't really have experience with being a landlord or being a tenant, so I've been reading so much, but I think you've explained it. Can you go back to the previous slide? And maybe stay up here real quick because I do have questions. I think maybe another one. It was the one discussing if they're kind of mom and pop.

Yes, that's this slide. So if you... Where would it be at? Uh, the fourth from the bottom, single family homes, if they're not owned by a real estate investment trust corporation or LLC are exempt. Uh, and within that definition for LLC owned properties, the exemption applies if the entity is not wholly or partially owned by a corporation. Okay.

So, so you're, you're not part of LLC. You're not part of a corporation. Um, I, I, I've been there. You want to say, Hey, my sister's going to move in here now and then I have to leave. Do you have to pay me anything?

The unit would be exempt.

You got to get to the microphone if you're going to make a comment.

Provided the landlord gave the sufficient notice, because they do have to provide a notice that's set forth in the statute.

Okay. Well, I think Mayor Pro Tem Rav had a good point. A lot of people, I mean, if I have multiple properties, I'm not a big landowner or multiple properties, but if I had like three or something, I might put it in the LLC for protection of myself and my own, you know. But those people would then be part of...

The LLC, if it's just an individual owning the LLC, they would still be exempt. It has to be one of the members of the LLC has to be a corporation.

Okay.

So then they would be subject to the just cause protection.

Okay, yeah. So, you know, when... I probably spent, in the last few days, I spent so much time learning about evictions and housing and rental agreements and all kinds of stuff, probably more than I ever have in my life. But the main thing is I did talk to some friends of mine, and I have a good friend, and he has it, and I asked him about it. And he said, yeah, based on what we were proposing, and one concern that he did have was with the six-month, right? Because at that point, he said, then I'm just going to write him a five-month lease. then figure out from there because it could be terrible and you know it gets harder to remove somebody that's that's it becomes harder to remove somebody if they're problematic so I am open to your to your proposal with the amendment I think that's a good compromise between the between the WITH THE INDUSTRY AND ALSO OUR RESIDENTS. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS. I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT WE'LL GET THE PROTECTION FOR THE TWO MONTHS, BUT IF WE... MARIBEL.

MARIBEL, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE YOU REMOVED, PLEASE. GO AHEAD.

THAT'S IT.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

I'd make a motion that we introduce the first reading of the proposed ordinance number to address just cause eviction protections pursuant to AB 1482 with the caveat that the vesting period be concurrent with the state vesting period under AB 1482, but all the other changes that we've considered.

I'm sorry, I got to bring up one thing I had in my notes. Michelle, is it okay if you go, is it okay if I, can you go back a little bit? Can you go back to the slide? I don't know who's in charge of it. But there was a section in there if, no, it was right there, this one. So it was a criminal threat to the landlord. And my concern mostly, because I know people who were affected by criminal activity, but they weren't the landlord. They were the neighbors, right? Is that, would we be able to, because I know we struck out the tenants because of legal reasons. If they do criminal threats to a neighbor, would that be a reason to, I mean, right now we don't have that, but we're protecting the landlords more than we are the actual neighbors that live nearby.

I'm asking, I'm asking you.

It is criminal threat, but, I mean, we specifically mentioned criminal threat to landlord.

Yes, so you want to apply the criminal threat not just to landlords, but to neighbors.

To surrounding neighbors, yes.

The idea is that any protections that we do add must be more protective and in favor of tenants than the existing law. And so the question is, that's why we couldn't add criminal threats against tenants, because that would, even though it would protect one tenant, it wouldn't protect the other tenant. It would be less protective. So what we would want to be careful is if we're adding additional criteria, would that benefit the tenant more, which is required under the law, under the civil code. And so if you started saying criminal threats, in addition to criminal threats against the landlord, which is already in the statute, also against neighbors, does that protect the tenant more or does that protect the neighbors? And I think that that's where we would run into problems under the statute.

Okay, because we're protecting the neighbors.

Yes. That's the requirement that the legislature put in that said ordinances can be adopted so long as they're more protective for tenants.

But what about the criminal threat to the landlord? Isn't that...

That was in the statute itself.

Oh, it's already in there.

Yeah. So the idea is that there are still remedies that neighbors could pursue against tenants, but those would not be remedies covered under the just cause protections. Okay. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. That's it.

Wait, sorry, I had a quick question. Council Member Robb, what was your reason again for going back to the state level, which is 12 months?

Yes, the vesting period is half of the state level, so an individual could move in. It would encourage landlords to give tenants shorter leases, which would create more instability. So if the period to vest the law ends... starts at six months what the landlord is most likely going to do is offer a five-month lease to the tenant so we're creating an extra I think we're creating an extra hurdle that would actually have unintended consequences of creating less stability for our residents who rent in the city but I also don't feel like that's a compromise either that that is state level which was what was mentioned earlier in the audience

I think the compromise is if we're going to have the landlord pay two months, then maybe the compromise would be, okay, if we're going to increase this one, let's bring this one back to the same level. We're not bringing it down.

We're keeping it at the same level for the state.

And I think Mayor Pro Temorab had a good explanation, and that's the explanation I got as well, too, that you're going to have people having shorter leases.

All right, I have a motion on the floor. I'm looking for a second.

Do you want to click it?

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Rapp, second by Councilman Corona. Call the vote.

Rapp, Nava, Corona, Vargas, yes. Vallejo, no.

She's, okay. All right, 12. Item 12 is our business items. 12A is consideration to receive and file the report and provide direction to staff regarding the City of Paris business attraction, retention, expansion, and development strategies, also known as BARADS. This is when introduced by our Director of Economic Development and Workforce, Michelle Ogawa.

Thank you, Mayor. Good evening again, Mayor and City Council. So staff was directed from the February 11th city council meeting from city council to look into different strategies for expansion of the current economic development division scope. From there, staff proceeded to contract with Cosmont companies for their expertise in the area to guide us through to help to assess our current department operations and guide us through best practices for an expansion in targeted areas. We met with Cosmont and our Economic Development Committee over a series of meetings over the course of this year. And tonight we have the recommended roster of expanded programming and economic development and workforce efforts for the city of Paris. So with that, I would like to introduce Cosmont Companies to come up and share a little bit about the current situation, the current market, and set off our strategy. We have Robert Valenti here with Cosmon Companies.

Good evening, Mayor, Council Members and staff. My name is Bob Valenti. I am a Senior Vice President with Cosmon Companies. I'm also here tonight with Mike Lee, senior advisor with Cosmont. Tonight I'll give a brief overview of our business attraction, retention, expansion and development strategies or Baird's analysis that we've worked on with your team. I'll start with some general market context and an overview of the strategic framework And then city staff will walk through some of the specific implementation action items and some next steps. So just by way of introduction or some context, Cosmon Companies was founded in 1986. We're an economic development and real estate advisory firm. We've been working with cities across California for decades on economic development initiatives and strategies. The city retained us earlier this year to help formalize and strengthen its economic development efforts. And so our scope included analyzing the regional and the city-specific markets and strengthening economic development practices by identifying some best practice tools and strategies that fit the city's needs. Just to provide some regional overview here, at the regional level, you know, we see Paris as being very well positioned economically. You sit on a fast-growing 215 corridor with excellent access to the Southern California markets. The city has an existing industrial base as well as some major retail centers. supported by the Marsh Air Force base nearby and other related employers. And neighboring cities are competing for jobs and business attraction and investment. But we also see that Paris has some advantages in available land, relative affordability, and strong population growth. A quick overview of the Paris market. Paris, you know, As I'm sure you're aware, over 80,000 residents in almost 20,000 households, young family-oriented population, roughly 29,000 jobs in the city, but still some residents commute elsewhere, meaning that there is some daytime spending and some job talent that is leaving the city. So, again, there's a significant existing industrial cluster and a retail base with low retail vacancy, solid taxable sales, really showing that Paris is this proven market with room to grow and to diversify. A quick look at our SWOT analysis, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. As far as strengths, we see, again, that strategic location, the growing young workforce, available land and modern infrastructure, affordability and good quality of life, as well as business friendliness, a proactive economic development. activities in the city, and then a strong sense of community character, strong community assets. Some challenges include, again, that commuter community aspect and some spending leakages that occur, limited high-end amenities and certain types of commercial development, some educational attainment challenges and labor gap challenges, as well as some branding challenges. The opportunities that we really focus on are an ability to capture some more jobs locally, diversifying the city's business environment, revitalizing the downtown, and growing tourism and hospitality, but also staying mindful of some of the threats, again, like regional competition, high development costs, economic fluctuations, et cetera. So now to go over a few of the general strategic themes that we focused on, first being attraction, the goal really being to grow jobs in the city, to grow the tax base, diversify the economic base. Strengthen the business community to serve local residents really three key themes of strategies here marketing and branding efforts Including you know expanding some of the marketing programs refreshing branding website social media resources targeted advertising Another key strategy being targeted outreach So, you know, increasing some presence at different trade shows like ICSC and then, you know, really doing some of that outreach to brokers, to developers, to businesses. And then finally, incentive tools and programs, you know, targeted tools towards targeted types of businesses that the city is seeking to prioritize. retention and expansion. The objective here is really to protect and grow what the city already has. You know, that means supporting local employers, small businesses, and employees. So, you know, again, that can include some structured outreach activities, including some partnerships with the Chamber and other organizations as well. Some of those activities can include check-ins, visits, roundtables, and resources that support local businesses and seek to understand their challenges as well as their opportunities. Another key strategy that we looked at are small business and downtown support programs. So these are incentive programs or assistance programs. that can assist businesses in the downtown area, as well as focused marketing and branding exercises to assist that downtown area. And then finally, technical assistance and partnerships, so really expanding some capacity here to support small businesses, support local businesses. That can include partnering with other organizations, connecting businesses with resources with those organizations, and expanding staff capacity. to provide assistance to businesses as well. And then finally, business development. The objective here is to catalyze private investment, to increase revenues from properties, and really taking a more proactive real estate strategy to development activities. These key strategies include some proactive land strategies to prepare sites and deliver projects on sites, catalytic projects on sites, financing and land use tools to, again, to further projects and support beneficial projects, and then standards and enforcement as well. So with that, You know, just to sum it up, this Baird's framework gives the city a long-term playbook to attract desirable businesses to support businesses in the city and ready sites for development. I'll hand it over to city staff to highlight some of the specific programs being pursued here. You know, we really see this as a good first step, you know, a smart, targeted starting point towards that economic development investment and initiatives.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, city council, city staff. So I'll go ahead and follow up with the analysis, and I will go over the priority areas that the Economic Development Committee recommended for staff to focus on. So there are three main focus areas. These are the business attraction, business retention and expansion, and business development. And as I go through each of the strategies, THE LAST BULLET POINT WILL REFLECT THE COST OR BUDGET ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ITEM. So to start with the business attraction, we have number one, the strategic advertisement. So for this, staff would place targeted print and digital material ads in publications such as France Media, Size Selection, Business Now, Coordinate. And this is to reach developers, size selectors, and corporate real estate decision makers. This will help the city increase its visibility, generate investment leads, and position the city as a competitive location for new business opportunities. The cost for this one is at $100,000. NUMBER TWO IS INCREASED ATTENDANCE OF TARGETED TRADE SHOWS. SO STAFF CURRENTLY ATTENDS THE ANNUAL ICSC CONFERENCE TO GET IN FRONT OF RETAILERS. WHAT THIS WOULD DO WOULD GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND OTHER TARGETED INDUSTRY SHOWS LIKE REAL ESTATE, COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE, HOSPITALITY, ENTERTAINMENT AND ADVANCED MANUFACTURING. THE COST FOR THIS IS AT $50,000. NUMBER THREE IS TO CONTRACT A LICENSED COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR DIRECT OUTREACH. THIS ONE, THE BROKER WOULD ASSIST WITH DIRECT OUTREACH TENANT RECRUITMENT AND MARKETING FOR PRIORITY SITES. THE BROKER WOULD ALSO ADVISE ON CITY SELF-PROPERTY AND STRATEGIES AND HOW TO LEVERAGE THEIR EXISTING NETWORK. FOR THIS, WE'RE COSTING IT AT $40,000. And then number five in the business attraction is to enhance the marketing and branding, including our existing Think Paris website and adding interactive site selector tools. And then launching an economic development LinkedIn account. CREATING NEW INDUSTRY SPECIFIC COLLATERALS FOR THE MATERIALS TO TARGET THE DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES. AND THIS ONE IS THE COST WOULD BE $125,000. SO NEXT I'LL MOVE ON TO THE BUSINESS RETENTION AND EXPANSION. Number one would be to contract with the consultant to assist in the development of a downtown parish revitalization branding campaign. So for this, a consultant would help us develop a focused marketing and branding plan that would support the downtown revitalization campaign. And we're costing this at $45,000. Number two is the launch of three pilot programs. So the first one would be a ring camera program. And this is geared around public safety. So this is to enhance participating businesses with security cameras and subsidizing the installation of the ring surveillance systems. The next one is the equipment grant program. For this one, it provides direct financial support to businesses to purchase essential equipment to improve operations and service delivery. This program will help modernize the businesses, expand and improve efficiency through equipment upgrades. And then the last one is the locals spending incentive program. This program is to encourage businesses to spend or reinvest locally by offering rebates when they purchase goods or services from local vendors. And this one is budgeted at $200,000. THE NEXT AREA IS THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. SO BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE PUSHING TO ENGAGE WITH CONSULTANT FOR STRATEGIC FINANCING OF THE CONSULTANT WILL HELP US EVALUATE AVAILABLE GRANTS, BONDS, LOANS, OPPORTUNITIES THAT WILL ASSIST TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY IN THE CITY AND OR DEVELOP IT. FOR THIS ONE, IT'S BUDGETED AT $100,000. AND THEN WE HAVE THE SECOND ONE, IT'S THE REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 1250 AND RESOLUTION NUMBER 4147 TO STRENGTHEN THE ENFORCEMENT OF BACON COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. Since it was introduced at the Economic Development Committee, it was then deferred to the Public Safety Committee. But what it does, we already have the ordinance in place, and it was initially meant to address residential. It does mention the commercial properties, but it intends to ensure that commercial properties are maintained, strengthened up. COMPLIANCE AND REDUCE LONG-TERM VACANCIES IN THE CITY. THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR A MORE ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR INVESTORS AND LOCAL BUSINESS IN THAT AREA. SO THE NEXT AREA IS THE CURRENT DEPARTMENT STRUCTURE AND STAFFING. SO OUR CURRENT DEPARTMENT OR DEPARTMENT IS CURRENTLY BUILT BY AS A DIRECTOR. management analyst that was transitioned from our housing division and then the economic development division as it stands it's formed by a principal management analyst and a project coordinator and we also have an intern The new department structure, so to support the expanded BIRDS strategies and future workforce initiatives, the city has restructured the Economic Development Division into the Department of Economic Development and Workforce. And this department focuses on economic development, workforce development, and real estate. The expansion adds new programs in a deeper more focused level of outreach efforts marketing and development activity So just the additional staff that that's needed would support to manage the initiatives Respond quickly to business and developer inquiries maintain consistent communication and program delivery For this expansion IT'S BEING REQUESTED THREE ADDITIONAL POSITIONS. SO TWO PROGRAM COORDINATORS TO SUPPORT THE MARKETING, THE BUSINESS OUTREACH, THE INCENTIVES, AND THE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION. ONE ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICIAN TO PROVIDE THE CUSTOMER SERVER SUPPORT. AND ALL OF THIS, THE THREE POSITIONS WOULD BE COSTED AT $288,941. So in your screen is what the proposed economic development organization chart will look like. As you can see, top down, we have our city manager and director, and just to, TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT. SO WHAT'S IN BLUE ARE THE CURRENT POSITIONS THAT EXIST FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OR DEPARTMENT. WHAT'S IN GREEN IS BUDGETED, BUT IT'S VACANT. AND THEN WHAT'S IN YELLOW IS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. SO AS I MENTIONED, We have a management analyst that reports directly to our director. We have the economic development manager position that is budgeted and currently vacant. And then we have the principal management analyst that works across all three areas of the department. When we go to the economic development portion or section to the left, that one is formed by a project coordinator. We are requesting a program coordinator to support the economic development initiatives. The workforce development, that is a new division to the department. So for that one, we are requesting a program coordinator for the programming and initiatives. And the real estate division, that position is for a management analyst, is currently budgeted and currently vacant. AND THEN THE LAST TWO, THE ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICIAN AND THE INTERN, THAT WOULD BE TO SUPPORT ACROSS THE BOARD ON ALL THE PROGRAMMING AND INITIATIVES. AND THEN ON THE LAST SLIDE, WE HAVE THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR ALL THE STRATEGIES. SO THE BUSINESS ATTRACTION, RETENTION AND EXPANSION, THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND THE RESTRUCTURING AND STAFFING. So with that, the Economic Development Committee recommends that the City Council receive and file the report and provide direction to staff regarding the implementation of the business attraction, retention, expansion, and development strategies. Thank you.

Thank you, Ponchi. Council, any questions or comments? Before I open it up for public comment. Madam Clerk, do we have any requests to speak on this item?

No, sir.

All right, let's back to the dais. Anybody? Council, Mayor Pro Tem Rabb.

It's a good question. The one million that we could go up to, that would be out of the general fund, correct?

Can you answer that on the microphone?

I guess I have to speak right into the mic. And then the... Can you answer the question? Oh, sorry. And then just a quick other question before you answer that question. The other components that we can do a la carte or piecemeal if we need it? That's correct, yes.

Okay.

Councilman Corona.

Thank you, Mayor. I do want to thank you for the presentation and to Cosmo for bringing your expertise. You know, I think our economic development is doing a great, great job. I know our director and our team are really, really helping our city. Just, I guess, a question for you guys. Do you have all the support that you need? Because I know it's been set up here before. We really want to focus a lot on our economic development in our city to diversify our city. Like, do you honestly feel like you have the full support or like how else? I mean, would these help you or is there anything else?

With the requested staffing, yes. Okay. So that's what we, and we worked with COSMON, so on the roster of the proposal that you heard tonight, it was a combination of either consultant expertise for shorter term assistance that was needed and support that is needed. Those were deliberate asks, and then the rest went into additional staffing for the department to develop, implement, launch, and continue to maintain the additional programming. Okay.

No, I guess going back to maybe where, I don't know if Mayor Pro Tem was getting there, but what are the most important, like if you were to prioritize these, do you have a priority or is this one through, well, it's not in order, but...

So a little background on this. This started with a list of recommended areas from Cosmont for staff and the economic development to review over the course of the last year. And this was a combination of what was requested by staff to be included and prioritized by the economic development committee to pursue.

Let me piggyback on that. We vetted through a lot of sheets of positions and We narrowed this down, and to answer your first question, this is what they need, and this is why we're here. But, yeah, we vetted through quite a bit, and we narrowed it down to what we're at now.

Gotcha. Okay. No, I definitely appreciate you guys working at it. You know, I know, like, for me, I remember when we had a gentleman named, I don't remember his last name, Lou or Chris. Chris. Remember Chris, the consultant? Chris Chung. Oh, yes. Yeah. You know, he came here and I felt like he just kind of, he brought a lot of outside information. And, you know, I would really like to see something in there. I know you talked about a consultant. And is that on here, though?

So that can be found throughout the description of the individual programs. A few of those we requested consultant support rather than staff support, because either it would be a temporary need for support, and then we would build it out into something at the staff level, or because we would need the expertise and guidance in those areas. Gotcha. Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I'm sure Cosmos, the experts, they certainly probably know more than me, and I'm sure the economic development did a great job. But I just really think a consultant, an outside consultant, bringing some kind of outside information, working with other cities, what's working in other cities, what's not working in other cities, to kind of get us to the right direction to where we want to head to. I'm sure Cosmon's done a great job, but, you know, I know Cosmon's pretty pricey too. Anyways, but, no, I definitely want to appreciate that. And, I mean, I think every five years we should, you know, talk to Cosmon or somebody else and, you know, kind of redo this every so often. Five, ten years, I don't know.

Thank you. Councilwoman Vallejo.

Yeah, I just had a quick few questions. First, I do want to say that this is very necessary. I think economic development is a focal point of us growing and especially growing our downtown area. Just a few questions. One, I know it said that we need a management analyst for real estate. What does that specifically mean and include? Like we would just have a realtor for the city who just looks...

So the real estate division under the department, the scope of the real estate division includes the buying and selling of city properties, property management for any leases that the city maintains, and development of city-owned real property as well through the full... public-private partnership, or buying and selling in partnership with developers.

And that would be a full-time position, not a consultant position? Correct. That's what you guys prefer? Yes. Okay, perfect. Other question is, when you say that you guys want to rebrand, is it just your department or the downtown area? Like, what are we branding specifically?

There's a little bit of both in there. There's general rebranding and marketing and branding, not quite rebranding, but more focusing our marketing and branding efforts for general business attraction. So that would be through our department for the city as a whole for business attraction and enticing the tenants and retailers to locate here. And then there's a separate item also for the downtown that's specific to downtown revitalization with unique demographics with a smaller radius and different preferences from the city that are laid out in the downtown specific plan.

Okay, good. Thank you. And then last question, because I don't really know too much about it, but I know we work with our Paris Chamber, but how much, I guess, is it in here to kind of strengthen that bond? And I don't know if staff is allowed to be on the Chamber board to just build that stronger connection, because... I know we do have a connection with them, but I know we do have different views on a few things. But I would love to have to strengthen that bond with the chamber and then for them to know, too, like what are they looking for so then we can work together and then build more partnerships from there.

So on that note, regarding the chamber, we actually, over the course of these discussions with the Economic Development Committee, under the initial recommendation, there was an item that was to strengthen the relationship and bolster the relationship between the city and the chamber in the interest of business retention. And over the course of our discussions, we actually moved forward with the current professional services agreement with the Chamber of Commerce. So it was no longer needed to be included in this budget request and expansion request. So through the professional services agreement, we've effectively included what you've asked for to strengthen the relationship, to connect us a little closer with the chamber. I think there may be some conflict of interest questions about us being on the board, but we are active at their board meetings. We attend all of their board meetings, the ambassador meetings, and their weekly and monthly events as well.

Good. And then just one last thing that I would like to add is I do like that we want to include two project coordinators, and I think that's a great idea. I do want one to kind of be mixed with community engagement. Like, I want someone to go to all the events in Riverside County and then also surrounding counties because the more events you go we're going to have way more connections there and then we're going to get new ideas like that one person that can be like a hybrid that can work on projects here but they're constantly on the go and like they're trying to find new ideas so then we can make Paris better because I think community engagement it's such a growing job and it does help with redefining our goals but also that person can be like the go person that if we need any help with anything we have someone like we need that one dedicated staff member that can do all those goals and then also go on our behalf with a lot of other events that's what i would suggest thank you thank you that's all councilman alva

Thank you, Mayor. And a great thank you to Cosmon and our ED team, Michelle and Armando, for the great presentations. I have heard it a few times now since I sit on the ED committee, as well as the mayor has. And I'd just like to reiterate that that was one of the biggest items if you will that I really wanted us to become more aggressive on and I had the the honor of serving now on the ED committee and I'm really excited to see that we are making those investments to to continue meeting these initiatives in our city to not only foster our existing businesses but to attract the type of businesses that we want to see. And this also falls in line. And I wish the speaker from earlier was here when they mentioned that. What is our plan? Well, we are 10 steps ahead here in the city of Paris. And this is just one of the ways that we are going to go from relying on just one industry to diversifying the many ways we can make our city better. So to my colleagues who may not be fully supportive of what is presented here. I encourage you to piecemeal as the mayor and I have, but I think what we have delivered here or presented in front of us is probably the best that we've been able to compile over the several months that we've been working on it. So it's an investment that I believe will definitely pay off in the future. Thank you.

So, the council, we heard from our colleagues, which you guys have been voicing, and this is where we're at, and this is why we vetted through all this, as Councilwoman Nava did, and yeah, it's a plan, because now you have the moratorium, you have a very stringent neighborhood guide, I mean, now, what's our next page? How are we going to move forward with our city? So, we need to adopt this, what was proposed We vetted through all the options. We have narrowed it down. This is exactly what staff says they need. I appreciate the help from COSMOD, and I think we have a package deal here that we need to move this forward and bring it back for final approval. So with that, I'm going to...

I motion to approve.

While we're providing direction, I don't think we need to make a motion, but just state your direction that we go forward with.

My direction is that we move forward with the items presented.

I guess we could make it formalized, huh, City Attorney?

I motion to... No, no, no, that's formalized.

And then that was a motion, and Councilman Corona seconded, so call the vote, please. It's basically as staff recommended. I don't know if we stated it right, but the recommendation... WE'RE MOTIONING TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO BRING BACK A NEXT MEETING FOR FINAL APPROVAL. PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. NO? IT'S NOT AN ACTION ITEM. IT EVEN SAYS HERE, PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF. RIGHT? SO THE MOTION IS THE WAY STAFF PRESENTED IT, TO BRING IT BACK TO OUR NEXT MEETING FOR FINAL APPROVAL. IS THAT THE PROPER WAY, CITY ATTORNEY? Okay, and it's motioned by Councilman Nava, second by Councilman Corona. Good? All right, call the vote, please. And thank you, everybody, ahead of time. 5-0 motion approved. I was assuming it was going to be 5-0. Thank you, guys. We really appreciate that. Okay, we need to move on here, Mr. City Attorney, or City Manager. We've got 10, oh, you already went over. You've got like 20 minutes. I can be quick. All right, item 12B is consideration to adopt proposed resolution number next in order declaring a fiscal emergency pursuant to article, is that 13C? My room number is X and three ones. Section 2B of the California Constitution in preparedness to continue the same level of future services The city residents. This will be presented by our assistant city manager, Ernie Reina.

Thank you, Mayor and members of the city council. So, like I mentioned, I will be quick in this matter, but I did want to bring this to council as a way of an assessment of the city's financial health and where we currently stand. It's a preventive and proactive measure that we're looking at because as we examine these finances, we're seeing where we're at. And we're now at a point where we want to bring this to the attention of the council to let you know where we stand so we can look at alternative measures to move forward. So what we're looking at, oh, sorry, just a little bit of background. You know, we have been sound. The city's been sound with its finances over the years. We've seen our reserves grown where we hit a peak in 2024, where our total reserves were about $78 million. And at that time, the assigned reserves, the portion that can be spent, were at $42 million. So now what we're projecting for 25, which is the year that just passed, June 30, 25, once those are audited, we're seeing a downturn in that amount with increased expenditures and decreased revenues. And so what that means is that with the economy kind of where it's at, we don't know if it's going to go up, going to go down. We've seen some downturns. There's inflation with cost of construction. There's just a lot of uncertainty. We know we've seen decreases in items like cannabis sales tax revenue, decreases in e-commerce warehouse, which I'll show you as well. We have had policy changes in warehouse development. Public safety costs have gone up, and we'll go over that. And then infrastructure needs. We know we just talked about this economic development item as well. There's certain costs that we know we're going to have to budget for, and we're looking for alternative methods to bring that in. What this will do by declaring the fiscal emergency, like I mentioned, is preventive measure that allow the city to exponentially evaluate and propose options to replenish and grow revenue streams so that we can provide the same levels of service that we're providing now without losing that. So it's important that we bring this to your attention. So really quick, you've seen this before, but what I want to call to your attention is that we're showing you a certain level of reserves over the years from 2019 to now. What I want to draw your attention to is that last year, 24 and then 25, you'll see a drop off there. And that drop off between 79 million and 64 million is about 19%. And if you look at the column or the row above, you see the unassigned reserves at 42 million. And now we're at 27 million. So that's about a 34% drop. And there's reasons for that we're going to go over as well. But these are signs that are indicating to us we need to do something. And I'm bringing this to the attention of the council now so we can take a look at that. Just looking at a few of the things that we've done in the past, if we looked at the five-year approved budget, going back to 23 to 27, and the ones that I want to draw your attention to are the orange ones, because those are, those bar graphs represent the expenditures. And you can see those expenditures growing over the years, as well as the revenues. So in that timeframe, the revenues did increase by 18 million, which is 25% over that timeframe. but our expenditures increased by 31 million or 55%. So we're not keeping up with their expenditures. Revenues aren't as much. So it's caused for me to kind of bring this to your attention and let you know where we stand with that. One of the other areas I mentioned is we have two ways of looking at this. Less revenue, more expenditures. So we also have a loss of revenues, because what staff did is we looked at surrounding cities. Where were we losing some money? Our surrounding cities, to the north of us, Merino Valley, to the south of us, Menifee, Wildomar, Temecula, they all have a sales tax measure input at 8.75. The city's is currently at seven and three quarters. So what that means is that in discussions with HDL, our sales tax consultant, that 1% difference is about $18.7 million that we are not capturing. So that's a loss of revenues that we wanted to show to the city council itself. Moving on and looking at other areas of decreased revenues, we've looked at warehouse. We're talking about warehouse measures, e-commerce, sales tax, We currently have nine active fulfillment centers producing sales tax. And what I want to draw your attention to is you look at the blue graph right in the middle there that represents fiscal year 22. You can see that's starting to go down. So we highlighted, we peaked, if you look at the orange in 2020 at about 10 million, where we're currently projecting about 5 million this year. So that's gone down about half in that percentage. So that's a big chunk of change there. with e-commerce in general and another item is the Bradley Burns reform. And what this says is that when you have sales tax, that 1% that comes back to the city, that's Bradley Burns. And so that portion itself, and it was mentioned during the early part of our presentation with the state, there's some consideration of having that reformed. What that means is that that portion that would come to us, instead 50% of that would go back into the county pool. And so what we're looking at is actually up to 60% of that would, because there was some talk of having an additional 10% as a buffer to the cities who aren't getting that money coming to them. And so what that would mean for the city is that we could potentially lose up to $3 million in sales tax revenue if this Bradley Forum goes through. So it's important to point that out and let the council know that this is what we could be looking at if this passes. In addition, when we talk about e-commerce, one of the big box retailers that left is Forever 21. When they were here in the city, they were producing about $300,000 in sales tax per year. It's important to note that, too, because that's a significant part of a fulfillment center and the amount that we were once receiving. Another area that we looked at is cannabis sales. We've talked about this before and where we all stand. And so when we first started receiving revenues back in 2019, it was minimal, but we grew. At the peak in 2021, we hit about $6 million in cannabis revenue. What we're projecting for the current year is slightly less than about a million and a half. So you can see there's about a $4.5 million decrease in revenues for cannabis. It just went straight into the general fund, so this was helping out before. This is part of the reason why we're seeing that drop in reserve as well. Public safety. And so public safety is a really important part to the city, but it's also a big part of our budget in general makes up about almost 40% of the city's budget. To the left, you see the bar graphs they go up, that's police and the contract that we have with them. Now they've done a fantastic job but you can see with 2019, we were just above 15 million. What we're projecting and what we're seeing is that for 26, we're going to come in around $25 million. So in that time, we've seen it grow quite a bit. And costs are up everywhere else. They have things they have to worry about, like their pension costs, their labor, their insurance. All that plays into the cost of this contract. To the right is the FIRE contract as well. So if you go back to 2019, you'll see that we started at $5 million, and now we're approaching about $11 million. So again, that one's growing exponentially as well. Same thing, they have their things they have to worry about with pensions, labor, insurance, and the likes of that. As far as park maintenance, parks are an important part of the city, and we know we have 28 parks currently in the city right now, but two ready to come online in a couple years. So what does it take to maintain those parks? And with discussions with our internal staff, we see those costs go up every year, and that's just another elevated cost. So on average right now, it costs about almost $40,000 a year to maintain those parks and trails. So that's over a million dollars a year, and so that cost continues to rise as well. And one item that you may not be aware of is insurance. We actually have our permanent president that sits here as our finance director, and so we have some inside tracks on what's happening. But just in the past three years, we know that insurance costs have doubled. We started at 1.6 in 23. We're currently projecting 3.2 million for the current year. So that's almost 100% increase in costs that we want to be aware of because that's just doubling in everything in terms of the expenditures that we have in place right now. So it's for these reasons that we're seeing the increase of expenditures, the decrease in the revenue, that we're using this as a preventive measure to ensure that we can go out and look for alternative measures for revenue streams. And so what we're asking with the recommendation is that the city council formally approve the resolution to declare a fiscal emergency pursuant to Article, you were right, Mayor, I believe that's 12C, Section 2B of the California Constitution, in preparedness to continue the same level of service to parish residents. And with that, Mayor, I'll take any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Reno. Madam Clerk, do you have any public comments?

No, sir.

Okay. Council, any comments or questions?

Yes.

Councilman Corona?

Going back to the cannabis revenue, at the height, I know when people got their stimulus checks, I think the cannabis had lines out the door, right? At that point, though, in 2021, 22, if Like perhaps our city manager might know, but how many cannabis dispensary shops were open at that time compared to now? Because I know several of them have closed.

At the peak, there was about 14 that was open, and today there's eight.

Eight? Okay. So about half. Okay. All right. And the ones that are open, I mean, it's hard to compare ourselves to 21, 22, but are they... Are they successful?

Do we have some that are – are they just like kind of – I can tell you there are some dispensaries that are very successful, ran by professionals, and then there are some that are not. Gotcha. Okay. It's a mixture.

Okay.

Thank you. That's it. Mayor Pro Tem.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Rainer, for the excellent presentation. I think this sounds much worse than what it actually is. It's a preventative measure. We'll be exploring other revenue sources regarding potential taxes, and I think it is needed. The residents have made it clear that they're open to all measures to reduce reliance on certain industries, and that's what we're doing here today. So I support this.

Councilwoman took herself out. You're good?

No, I'd like to make some comments. Thank you, Mayor. I'd just like to also echo the sentiments of my colleague. I know that it might sound daunting, but thank you, Ernie, for this really thorough and clear presentation. I feel like if any of our residents have any questions, this is a good place to come and refer what it is that we're looking to pursue and the different ways that we're looking to make sure that our residents continue to receive quality services. So those are all my comments. Thank you.

Councilwoman Vallejo.

Yes. Thank you, Ernie. That was pretty quick, too. So that's something that I did appreciate. I know.

It was quicker than I normally wanted to go, but I wanted to be speedy.

But you were very detailed, and that is what I really appreciate. The only question I had is I know you mentioned in one of the earlier slides that Forever 21 closed down. Can you say more about that? Because I wasn't here when that happened. And also, why is e-commerce decreasing? Like, what's going on there?

So there's a couple underlying issues. I'll start with Forever 21. They filed bankruptcy, so it wasn't exclusive to Paris. But when they finally got up and running, they were actually doing pretty well. Like I said, we hit about $300,000 in revenue with them. But once they declared bankruptcy, they started closing all their stores, and we lost that. So us and anyone else that had them, but it was an important part. And you mentioned with the fulfillment centers, why those are going down. I mean, We had more at one point. There's nine active ones that produced the most revenue. And so as they close or as certain measures come into place that change regulations, rules internally within the city, it could cause a loss of revenue there as well. So we've been monitoring those. Staff has quarterly meetings with HDL so we can see how those are going. And we've been seeing those numbers steadily going down. It's just the way it is. And it's the nature of the business. It could be saturation. There's a lot of things. It could be internal policies. There's just a lot of reasons why. But I can't tell you one thing, but there's many multiple reasons why. Tariffs. That's one of them. Bingo.

Just saying. All right. Councilman Corona.

Real quick. Going back to Bradley Burns reform, I know it will change. It would drastically impact us with our revenue. You know, I know, I mean, it's all e-commerce from the warehouse. Have the developers, have the warehouse operators, have they helped us fight the battle in Sacramento?

I don't believe so. I can defer to our city manager, and she could probably answer that a little more.

No, in my experience, being up in Sacramento, we have not had input from them.

Yeah, nobody's been? No. Okay, that's disappointing. I do want to echo the sentiments of my colleagues. Just to be prepared, I think we can see that with our sales tax, we've been doing just as much or more with less, right? So I think as our residents are telling us, hey, I think we need to diversify. I think it's important that we look into all avenues. And I'm very excited about being prepared in this. So it does stay a state of emergency, but more for preparedness. Preparedness. That's correct. Yes.

All right. And that's just going to be my exact comments. Just as it says in the agenda, it's all about preparedness. So I'm looking for a motion on the resolutions. I motion by Councilman Corona, second by Mayor Pro Tem Rapp. Call the vote, please.

By vote, motion approved.

Very good. Thank you, everybody. All right. Item 13 is Council Communications. Please be brief, everybody. We will start with Councilwoman Nava. I mean, excuse me, Vallejo.

Okay, I'll make this really quick. First, I just want to say thank you to community services staff for doing the tree lighting and Winter Wonderland. Also want to appreciate the inclusivity that you guys did adaptive hours. I thought that was really, really amazing. And I had I talked to a lot of a lot of residents and they gave me great feedback. So thank you guys. And the food choices were amazing. So thank you for that. And the last thing I just want to say is this is my year anniversary of being a council member since I got elected. Thank you, guys. It was a lot to learn. It was. We're all still learning. Yeah. And this is just a reflection piece that I think everyone could also think about, too, that there's a lot of moving parts going on. And I like how everyone was very patient with me because it is a lot to learn. But I'm learning from you guys all. And you guys are all the best team to work with. So I just want to say thank you. And I'm very appreciative of you all. And please give me feedback because I can't get better without any feedback. And you guys will not get fired. So please, I'll say thank you.

Councilwoman Alva.

Thank you, Mayor, and congratulations, Councilwoman Vallejo. I'd just like to start off my comments, my very long and lengthy comments, by saying that I'm really proud of my council colleagues. I was not prepared for how passionate they were going to get tonight regarding some of these really intense items, and it's worth noting that I'd just like to thank you on behalf of our Paris residents, and I know that they would be Very appreciative to know of all the wonderful things we have in store for them and the direction that we're moving our city towards. It's really exciting to see. And as we wrap up this year, I'd like to wish you all a very Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays and I hope you have some time to rest and reset. And if you haven't checked out our City of Paris events, I encourage you all to do so. As was mentioned, we have some really great events and they're oftentimes free for our community or very affordable. So that's something that I really encourage all of our families to do. If they don't have any plans for the holidays, we still have some upcoming holiday events. So thank you so much and a happy new year.

Thank you. Mayor Potem.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I want to thank everyone for coming out tonight. I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a Happy Holiday. I just want to congratulate Councilwoman Viejo on her first year anniversary. It's also my 11th year anniversary.

All right.

I saw the photos come up on my Facebook, and my nephew was up to my knee. Now he's taller than me. He's 16.

So it's been a pleasure serving with all of you, and it's been a pleasure serving as Mayor Pro Tem for this year. And I haven't had to do much but just do my council duties, but it's been a pleasure being at these meetings and really hashing out the issues over the last year and just continue for the next year. Thank you.

All right, thank you. I will forego all my comments, excluding one. No, I'll wait till the next meeting. But the one I just, I want to mention is, I skipped somebody? I sure did, huh? You're not even on my sheet. You're supposed to go after Vallejo.

Councilman Corona. I'll make it brief. For the event, the Christmas tree lighting event, phenomenal. I know every year we keep saying, oh man, I think we got to make it bigger. i don't know if we could make it any bigger it was as big as it could get and it was phenomenal so uh just just great job to everybody involved i know it's not just just uh community services but the whole team right public works is out there and just everybody participating so just great event uh i'm looking forward to the other uh christmas events congratulations once again i mean i know it's been one year but we've done a lot in one year i think i think tonight was a big capstone of of everything coming through i mean if you just look at where our city is going. I'm excited about the new year. I just want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and stay safe, everybody. That's it for me.

All right. I will skip everything but this last one. Just last night, myself and Assistant City Manager Renee Rayner went to the Riverside Sheriff's Office annual blue light ceremony. This is in recognition of police officers, survivors, throughout the entire Riverside County. We have had 77 officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty since 1895. So this is an opportunity where the sheriff and his staff and other agencies memorialize and honor the victims of our fallen heroes. So it's always a good event to go to. I encourage you guys to try to go to one someday. All right, with that, we'll move on to item 14, city manager's report.

Thank you, Mayor. I have one announcement. The city is having its 35th annual Christmas parade this Saturday at 10 a.m. Santa Claus will be there, so we hope to see everyone there. Thank you.

What about our breakfast with Bunny, or Santa? Breakfast with Santa.

Didn't make it on my list. Okay, thank you.

The date? 20th? Oh, gotcha. All right, moving on. Item 15 is adjourned. We are adjourned at 1029. Thank you, everybody, for coming out. We did go over 30 minutes, but it's not often that we do that.