[1:01] Why do we have extra copies of the
ordinances?
[2:21] Hey,
>> so I I get this the resolution
[2:28] » because
[2:32] on these um Austin had mentioned that
question
[2:39] ores,
>> but there actually
[2:43] already. I just want to show you
[3:10] So for example
[3:17] short terminal
>> it's actually
[3:42] And then on the other
[3:46] that's the shortterm and then
it's actually
[4:02] actually in the the meat of the other
one is sort of the these are sort of the
[4:10] covers that say we're hereby adopting
this law
[4:13] » and what you want to be concerned about
is it won't be so much this that
[7:52] All right. Good evening and happy
Tuesday, the 1st of September. We have
[7:57] officially entered the burr months.
That means [laughter] I can start
[8:03] drinking um pumpkin spice lattes now. I
can't do that in October because that
[8:08] just doesn't feel right. So, you guys
will get to hear this again. I'm
[8:10] practicing.
>> I'm glad you didn't stop with I
[8:13] [laughter]
[8:17] » All right. I will call this meeting to
order at 5:00 pm. Can I get a roll call,
[8:21] please? Council member Lara
>> here.
[8:24] » Council member Fen
>> here.
[8:26] » Council member Martinez
>> here.
[8:27] » Mayor Prom White
>> here.
[8:29] » Mayor Vo
>> here.
[8:31] » All right. And um can we do we have any
public comment for close session?
[8:36] » I have no written requests. Simone, do
you have any callers on the line?
[8:46] » Simone, can you hear me? Do we have any
callers on the line?
[8:50] She's not.
>> Sorry. No, we have no callers at this
[8:52] time. Thank you.
>> All right. Excellent. And Mr. Pinkney,
[8:55] can we please get a readout for the
items for discussion?
[8:58] » Yes. The council meeting in close
session. Item B1 is conference with
[9:01] legal counsel regarding potential
initiation of litigation. That involves
[9:05] three potential cases. Item B2,
conference with legal counsel regarding
[9:10] significant exposure to litigation, one
potential case.
[9:14] » All right. And we will adjourn to close
session at 501.
[1:17:05] member Laura. The second was by Mayor
Prom White and the vote was as follows.
[1:17:10] Mayor Voit uh was yes in favor of the
motion. Mayor Prom White in favor,
[1:17:16] council member Martinez in favor,
council member Fen in favor of the
[1:17:19] motion, and council member Laura was
also in favor of the motion.
[1:17:23] The other item that the council met on
in close session was item B2, conference
[1:17:26] with legal counsel regarding significant
exposure to litigation. One potential
[1:17:31] case and there was no reportable action
on that item. And that concludes a
[1:17:34] report out.
>> All right. Thank you, sir. And if you um
[1:17:39] would please join me as we bring up Mr.
Bolognio for our u prayer this evening
[1:17:45] followed by the pledge of allegiance by
Council Member White.
[1:17:55] Thank you. Let's bow our heads for a
word of prayer.
[1:18:00] Dear God of all faiths and of no faith,
we come together today in gratitude for
[1:18:06] our city of Bumont and the people who
call it home. We thank you for the gift
[1:18:12] of community and for the opportunity to
work together for the common good.
[1:18:18] We ask for your wisdom and discernment
to rest upon our mayor, city council
[1:18:24] members, and city staff. Will you grant
them clear minds, compassionate hearts,
[1:18:30] and the strength to lead with integrity
and fairness?
[1:18:35] Help everyone in this room to listen
well, respect one another, and seek
[1:18:41] solutions that benefit all residents.
Bless their discussions tonight and
[1:18:46] guide their actions
so that they build a stronger, safer,
[1:18:52] and more united community. We pray.
Amen.
[1:18:57] » Amen.
>> Join me
[1:19:03] to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
[1:19:08] stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
[1:19:14] for all.
[1:19:22] » And that will take us on to our
announcements and recognition section.
[1:19:28] And for that, uh, we will start out with
E1, our national senior center month,
[1:19:33] and bring up Mr. Story and Miss Star.
[1:19:41] Thank you, mayor. I want to bring staff
up to uh talk about National Senior
[1:19:45] Center Month to share some highlights
and some great things that are happening
[1:19:48] with our senior.
[1:19:52] » Good evening, Mayor and Council.
Tonight, as we recognize National Senior
[1:19:56] Center Month, I am excited to share with
you the tremendous growth we have seen
[1:19:59] in programming at our senior center or
what we refer to as club 55. So in 2022
[1:20:06] 23 we had offered eight events and five
programs for our seniors. Today we offer
[1:20:11] 23 events and 20 programs dedicated
specifically to this age group. That's a
[1:20:16] 231% increase in what seems like we're
adding something new every single week.
[1:20:21] Our participants range in age from 55 to
85 and beyond, which is a tremendous
[1:20:26] span of ages, experiences, and
interests. So, we work hard to provide a
[1:20:30] variety of opportunities that fit people
in every season of their lives. These
[1:20:34] range from wellness classes like
aerobics to reliving activities from
[1:20:38] their youth like attending prom or
summer camp to learning more about their
[1:20:42] community through our tour programs or
destination walks at our parks. We have
[1:20:46] done speed dating, sing karaoke, create
works of art, learn about new
[1:20:51] technology, dress up for every holiday,
and have had intense chair volleyball
[1:20:55] competitions, just to name a few.
>> [laughter]
[1:20:58] » One of our more recent and exciting
expansions is our ASB, our associated
[1:21:03] senior body. So, you may be familiar
with an associated student student body
[1:21:08] in a school setting. Well, we decided
that our seniors deserve one of their
[1:21:11] own. The group of individuals I have
with you here tonight volunteer their
[1:21:15] time and energy and creativity to help
us advertise and promote the senior
[1:21:19] center to both current and potential
members. And our growth does not stop
[1:21:23] within the walls of our facility. Our
staff and ASB members have also begun
[1:21:27] outreach efforts in the community and
with other senior centers. Just last
[1:21:31] month, we hosted SIP with the senior
center in conjunction with coffee at the
[1:21:35] cop at Panera. We also toured the
Banning Senior Center and are scheduled
[1:21:39] to tour Calamea and Ukipa very soon. The
goal of these outreach efforts is to
[1:21:43] build a stronger network of resources
and opportunities for older adults, not
[1:21:47] just in Bulmont, but throughout our
entire region.
[1:21:51] Some of the wonderful events we have
happening at our senior center this
[1:21:54] month are our red, white, and boots
senior dance on September 11th. And on
[1:21:59] September 22nd, we're hosting our senior
health fair featuring more than 30
[1:22:03] vendors providing information resources
um to help our residents live happy and
[1:22:08] active lives. And on September 22nd,
we'll be hosting a talent show for our
[1:22:13] amazing group to show off their skills.
And we want to thank you, our council,
[1:22:17] our staff, especially um our recreation
specialist, Alma Frostto, here, uh our
[1:22:21] community partners, and all of our
seniors for helping us shape what the
[1:22:24] future of senior programming looks like
in Bowmont, and for making Club 55 a
[1:22:28] place where fun never gets old. So,
thank you.
[1:22:36] [applause]
[1:22:39] And thank you. And thank you ladies for
your time and energy and all that you
[1:22:43] have dedicated to the community. You
know, when I first was walking for
[1:22:48] campaigning for city council, one of the
things I heard often was, "We don't have
[1:22:51] our own designated senior center." But
let me tell you, you guys have
[1:22:55] designated this as the senior center.
And it's amazing to see all the
[1:22:59] activities and I love to watch all that
you guys do and participate in what you
[1:23:03] have. I think we had a bingo night
recently, didn't we?
[1:23:07] » We did, mayor. And I I had a chance
opportunity [laughter]
[1:23:10] to call a bingo game.
>> Yes,
[1:23:12] » it was a big M, you know, for Mike, but
I you know, I digress. [laughter]
[1:23:18] » I was looking for a big W for like
winning, right?
[1:23:23] [gasps]
>> All right. Well, thank you guys very
[1:23:25] much. I believe we have a proclamation.
We do have a proclamation. I think maybe
[1:23:30] just a photo with the Absolutely. Come
on up and we'll take our photo. Go here,
[1:23:34] lady.
[1:23:54] You ready? Three, two, one.
Thank you.
[1:24:00] [applause]
[1:24:12] All right. And that moves us to
recognizing the city of Bowmont's
[1:24:16] finance department through their
achievement in excellence in procurement
[1:24:20] award.
Miss Lisa Leech.
[1:24:29] Good evening, madame mayor and councel.
Tonight, I am proud to recognize the
[1:24:34] city of Bumont Fi finance department for
receiving the achievement of excellent
[1:24:39] in procurement award from the national
procurement institute. This
[1:24:44] distinguished award recognizes public
agencies that demonstrate excellence,
[1:24:49] professionalism,
transparency, and accountability in
[1:24:53] their procurement practices. Receiving
this award reflects the dedication and
[1:24:58] hard work of our finance department and
purchasing team as well as their
[1:25:02] commitment to managing public resources
responsibly and serving our organization
[1:25:08] with the highest standards. The city of
Bumont is among only one of 93 cities
[1:25:13] and a total of 251 public agencies
nationwide.
[1:25:19] As interim finance director, I am
incredibly proud of the team and
[1:25:23] grateful for their continued dedication
to the city of Bumont. Please join me in
[1:25:28] congratulating them on this outstanding
achievement
[1:25:33] [applause]
[1:25:36] and they have a nice little award.
Excellent. Thank you guys. And uh it's
[1:25:41] always excellent when we get to present
financial awards and um the stewardship
[1:25:46] that you guys have towards all of that.
So, thank you, council.
[1:25:50] » You still have room on the wall for
that? [laughter]
[1:25:54] » We're adding a lot lately. Well, very
good. Come on up and let's get a
[1:25:57] picture.
[1:26:16] Okay, ready? Three, two, one.
[clears throat]
[1:26:26] [applause]
[1:26:36] And moving right along, that'll bring us
to our public comment period for items
[1:26:40] that are not on the agenda. Any one
person may address the city council in
[1:26:44] any manner not on the agenda. If you
wish to speak, please fill out a public
[1:26:48] comment form provided to the at the back
of the table, excuse me, at the back
[1:26:52] table and give it to the city clerk.
There are there is a threeinut time
[1:26:56] limit on public comments. There will be
no sharing or passing of time to another
[1:27:00] person. State law prohibits the city
council from discussing or taking
[1:27:04] actions brought up by your comments. And
do we have any public comment this
[1:27:08] evening?
>> Yes, ma'am. I have an in person of
[1:27:11] Douglas Emory.
[1:27:19] » Good evening, Mayor Voy, Mayor Prom
White, and council members. I'm here
[1:27:23] just to say thank you. Thank you to the
city of Bowmont for your support of the
[1:27:28] Bowmont Cherry Valley Rotary Club and
everything we uh do in the community. I
[1:27:32] want to say a thank you to Laura James
who came to our club meeting on July
[1:27:36] 30th and talked about the great
development in the city of Bowmont,
[1:27:40] what's happening here and that was uh
very educational for our Bowmont Cherry
[1:27:44] Valley Rotary Club members. Uh thank you
for Christopher Bowman, city manager
[1:27:49] coming August 20th and sharing his
experience and what's happening within
[1:27:53] the city. I think Chris, we put you on
the spot a couple of times, but uh he
[1:27:57] did a great job in uh responding and
supporting our club members. Uh last
[1:28:02] Thursday, um I want to thank we had the
K9 program for the city of Bulmont. So
[1:28:08] thank you to Police Chief Christopher
Ramos, Lieutenant Jeremy Harris, and
[1:28:12] Corporal Taylor and Corporal Lynn. They
brought their two K9 dogs um at the
[1:28:18] Chattney Center and we had a great uh
presentation about the K9 program. So
[1:28:22] that was exciting. And I also want to
thank Oh, she's here. Both um Ashley
[1:28:28] Star and Doug's story. As you know, we
meet the Chattney Center and it's a
[1:28:32] great uh venue uh great team that they
have and we couldn't have our successful
[1:28:38] growing Rotary Club meetings without
Ashley's and her and her staff and
[1:28:43] everything they did and Doug's story.
And so I just want to thank you Ashley
[1:28:46] and and Doug um for everything you
support our club on. We're going to have
[1:28:51] a little lunch tomorrow celebrating the
staff. So um the other part is um
[1:28:55] invitation. And as you know, we had an
excellent peace pole unveiling at the
[1:28:59] Chattney Center on a couple of months
ago. And thank you, Mayor Voit, for
[1:29:03] coming and speaking. The weather was
beautiful. I know Ashley missed that cuz
[1:29:06] you were enjoying some vacation time and
all that. Um, but we're having our
[1:29:10] second one on Friday, September 18th at
11:00 a.m. at the renovated Bulmont
[1:29:16] Library District. And thank you for
Mayor Prom uh being our guest speaker.
[1:29:21] And I'm going to hand out the flyers to
the invitation. Uh hopefully council
[1:29:25] members can attend that event. Chris and
Lauren, others as well. We're looking
[1:29:28] for an exciting, peaceful unveiling
event at the library on Friday,
[1:29:32] September 18. So pass these invitations
over. So thank you. We'll see you then.
[1:29:37] » And thank you,
>> Simone. Do we have any callers on the
[1:29:42] line?
>> We have no callers at this time.
[1:29:46] » No other speakers.
>> All right. Very good. That will move us
[1:29:50] on to our consent calendar. Are there
any items to be pulled from the consent
[1:29:54] calendar for discussion?
[1:29:59] All right, seeing none, do we have any
public comment for our consent calendar?
[1:30:05] I have no written request. Simone, do we
have any callers on the line?
[1:30:13] » Simone, do we have any callers on the
line?
[1:30:18] » We have no callers at this time.
All right. And seeing no public comment,
[1:30:24] I will entertain a motion.
>> Mayor, I'll move that we uh approve
[1:30:28] consent item um consent calendar items
um G1 through G8.
[1:30:34] » I'll second.
>> And can we get a roll call, please?
[1:30:37] » Council member Laura,
>> yes.
[1:30:38] » Council member Finn,
>> yes.
[1:30:40] » Council member Martinez,
>> yes.
[1:30:42] » Mayor Pro Tim White,
>> yes.
[1:30:43] » Mayor Voit,
>> yes. And I just do want to make a
[1:30:46] comment for G5 as uh just a thank you
for uh the grants specific to traffic
[1:30:52] enforcement. I know that that is always
um a big topic throughout the city. So
[1:30:57] it's nice to see when we're able to um
enhance our opportunities there. So
[1:31:02] thank you. And yes.
[1:31:06] All right. That will take us to our
youth council report.
[1:31:09] » Yes, mayor. Just a quick um report that
we have concluded our application
[1:31:13] process for the youth council and uh our
first meeting will be on the 8th and
[1:31:18] we'll be going over all of the bylaws
and such and we'll be presenting council
[1:31:23] to you on the 15th and I'm not sure what
was our final accounting goal was 18
[1:31:28] » 18.
>> It was 18.
[1:31:30] So we look forward to
>> Wow. Is that more this year than last
[1:31:33] year?
>> Um
[1:31:34] » or about the same? Pretty
>> about the same. About the same. So but
[1:31:38] that was good. I was really impressed.
Um, and it looks like a nice blend and
[1:31:42] balance of of grade levels. So, look
forward to that.
[1:31:45] » Great. Always looking forward to their
inclusion. Okay. And that will take us
[1:31:50] on to our public hearings. We have our
first public hearing to consider the
[1:31:55] adoption of the 2026 Bumont
Sustainability Plan. And for that, we
[1:31:59] have Mr. Jones for a report.
>> Yes. Good evening, your honor, Mayor Pro
[1:32:03] Tim, and council members. This evening,
we are pleased to welcome Sammy Taylor
[1:32:06] from Alta Planning and Design, who will
present the city sustainability plan
[1:32:10] prepared as an update to modernization
of the 2015 climate action plan. Miss
[1:32:15] Taylor.
[1:32:19] » All right, let me just get sorted here.
Is it presenting
[1:32:30] » here? Let me see.
[1:32:34] Is there like a
Okay,
[1:32:37] » there.
>> There we go.
[1:32:40] » Not
[1:32:43] » sorry everyone. Bear with me one second.
[1:32:55] » Yeah. Do we have that option?
[1:33:00] » Your notes. Yeah, I've got my computer.
We can
[1:33:17] [laughter]
[1:33:20] » That's okay. We can We're flexible
[1:33:30] » yet adaptable. Okay.
[1:33:37] » Okay. Sorry everybody.
[1:33:42] » Just have
>> look. Oh, we did it. Fantastic.
[1:33:52] » Are you able to see the slides?
Oh, [clears throat]
[1:33:57] » it's still giving.
[1:34:03] » All right. Sorry everyone for that
delay. Are we ready? You can see the
[1:34:07] slides. Yes,
>> we can see the slides, but we have your
[1:34:10] notes on there.
>> Ah, okay. [laughter]
[1:34:13] We will get this sorted. Okay, we'll do
it this way.
[1:34:16] » There we go. All righty.
Okay.
[1:34:25] [clears throat]
[1:34:39] All right. Well, sorry for that delay.
Um, let me introduce myself. Good
[1:34:43] evening, Mayor Boy and council members.
I'm really excited to be here tonight to
[1:34:46] present the uh 2026 Bumont
sustainability plan. Uh I am with Alta
[1:34:53] Planning and Design. We are the
consultant team who has been leading the
[1:34:56] development of this plan.
So a brief overview of what we'll cover
[1:35:01] tonight. Um we'll give an overview of
the sustainability plan development
[1:35:04] process, greenhouse gas emissions in
Bowmont, followed by natural hazards and
[1:35:08] climate impacts in in Bowmont as well as
the sustainability and resilience
[1:35:12] measures to red to reduce both of those
uh issues.
[1:35:18] So moving right along, sustainability um
the city is of Bowmont is committed to
[1:35:25] providing a more livable, fair, and
economically vibrant community. Uh these
[1:35:30] three components the environment, people
and the economy make up the concept of
[1:35:34] sustainability. Sustainability is the
ability to meet the needs of the present
[1:35:38] without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own
[1:35:42] needs. In Bowmont, this means creating a
thriving, healthy, diverse, and
[1:35:46] resilient community for this and future
generations.
[1:35:52] So, some of the benefits of
sustainability include cost savings for
[1:35:55] families, improved health outcomes due
to less air pollution and more active
[1:35:59] lifestyles, less traffic congestion and
safer streets for biking and walking,
[1:36:03] and more trees and increased access to
nature resulting from healthier
[1:36:07] ecosystems and cleaner watersheds.
Additionally, while not shown on this
[1:36:11] slide, uh another important benefit of
sustainability is improved community
[1:36:16] resilience to climate hazards and
natural disasters.
[1:36:22] So, the Bumont sustainability plan
updates the 2015 plan with new
[1:36:26] implementation focused actions to
advance environmental sustainability.
[1:36:30] Uh, it is a short-range plan with a
timeline of about 5 to 10 years. Uh, and
[1:36:35] it builds on Bowmont's existing plans
and policies, most notably the general
[1:36:39] plan update. Um, it aligns with recent
state laws and charge a sustainable path
[1:36:43] forward to continue implementation as
resources and capacity become available
[1:36:47] in the city.
[1:36:51] So, in addition to the full plan, we
created some collateral materials,
[1:36:54] including a comprehensive and standalone
executive summary that is more
[1:36:58] accessible and distills the plan into
its most important parts. Additionally,
[1:37:02] for those who want to take a deeper dive
into the topics of the plan, uh we
[1:37:06] developed focus area fact sheets that
detail the measures within each section
[1:37:10] um that enhance community sustainability
and resiliency.
[1:37:15] So, how did we get here? The plan
development process has followed the
[1:37:18] sequence seen on the screen. We started
with background technical analysis to
[1:37:22] understand the underlying conditions in
Bowmont, including updating the city's
[1:37:26] greenhouse gas inventory and conducting
a vulnerability assessment. Uh, which
[1:37:30] I'll touch on the results of those
coming up next. Um, the technical
[1:37:34] analysis creates the foundation to
develop the measures which are really
[1:37:37] the meat of the plan. Uh, and these
lists of strategies reflect the city's
[1:37:40] unique characteristics, priorities, and
needs. The second step then is that
[1:37:45] measure development phase. Uh and this
was an iterative process that included
[1:37:49] collaboration with staff partner
agencies and incorporates feedback from
[1:37:52] the community. Uh finally we wrote the
plan, released it for public comment and
[1:37:57] are moving through the final adoption
process. And then most importantly you
[1:38:01] can see here at the bottom community
engagement has been a throughine of this
[1:38:04] effort.
[1:38:08] So community input has been incorporated
throughout each step in the development
[1:38:11] process. We utilized different methods
to engage different populations in the
[1:38:15] city. Uh we uh conducted two rounds of
focus groups with stakeholders including
[1:38:20] representatives of the business
community, residents, the youth
[1:38:23] commission, seniors and cyclists. Uh we
gathered feedback on the measures via an
[1:38:28] online community survey and attended
events like Bowmont nights. Uh we also
[1:38:32] distributed executive summaries to the
chamber of commerce and finally like I
[1:38:36] mentioned released the plan for public
review and comment.
[1:38:42] So we heard a lot of things re received
a lot of different comments from
[1:38:46] stakeholders throughout the process and
this is a small collection of what we
[1:38:50] heard but mainly there is support for
creating a more livable community that
[1:38:53] is resilient to the natural hazards has
clean air and safe access to walking and
[1:38:58] biking and more dependable utilities. Uh
to be sure the community did express
[1:39:02] concern over the cost to themselves and
to the city uh of implementing these
[1:39:07] sustainable lifestyle changes. Um, and
all of these comments helped us draft
[1:39:10] measure language that prioritize actions
and prioritize actions that make things
[1:39:15] feel more accessible um, and catered to
this community.
[1:39:21] So, next I'll explain the results of the
foundational technical analysis uh,
[1:39:25] including where Bowmont's greenhouse gas
emissions come from and understanding
[1:39:29] where our emissions come from help us to
focus efforts on where meaningful
[1:39:32] reductions can take place uh, to improve
our environment. And this technical
[1:39:37] analysis informs measure development.
And we look at emissions because they
[1:39:41] also help us um when we reduce those
emissions, help reduce the impact of
[1:39:45] climate hazards, which we'll get into
next.
[1:39:49] So, moving back to 2022, total
communitywide emissions, greenhouse gas
[1:39:54] emissions were about 376,700
metric tons of carbon dioxide
[1:39:58] equivalent, which is how we measure the
suite of greenhouse gases. Um, we use
[1:40:03] 2022 because when we did this analysis,
that was the most recent year for which
[1:40:07] complete data was available. Uh, on-road
transportation, so that includes driving
[1:40:12] cars and trucks on our roads, was the
largest contributor to emissions at 63%,
[1:40:17] followed by residential and
non-residential energy use, including
[1:40:21] both electricity and natural gas, which
accounted for 28% combined. Uh this
[1:40:26] distribution aligns with many cities
across California and shows us where the
[1:40:30] biggest opportunities for reductions
lie, which again is that energy and
[1:40:34] transportation sectors.
[1:40:39] So we also compared these results back
to 2018 which was the other inventory
[1:40:45] that was done for the city. Um and
emissions did rise by 11% from 2018 to
[1:40:51] 2022. uh the breakdown by sector did
remain constant but the per capita and
[1:40:56] per service population so the total
number of jobs and people in the city
[1:41:00] decreased by 6% as compared to 2018. So
that suggests that emissions are not
[1:41:05] increasing at the same rate that the
city is growing which is good news.
[1:41:13] So moving on to the natural hazards.
So, Bumont currently faces a range of
[1:41:19] climate hazards um such as extreme heat,
wildfire, flooding, and severe weather.
[1:41:24] Most of the comm community feedback that
we heard was about people's experiences
[1:41:29] with these natural hazards. Um we also
use natural hazards and climate hazards
[1:41:34] somewhat interchangeably. Climate
exacerbate exacerbates many of these
[1:41:38] hazards. So, and that's also why we look
at reducing emissions to avoid the
[1:41:43] greatest impacts of these hazards. So,
in terms of heat, uh, we're expecting
[1:41:47] more extreme heat days and warm nights
and hotter average maximum temperature
[1:41:51] in the future. For precipitation, we're
not expecting to see a great change in
[1:41:56] total precipitation. However, there will
be more variability and extreme weather
[1:42:00] events. Um, and the next two are kind of
related to that. Flooding may become
[1:42:04] more frequent and extreme. Um, and
drought on the flip side may become
[1:42:08] longer and more intense. Uh, finally,
wildfire. We're expecting to see more
[1:42:12] area burned. wildfires that burn more
intensely and increased impacts from
[1:42:17] wildfire smoke.
[1:42:21] So, these hazards have impacts not only
on the environment but on our community.
[1:42:25] Children, older adults, low-income
households, and renters face greater
[1:42:29] risks and have fewer resources to
recover after an event. Um,
[1:42:33] additionally, buildings and
infrastructure can be damaged uh leading
[1:42:37] to disruptions in daily life and
business activity. And furthermore,
[1:42:40] continued environmental stress on our
natural systems can do reduce their
[1:42:44] ability uh to function and recover after
a disaster as well.
[1:42:51] So like I mentioned, all of that
background analysis that has been done
[1:42:55] um helped to inform measure development.
So the measures included in the plan
[1:42:58] have been vetted by staff including the
departments responsible for
[1:43:02] implementation uh to ensure capacity uh
partner organizations including
[1:43:06] Riverside County Fire as well as CalFire
and the community most importantly uh
[1:43:11] and based on the feedback we received
the measures have been designed to
[1:43:14] incentivize action rather than mandate
it uh and leverage existing external
[1:43:20] resources like existing regional
programs and utility rebates. Um, we're
[1:43:26] also building these measures off of
ongoing city city efforts to best fit
[1:43:30] into department work plans. So, the plan
focuses on things that are within the
[1:43:34] city's control and under its direct
influence.
[1:43:41] So the plan contains 37 community
sustainability measures focused on
[1:43:45] buildings and energy, transportation and
land use, solid waste, water and
[1:43:49] ecosystems, and community uh
accountability and activation. Um by
[1:43:54] taking steps to support sustainable
development, we can lower energy use in
[1:43:58] our homes and businesses, make it easier
to travel by different modes, uh reduce
[1:44:03] waste, and protect natural resources.
The measures included in the
[1:44:06] sustainability measure section were
selected based on their benefits to the
[1:44:10] community, local priorities, staff
capacity, alignment with the general
[1:44:14] plan and state goals and legislation,
and the availability of resources for
[1:44:19] implementation.
[1:44:24] So, the city also worked on developing a
suite of 21 community resilience
[1:44:28] measures and these ones um address the
climate hazards that we just talked
[1:44:32] about. Um and so they are designed to
increase the resilience of residents,
[1:44:37] natural resources, critical facilities
and infrastructure and services from the
[1:44:41] impacts of climate change. Uh the
actions in this plan section focus on
[1:44:47] preparing for emergencies, maintaining
essential services, and supporting quick
[1:44:51] recovery when disruptions do occur. Uh
with particular attention to residents
[1:44:56] who may need additional assistance. Uh
the benefits of the measures contained
[1:44:59] in this section include improved air
quality, lower risk of property damage,
[1:45:04] improved habitat quality, job creation,
as well as strengthened infrastructure,
[1:45:09] emergency response systems, and
community readiness. And this, of
[1:45:13] course, all can improve our public
safety, reduce damage and downtime after
[1:45:16] an event, and support long-term sil
stability, excuse me, for residents,
[1:45:22] businesses, and city operations.
So, we took uh the draft plan to
[1:45:28] planning commission earlier this summer,
and these are some of the thoughtful
[1:45:31] questions that the planning commission
asked us in our responses. I won't go
[1:45:35] into detail uh now, but we can certainly
return to any of these if uh if needed.
[1:45:40] And so, there's a second slide of of
those questions.
[1:45:45] And so, today we're asking you to
discuss ask us questions. I have Shannon
[1:45:48] George from David J. Powers on the Zoom
who is um available to answer any
[1:45:54] questions related to the environmental
review. Uh and with that we hope that uh
[1:45:58] we recommend that you adopt the 2026
sustainability plan.
[1:46:04] Thank you so much.
>> All right. Thank you for that. Um I will
[1:46:10] open this public hearing at 6:38. Do we
have any public comments?
[1:46:16] I do have a written uh email public
comment that I can read into the record.
[1:46:20] Sure.
[1:46:24] This is from Sergio Perez. Says, "Hello,
as a longtime resident, I would like to
[1:46:29] first and foremost express my
appreciation to the city council for its
[1:46:33] work over the years. I do believe the
council has the best intentions in mind
[1:46:37] for the development of the city and I
very much appreciate the particular
[1:46:41] emphasis placed on revitalizing the
downtown core. I do believe there is
[1:46:45] still room for improvement with this
revitalization plan. However, there is
[1:46:49] simply a lack of density for people who
want to come to downtown.
[1:46:53] I believe Bulmont lacks middle housing
today. There aren't enough duplexes,
[1:46:58] triplexes, or multiplexes or vertical
housing developments that offer a middle
[1:47:03] ground between single family housing
units and midrises. Especially for young
[1:47:08] adults and single adults who would like
entrylevel housing. The downtown core
[1:47:13] could be revitalized if some of these
projects were to be initiated. One
[1:47:18] particular solution could be vertical
two to threetory mixeduse property where
[1:47:22] the ground floor could be used for
commercial space such as a cafe,
[1:47:26] restaurant or retail while the above
floors would be designated for
[1:47:30] residential use. I would strongly
suggest looking into this concept and
[1:47:34] seeing if the feasibility of it.
[1:47:38] This would not only offer housing in the
heart of town, but it could also create
[1:47:44] new job opportunities while
simultaneously making downtown more
[1:47:47] attractive for residents and visitors to
each as well. We can even see
[1:47:52] neighborhood neighboring Redlands
developing similar concepts on a large
[1:47:57] scale like the transit village specific
plan and the Tennessee Village mixeduse
[1:48:02] project. On the corner of Edgar Avenue
and East Fifth Street, there is a fairly
[1:48:06] sizable empty lot. next to the newly
refurbished pass area bizub.
[1:48:12] I think this could make for an ideal
location to consider developing
[1:48:15] developing into a multi-story mixeduse
property and would make for an effective
[1:48:21] use of land. I strongly suggest an
inquiry be made into this lot along with
[1:48:25] the mixeduse concept so we may see a
stronger revitalization plan for
[1:48:30] downtown. Thank you for your time and
consideration
[1:48:35] and I have no other written comments.
Simone, do we have any callers on the
[1:48:38] line?
>> We have no callers at this time.
[1:48:43] » All right. Thank you. Seeing no further
public comment, we'll close it at 6:40
[1:48:48] and I will open it up for council
discussion.
[1:48:56] » Mayor Prom.
>> Hi. Yeah, I have a couple questions.
[1:49:00] Adopting this plan is a state mandate,
correct?
[1:49:06] » It is. It is and the states uh provided
um financing for us to have the study
[1:49:12] and sustainability plan created.
>> There are grants available but for this
[1:49:16] particular project and sustainability
plan there's been no state funding.
[1:49:21] » Okay. And then how was how were the
emission numbers calculated or or where
[1:49:27] did those numbers come from?
>> Sure. So the greenhouse gas emissions
[1:49:31] inventory and forecast were calculated
using the US community protocol which is
[1:49:36] a very standardized approach to how all
of these inventories are done across
[1:49:40] both the US and then there's a global
version of that protocol as well and
[1:49:43] it's based on real data. So we collected
real data activity data is what we call
[1:49:48] it from Bowmont including you know
energy use in kilowatt hours as well as
[1:49:52] therms from both our residential and
non-residential customers. uh real
[1:49:57] vehicle miles traveled which we used
from the general plan update to align
[1:50:00] with that um forecasting as well. Uh we
looked at solid waste hall data all
[1:50:06] these real data that then we apply what
we call emission factors to. So um there
[1:50:14] is an emissions intensity associated
with each of these different activities.
[1:50:19] So we apply emissions factor to that
number to get us our greenhouse gas uh
[1:50:24] emissions. So it's kind of an amorphous
topic but it's based in real Bowmont
[1:50:29] local data.
>> So when when you calculate the amount of
[1:50:33] electricity used to generate the uh
electric electric vehicles um that adds
[1:50:39] to the emissions too. Correct.
>> Yes. So how we do energy for example is
[1:50:43] we get a report from the utilities. So
we have we got data um at a high level
[1:50:49] um fromce and the gas company about
total emissions or total excuse me
[1:50:54] kilowatt hours and therms consumed
within the community um by residential
[1:50:59] and non-residential customers. We can't
tell exactly how that energy was being
[1:51:03] used. So if it was being used, you know,
to heat your home using a heat pump, we
[1:51:08] can't tell the difference between those
kilowatt hours and kilowatt hours that
[1:51:11] are going to charge an EV, for example.
>> Okay? And when you're using these
[1:51:15] protocols uh to sort of I guess
basically you're taking um averages or
[1:51:22] comparisons of other cities. So we c no
so this is all like based only on bowont
[1:51:29] and so these are a standardized set of
methods and data sources that we use to
[1:51:34] then um you know make this inventory and
all cities who are complying with the
[1:51:39] protocol do it the same way so that we
can look across jurisdictions and
[1:51:44] compare apples to apples.
>> So do you so apples to apple comparison
[1:51:47] do you take into account that the
interstate 10 goes right through our
[1:51:51] city?
>> So no. So that's a great question. So
[1:51:53] when we look at vehicle miles traveled,
we don't count pass through traffic. So
[1:51:59] anything all travel that doesn't um
either originate or end in Bowmont is
[1:52:04] not considered because it's not under
the city's control to do anything about.
[1:52:08] » So even if we do everything that we need
to do in the plan to curb our emissions
[1:52:15] and we can't do anything about I 10
corridor going through our city.
[1:52:20] » Yeah. Um, how much did we pay for the
for the sustainability plan?
[1:52:27] » Close to 300,000.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[1:52:30] » That was what was budgeted for the plan.
I don't know that we've spent that much
[1:52:34] yet, though.
>> Okay.
[1:52:38] If there are no other comments, I'll go
ahead and make a motion.
[1:52:41] » All right.
>> I'll move to approve the adoption of
[1:52:43] this plan per the state requirements.
>> I'll second.
[1:52:49] » All right. Can I get a roll call,
please?
[1:52:52] » Council member Laura,
>> yes.
[1:52:53] » Council member Finn,
>> yes.
[1:52:55] » Council member Martinez,
>> yes.
[1:52:57] » Mayor Prom White,
>> yes.
[1:52:58] » Mayor Voit,
>> yes.
[1:53:01] » Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you.
[1:53:03] » All right, that will move us on to our
public hearing for our short-term rental
[1:53:06] program and ordinance.
And we will have a staff report by Mr.
[1:53:11] Usher.
[1:53:28] Good evening, Mayor and City Council.
Tonight's item we are bringing forward
[1:53:32] is the first public hearing for the
city's short-term rental program.
[1:53:39] The action before council is to
introduce chapter 5.21, 21 adopt the
[1:53:43] related fee schedule and establish a
framework needed for beginning the toot
[1:53:49] collection in January of 2027. This is
the next step in the discussion council
[1:53:54] has had over the years with staff and
the ordinance reflecting direction
[1:53:58] council previously provided to move
forward with this program.
[1:54:06] So this item has been brought to council
several times in the past by staff.
[1:54:11] first beginning this discussion in 2023.
In 2025, council asked staff to return
[1:54:16] with additional information on the
number of short-term rentals in the city
[1:54:20] of Bumont, regulatory operations,
program cost, and of course, Toot, which
[1:54:26] is a transient occupancy tax. By April
2025, staff had identified more than 50
[1:54:32] short-term rentals operating in the city
of Bulmont. In March 2026, council
[1:54:36] directed staff to move forward with a
short-term rental management software
[1:54:40] option and prepare to implementation
beginning January of 2027. Tonight's
[1:54:45] ordinance puts that prior direction into
enforcable local framework.
[1:54:52] What is being proposed now is an
ordinance that creates an annual
[1:54:55] licensing program for short-term rentals
and establishes clear operating
[1:54:59] standards. Each property and each
dwelling unit that is used as a
[1:55:04] short-term rental would require its own
license. Applicants would provide basic
[1:55:08] ownership, operation information,
insurance, a floor plan, parking
[1:55:13] information, and toot registration to
the city. The ordinance would also
[1:55:17] require local responsible party, whether
that's the owner or a manager to provide
[1:55:23] information that is available 24 hours a
day, and a response time within 60
[1:55:28] minutes if there's a code violation. It
establishes standards related to
[1:55:32] occupancy, parking, quiet hours, life
safety, trash, property maintenance, and
[1:55:38] advertising. And it requires that the
city have the short-term rental license
[1:55:43] number appear on the listing.
[1:55:49] So, the proposed fees, as you see on the
screen, are intended for cost recovery,
[1:55:54] not for the sole purpose of generating
revenue. The annual short-term rental
[1:55:59] license is proposed at $250 with a $100
compliance inspection or reinspection
[1:56:04] fee. A $100 late renewal or appeal fee.
And then operating without a license
[1:56:10] would require or would follow the city's
existing administrative citation tier
[1:56:15] with the first tier being $100 for the
first violation, 200 for the second
[1:56:19] violation, and 500 for the third and any
other violation afterwards. Failure to
[1:56:24] display the short-term rental license
would would carry a $250 penalty. The
[1:56:29] program would be administrator through
administrated through community
[1:56:33] development in coordination with the
city manager's office using the council
[1:56:37] selected software model that was
approximately $16,000.
[1:56:41] Code enforcement would conduct the
initial compliance inspection and
[1:56:45] respond to violations as needed.
Inspections would not automatically
[1:56:48] occur every single year.
[1:56:53] The overall goal of this program is to
allow short-term rentals to operate
[1:56:56] while creating clear local
accountability, protecting
[1:57:00] neighborhoods, and ensuring that
operators are compliant with Toot
[1:57:03] requirements. Staff recommends that
council wave the first reading, adopt
[1:57:08] the fee resolution with any council
directed changes, and will bring it back
[1:57:12] for the second reading at the next
available council meeting. Once the
[1:57:15] program is operating, staff can also
return to council if the experience
[1:57:19] shows that the fees or penalty
structures need to be adjusted. That
[1:57:22] concludes my presentation. I'm available
for any questions.
[1:57:28] » All right. Thank you. And I will open
that up to public comment at 6:49.
[1:57:35] And do we have any public comments?
>> I have no written requests. Simone, do
[1:57:39] we have any callers on the line?
>> We have no callers at this time.
[1:57:44] All right. And I will close the public
comment period at 6:49 and open it up
[1:57:49] for council discussion. Um, Council
Member Finn,
[1:57:54] » I'll defer to Mr. Martinez. He had his
light on first.
[1:57:56] » Oh, very.
>> Well, thank you. Uh, just clarification
[1:57:59] on the non-compliance. Can you put that
back up because it looked different than
[1:58:05] it did in the staff report?
[1:58:10] So
here we have a proposal of 250
[1:58:16] plus 100. So 350 correct for your
license and the inspection and then
[1:58:23] non-compliance we have at one two and
five. I thought the uh report said 500
[1:58:29] for first offense.
Am I reading it wrong? established
[1:58:34] amounts of 500 for operating without a
license and 250 for failure.
[1:58:39] » So the 500 was referenced to the highest
tier. So the administrative citation has
[1:58:46] multiple tiers and so it is just an
error in the report where it's just 500.
[1:58:50] It was supposed to state one, two, and
500 for operating without a license.
[1:58:54] » Right? Because I have a concern that
it's too low. I mean your violation is
[1:58:58] is cheaper than your license. So I mean
I mean, I understand it's we're starting
[1:59:05] and we don't want to come in with very
large because we're getting everybody
[1:59:08] used to it, but on the other hand, I'm a
strong believer if you don't have a a a
[1:59:13] non-compliance that's going to give a
little bite, then it's really
[1:59:17] ineffective. So, I was hoping that we
were going to start with five, not the
[1:59:22] third violation. But if you started at
five, um, and then 250 for your no
[1:59:28] license number, because they're not
going to have one if they're not
[1:59:30] compliant, then that pulls to a 750, uh,
violation,
[1:59:35] uh, versus the 250 that they paid if
they would have gone through the proper
[1:59:39] procedure. So, it's it's a little it's
not thousands like the other one, but
[1:59:43] it's a little, you know, significant
more to, you know, if you're not
[1:59:48] complying with the license. Am I making
sense?
[1:59:50] » Yeah.
>> Okay. Um, so that's my suggestion. Um,
[1:59:54] to bring it up a little higher to re um
to have more of an effect.
[1:59:59] » I just want to clarify too that is a
fine per day. So, every day that they
[2:00:02] they operate without the license.
>> Oh, I didn't know that.
[2:00:05] » Yes. I I don't know if that if that
materially changes your thought on that.
[2:00:08] » Did I miss that? No, I think it just
states a flat rate. I maybe in the
[2:00:13] ordinance it's different.
>> In the ordinance it states it's it
[2:00:15] specifies per day.
>> Per day, correct?
[2:00:18] » So, we're going back at 100 per day.
>> Yes.
[2:00:21] » Okay. Well, that's different then. So,
I'm okay. I We'll discuss that, but
[2:00:25] that's different than the 215.
>> Um, so I'm okay. If it's a per day, then
[2:00:32] I mean still though it's difficult for
me to have a fine that's lower than your
[2:00:37] fee. just doesn't make sense to me
because if they get a fine and they come
[2:00:40] in and pay it, then it was, you know,
they still have to go and get a license.
[2:00:44] So, they'll have to go back and pay the
250 and 100 anyway, right? So, they're
[2:00:49] paying the fee, then they're coming back
and paying for the license and the and
[2:00:53] the um compliance inspection. We we and
you know we could council with council's
[2:00:59] direction we can certainly adjust the
first tier violation to be consistent
[2:01:02] with the the fine the the license amount
and then we could tier to um 500 and 700
[2:01:10] or 750.
>> It just seems to me there has to be for
[2:01:13] your first has to be higher than than
not because if not they're going to play
[2:01:17] the odds you know and the odds are if I
get you know hit all hundreds 100 bucks.
[2:01:22] » Yeah.
>> I I don't know. That's my suggestion,
[2:01:24] but I'll hear counsel of course. Thank
you.
[2:01:28] » But again, I just want to also just I
guess and city attorney was brought up a
[2:01:32] good point. So with those tiers, the the
first violation of $100 is for the first
[2:01:38] violation. So that's day one.
>> So that's
[2:01:41] » the second violation of $200 is the sec
is for the second violation, which is
[2:01:46] day two in a calendar year.
>> Okay. The third violation is $500, which
[2:01:51] is which is is technically day three in
a calendar year.
[2:01:54] » So, let me go back then because I'm
still not quite following it. So, if
[2:01:58] they're fined Yes.
>> So, they don't have a a um a license,
[2:02:02] they're fined $100, day one.
>> Yes.
[2:02:04] » They don't come in on day two to pay
that, then it goes to 200.
[2:02:07] » That's my question.
>> Yeah. So, basically what this is saying
[2:02:10] is technically they could be fined um
$300 for operating two days in a row.
[2:02:17] Technically, they could be they or they
could be fined $800 for operating three
[2:02:22] days in a row without a license or three
days within a calendar year.
[2:02:26] » So,
>> so it's every day they're operating.
[2:02:28] » Every day they're operating. So, if they
oper if if they have if we if we confirm
[2:02:32] a violation
for three days at any point within a
[2:02:38] calendar year, that's $800. It could be
three days in a row. It could be three
[2:02:42] days spread across the year. Yeah.
Wouldn't it make sense that we would
[2:02:46] find them a flat fee for not having it
and then for every day that you follow?
[2:02:53] Because to me, if if you don't have the
license and you're operating and you
[2:02:59] close, that was one day. So, what was
what did you have to pay? $100 for one
[2:03:04] day operating. That was all
>> what one day if it's the first violation
[2:03:08] or first offense within a calendar year.
>> So, then what was the incentive of not
[2:03:12] paying the 250? to me. Maybe I'm I'm
thinking about it wrong, but it makes
[2:03:16] sense to me. If you have 250 for a for a
fee and you got caught and you didn't
[2:03:21] have a license, then you have to pay a
something higher than that 250 for not
[2:03:26] doing what you were supposed to do. And
then if you continue to operate, then
[2:03:29] whatever that number is, council
decides, you know, if that can be done.
[2:03:33] But to me, the first initial hit has to
be, hey, you were caught, you didn't
[2:03:37] have it. Here's your here's your fine
higher than what it was that if you
[2:03:40] would have just come and complied. And
then if you go on then that's that's
[2:03:44] another story. But that's the way I look
at it. I'm just trying to see we want
[2:03:48] people to comply but if you don't put a
a sting enough on there then they're
[2:03:52] going to play the odds and say well
we'll just see if we get caught or not.
[2:03:55] And to me that doesn't make sense.
>> Council member Fen.
[2:04:00] » Okay. Thank you. I've got a few
questions. Um first on the violation and
[2:04:04] the license is it by property or by
property owner?
[2:04:09] because there's a high in my opinion
there may be a high probability that
[2:04:12] that somebody owns more than one
property and you know if they've
[2:04:17] » Yeah, it's by property.
>> Okay. And so then do they need a license
[2:04:21] for each property?
>> Yes.
[2:04:23] » Okay. All right. And then um how is the
city staff going to go about informing
[2:04:28] the current ones that are out there?
[2:04:34] So, if council moves forward with the
adoption of this program, the city
[2:04:37] manager's office and community
development department would work with
[2:04:40] communications to have a campaign
notifying the current short-term rentals
[2:04:45] because the software that we purchased
that we're onboarding right now has the
[2:04:48] address based on the listings that they
have on Airbnb and all the other
[2:04:52] short-term rental websites and they have
the contact information for them. So
[2:04:56] then we can contact them directly with
letters that we're already drafting. But
[2:04:59] then, as I mentioned, we can do a
campaign with our communications
[2:05:02] division so that it's on social media
and it's available for everyone to know
[2:05:06] that we're going to start implementing
this program come January 2027.
[2:05:10] » Okay. And then um after the program
starts, if we had a new listing pop up
[2:05:16] from someone that was was a brand new
short-term rental, is there a grace
[2:05:21] period for them to be, you know, would
we reach out to them and say, "Hey, I
[2:05:24] see you just listed your property for
the very first time. We have this
[2:05:27] ordinance.
Do they have a grace period? Do they
[2:05:30] have a, you know, a certain number of
days to get on board?" Or it's no, you
[2:05:33] immediately get fined because you didn't
follow the rules. My thought was if
[2:05:37] somebody new came in after all those
notices went out, they may not know this
[2:05:41] exists.
So, as of now, there is no specific
[2:05:45] grace period. However, it's something
that we can establish if council would
[2:05:49] like a specific time frame. There is
going to be, of course, a time period
[2:05:52] between when a letter is sent out to
them and of course when code enforcement
[2:05:56] can then go out and visit the property
to make sure they are in compliance. But
[2:06:00] our software also checks the websites to
make sure that if a listing pops up, if
[2:06:04] there is no short-term rental license
number, which will be assigned once they
[2:06:08] purchase one, then they will be sent a
letter saying, "Hey, you need to be in
[2:06:11] compliance and purchase a short-term
rental license." Okay? So then, so fast
[2:06:16] forwarding, let's say we're in the month
of February now, and this has been
[2:06:19] passed and a new one pops up, you see it
advertised online, reach out to that
[2:06:25] property owner. At what point does that
property owner need to get that license
[2:06:29] or they're looking at fees? Are we just
catch them hopefully while it's just
[2:06:33] listed and not rented out yet or is it
or is the fee kick in once it's been
[2:06:39] once it's been rented and they've
actually used it?
[2:06:42] » You understand my question?
>> Yeah. Okay. So, the software runs weekly
[2:06:46] reports on when a short-term rental
license is listed on the website and it
[2:06:51] scans through all the websites online.
Now, once one is listed, they are sent a
[2:06:56] notice or a letter stating, "Hey, you
need to be in compliance with getting a
[2:06:59] short-term rental license."
>> Then they have 15 days in between each
[2:07:03] notice.
>> Okay?
[2:07:04] » And then once they receive the first
notice, it's just a, "Hey, you need to
[2:07:07] get a short-term rental license." After
15 days, then they'll get their forced
[2:07:11] warning and then that's when the
citations end up kicking in.
[2:07:14] » And we've got an automated automated
system that is correct,
[2:07:17] » currently doing that. So, we don't have
to wait on human intervention in case
[2:07:20] they missed it. And I just want to add
we we wouldn't penalize somebody if they
[2:07:23] didn't receive that initial notice. We
would make sure they get a notice first.
[2:07:27] » Okay. All right. Thank you. And that 15
days is what I was was I was looking
[2:07:31] for. Thank you,
>> Council Member Lara.
[2:07:35] » Thank you, Mayor. Um and I I agree with
Council Member Martinez. I think maybe
[2:07:40] the the initial fee may need to be
higher and then maybe what you do is you
[2:07:43] give a 15-day grace period in order to
obtain that license because what I've
[2:07:47] seen that that can happen is if you do
it by the day staff will lose track and
[2:07:53] then it ends up being $100 or maybe it's
you know 200 or 300 but it's it's
[2:08:00] difficult to track the number of days I
think in some instances especially if
[2:08:03] you're you're busy with other items. So,
you just might be easier to do a $500
[2:08:08] and then wait 15 days. If they don't
comply within the 15 days, then it's
[2:08:13] another 500 or it's another 200,
whatever that next level is. But that
[2:08:16] may be something to consider to look at.
The other uh question I have is if you
[2:08:21] go into the draft ordinance
under section B or excuse me, C
[2:08:29] subsection,
>> it's under section 8.
[2:08:33] » Oh, section 8, excuse me.
and then C
[2:08:36] » and then C. And then subsection B goes
into any person violating the subsection
[2:08:42] may be ordered to immediately cease a
short-term rental operations, but those
[2:08:47] fines are $1,000 for the first
violation, 3,000 for the second, and
[2:08:51] 5,000 for the third. So, [snorts]
they're completely different than what
[2:08:56] we're talking about on the proposed uh
recovery fees. So the attachments that
[2:09:02] were on the dis were the updated
ordinance that was in correlation with
[2:09:05] our current administrative citation.
Now this is an option that was from when
[2:09:11] we did a survey of surrounding cities
that had short-term rental license as
[2:09:15] well. They did have higher amounts but
the what the ordinances on the dis is
[2:09:20] the correct amount based on our current
administrative citation. As you guys
[2:09:24] stated, if you want an higher fee,
that's something that council can direct
[2:09:28] staff to incorporate and then we can
bring that back. However, the current
[2:09:32] amount is the 100, 200, 500 based on
what's currently in the code.
[2:09:38] Okay. Um,
[2:09:43] and here does not reference the number
of days. Is that is that somewhere else?
[2:09:57] At least
>> it's un sorry it's under section C
[2:10:04] » right below that
>> each calendar day that the unlicensed
[2:10:06] operation can use constitutes an
additional violation under C.
[2:10:14] » Okay.
And then it uh aside from the fees or
[2:10:20] the the penalties once we get those uh
worked out um
[2:10:27] » just for clarification it's under
section C subsection C
[2:10:31] » correct
[laughter]
[2:10:34] each separate
[2:10:42] » see and and and that kind of goes to my
concern is that how does staff verify
[2:10:47] that that is in operation for those
calendar days because they can say, "Oh,
[2:10:51] we stopped, but the advertisement is
still up." Because you'll see that the
[2:10:55] website will stay up so they can
continue to make reservations, but they
[2:10:58] can tell you, "Well, nobody's been
here."
[2:11:00] » You you'd have to validate it. So, you
have to perform a site visit and
[2:11:04] » yeah, I'd like to try to keep it and at
least in this initial roll out, make it
[2:11:08] simpler for staff. Um, that's just my my
thought on that. Um, and then we we
[2:11:16] looked at contracting out. It sounds
like we're we've p we're going to
[2:11:19] purchase software and then roll this out
and see how that goes. And I'm assuming
[2:11:23] it's going to be our first year is going
to be pretty dynamic. Uh, obviously we
[2:11:27] we compared fees with other
jurisdictions without because we don't
[2:11:31] have anything to do a nexus study on.
And so I think maybe after a couple
[2:11:34] years we'll see how this operates and
and go from there.
[2:11:39] » Okay.
>> Yeah. So the initial agreement with the
[2:11:41] software company will be one year. Okay?
It'll be one year from last month and
[2:11:46] then we will bring it to council with
results. We'll have tangible results
[2:11:49] based on number of listings, revenue
that's received by the city and then of
[2:11:53] course the toot tax collected and then
we'll bring forth a multi-year agreement
[2:11:57] if council decides to move forward with
continuing the short-term rental
[2:12:00] program.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I
[2:12:02] have.
>> Mayor Prom White.
[2:12:04] » Uh yeah, I have a couple questions. I I
noticed that um in that same section, I
[2:12:10] believe, no, it's down below operational
standards, the occupancy is limited to
[2:12:15] two persons per approved bedroom. I know
every time I've gotten a Airbnb, it
[2:12:20] always has one bedroom that has two bunk
beds in it. So, you got four people
[2:12:24] there. Um how do we how do we deal with
that?
[2:12:30] that that's going to be. So, some of
these provisions in here are provisions
[2:12:34] we're stating to to create limitations,
but in practice, they're hard to monitor
[2:12:39] and enforce. So, you know,
theoretically, you could get an
[2:12:42] inspection warrant and go in and see
four bunk beds in a room if it if
[2:12:45] something really escalated to that
level, but but definitely in practice,
[2:12:49] it's going to be a difficult thing to
monitor, enforce.
[2:12:52] » I would think if they have a license, we
know how many bedrooms they have. And if
[2:12:55] they're advertising it sleeps 10, you
know. And the other question I have,
[2:12:59] again, my experience with Airbnbs or um
what do they call short-term rentals is
[2:13:06] um there's also usually a fold out in
the front room and that kind of stuff.
[2:13:11] Um
I think my bigger question is,
[2:13:16] is it really worth it to try and enforce
all this?
[2:13:21] I mean, I I I could see where we could
have things that we can enforce and some
[2:13:26] things are in here like noise, parking,
um, some of those things without having
[2:13:33] to, you know, go into the house. I mean,
sure, we can go into the house if they
[2:13:37] want a license. I'm just wondering how
much it's going to cost for staff time
[2:13:42] to do all of this when it may be easier
to maybe have higher dollar amounts and
[2:13:47] and and only focus on the kinds of
things that we can point to and take a
[2:13:52] picture of and say, "Look, you've got
five cars in your parking in your
[2:13:56] driveway and and you got a party in the
back with 50 people." Uh those kinds of
[2:14:02] things we can we can monitor a lot
easier. So, so just so for for I guess
[2:14:06] number one, I agree with you. I the main
reason to create an ordinance like this
[2:14:10] in a city is to deal with house
short-term rentals that come be could
[2:14:14] become a nuisance or or an issue. That's
the idea behind it is having an active
[2:14:19] monitoring mechanism with parameters in
place and expectations in place with how
[2:14:22] they operate. Um it's it's not a revenue
generating tool. It is an administrative
[2:14:27] burden and that's one of the reasons why
um staff presented a recommendation to
[2:14:32] council early this year to have this
third party help us with this and staff
[2:14:36] was supportive of that. Um for
clarification, are you suggesting that
[2:14:40] rather than having a system or an active
monitoring mechanism, we address permits
[2:14:47] on a case-byase basis when we get a com
when we get a complaint on a prospective
[2:14:51] short-term rental?
>> You know, I don't know. I I I'm a big
[2:14:55] proponent of regulating in some way the
uh short-term rentals. I know that it it
[2:15:02] can impact neighborhoods. It can impact
higher cities um and countries that have
[2:15:08] so much air, you know, so much
short-term rentals that kids in their
[2:15:14] 20s and 30s can't find a place to rent
because it's much more, you know, much
[2:15:18] more um it's a a better investment for a
home to turn it into short-term rental.
[2:15:23] So, I understand when you try and put 10
people into to a home that has three
[2:15:28] bedrooms. I've been in those homes and
and they're really not that bad. And I
[2:15:32] mean, you're not expecting a Taj Mahal
type home, but um I just I think this is
[2:15:38] going to be a big issue when the
Olympics come and I think that we we
[2:15:43] need to address it some way. I just
now I'm I'm more interested in what
[2:15:48] you're talking about as far as a third
party doing this because I, you know, I
[2:15:51] think that's something that they're
going to do it in a way that is
[2:15:56] profitable for them and that's going to
give them a little more direction and
[2:16:00] we're not spending a lot of staff time
on on these kinds of issues. And then
[2:16:04] the the other question I have for you is
if somebody in in a lot of the other
[2:16:08] things that the ordinances that we have,
there's always an appeal process. So, if
[2:16:14] someone comes through and says, "Wait a
second. I I didn't have two bunk beds in
[2:16:19] that room, and you're charging me x
amount of dollars." And does it then go
[2:16:23] I think in here talked about a um an
appeal hearing person? Um, and then if
[2:16:31] if that if that hearing or that process
is not satisfactory to the person who's
[2:16:38] bringing it forward, then it does it
that does it then come to council and
[2:16:42] we're sitting there deciding these kinds
of issues. At that point,
[2:16:46] what I would say is it would revert to
the standard code enforcement process.
[2:16:50] It can't be remedied through this fine
tier, which does include other remedies
[2:16:54] for addressing an issue. And sometimes
these do resort to that. Um,
[2:17:00] so what I I guess I would what I would
say just going through the the course of
[2:17:04] some of your points. Number one, I think
that the idea behind utilizing this
[2:17:08] particular software product that I think
is 16,000 a year is it automates it
[2:17:12] automates identifying, noticing, and
monitoring rentals. That's the main um
[2:17:19] advantage of it and it takes most of the
administrative burden off of it. the
[2:17:23] part the portion of the administrative
burden it doesn't remove is having to in
[2:17:28] you know investigate a situation and
then follow up on the violation part of
[2:17:33] it. I I think the the software is a good
starting point for us to give a to to to
[2:17:39] begin the program and see what we have
and then we can re you know revisit it
[2:17:43] in the future to to um evaluate if that
if that is a good approach if that
[2:17:50] software is worth it or if we should
retool. Um, and I also think that, you
[2:17:54] know, when we come back later, we'd
probably also have a better perspective
[2:17:58] on if some of these fine amounts um need
to be further tweaked. And and and I'm I
[2:18:03] certainly um, you know, I'm I agree with
everything the council has said tonight,
[2:18:08] and I think adjusting a fine amount to
be equal to the first tier or more of of
[2:18:13] the license makes a lot of sense. But,
um, I do think we'll learn a lot that
[2:18:16] first year, and we'll be able to come
back and and further evaluate. Um, and
[2:18:21] that answered my next question, which
was when you say come back later, you're
[2:18:24] saying after it's in place for a year as
opposed to coming back with some of the
[2:18:28] changes that we've talked about up here.
We can make the changes now to the fine
[2:18:32] amounts. If the council would like, we
can, you know, per whatever with your
[2:18:36] direction tonight, we can adjust the
fine amounts to equal whatever you
[2:18:40] suggest. 250 for the first fine, 500 for
the second fine, 700 750 for the third
[2:18:45] fine, or a different amount if you
suggest a different amount. Um,
[2:18:49] » I really like the 1,00 2,000 5,000.
>> That's fine. We can do that, too. We can
[2:18:55] do that, too.
>> I want to be clear here. I I I
[2:18:58] appreciate the work that's gone into
this. I think this is a
[2:19:03] an issue that has got a lot of a lot of
issues with it, a lot of problems that I
[2:19:10] see going forward. And I think the
easier we can make it to identify the
[2:19:16] issues we're finding them over and
increasing the fine amounts that makes
[2:19:21] it a lot I think it makes it more
palatable for me. Um I think we need
[2:19:26] something. So um again I I unlike ADUs
this is a place where we can actually
[2:19:31] restrict parking. Correct. I mean we can
we can say and and that's another
[2:19:36] question. If you have a home and an ADU,
how does how does that play into it? If
[2:19:41] you're I'm sure if I'm a short-term
rental person with a home, I'm going to
[2:19:46] put an ADU on there for sure and and now
increase the amount of people and amount
[2:19:51] of cars that can can be in there.
So, I don't know. I don't know what the
[2:19:55] answer is. We need something. Um
>> Well, why don't we why don't we seek for
[2:20:00] a couple um points of clarification? So,
let's start with
[2:20:05] Go ahead. I do want to mention um
accessory dwelling units are not allowed
[2:20:08] to be used as short-term rentals per
this ordinance.
[2:20:11] » Okay.
>> Just wanted to mention that. Sorry.
[2:20:13] » Okay.
>> No, thank you. No, that's okay.
[2:20:16] » All right. So, if we want to address the
fines, let's um figure it out. What
[2:20:20] seems to be a reasonable fine that we
would like to see here? Is it double so
[2:20:25] that it stings a little bit? So, if 250
is your license or are we seeking for
[2:20:30] compliance? For me, I would be seeking
for compliance. So, I would think that
[2:20:34] the 250 would be reasonable. I get your
point, though, you know, it's not
[2:20:38] really, you know, but I'm we're I think
we're trying to to seek for compliance.
[2:20:42] So, for me, it'd be the same as um that
first tier. And I would suggest 250,
[2:20:47] 500, and then a thousand because if you
don't comply, I do like um Council
[2:20:52] Member Lara's discussion about 15 days.
So, you get your initial warning, that's
[2:20:56] your 250, you don't pay it. your next
one's 15 days later, we send you a
[2:21:00] notice, you're paying 500 on top of the
250 and then um kind of compounding from
[2:21:06] there.
>> I I like either 350 or 500. And the
[2:21:11] reason I say that is because it's if
somebody follows the the ordinance,
[2:21:17] » it's 250 for the license plus $100 for
the inspection. So, they're out 350 to
[2:21:21] begin with. And so there's got to be a a
in my head anyways a benefit to
[2:21:27] following the ordinance as opposed to
not following. So that's why I would say
[2:21:30] 500 um and then 15 days to uh obtain
your license.
[2:21:38] » Okay.
>> You know, I um I look make an analogy
[2:21:43] here. Um when you're driving on the
freeway and you see HOV lane, there's no
[2:21:47] one around to stop you from going in
there. But when the sign says it's a
[2:21:51] $450 violation or $500 violation, I'm
not I'm not gonna even think about it.
[2:21:57] So I think if we can if the fines are a
deterrent because even atund 250, we're
[2:22:04] not we're not regulating how much they
can charge for for a rental. So, they
[2:22:10] could charge a rental $ 1,500 for a
night and then they have to pay a $250
[2:22:18] fine if they get caught.
I I think I think if we don't have a
[2:22:24] fine structure that is a deterrent more
than a cost savings or a co or a revenue
[2:22:31] I know it's not a revenue um process but
I just um I think I' I don't know how
[2:22:38] I've never rented a short-term rental
for less than $5 $600
[2:22:44] uh not a night but you know what I'm
saying I
[2:22:47] » I do want to add I have had quite a bit
of experience with this and the ones
[2:22:51] that tend to be nuisances tend to rely
on booking many days of rentals. They
[2:22:57] they end up, you know, they're relying
on continually booking out their rental.
[2:23:02] So, um I think you definitely and again,
I'm not advocating for any particular
[2:23:07] dollar amount, but there is there's a
lot of um ability the city has to ramp
[2:23:13] up fines quickly when there are repeated
offenses, and we can validate them. I
[2:23:17] mean, they do happen during the week,
too. It takes staff time and work, but
[2:23:20] it is something that can be validated. A
>> and I'm okay with a small first one. I'm
[2:23:26] okay with $100 for the first one, but
then it really needs to go up after that
[2:23:29] because the first one is like someone's
like, "Well, oh, shoot. I didn't know
[2:23:33] about that." Um, and then they say,
"Well, maybe I won't pay the hundred."
[2:23:36] Well, now it's 500 tomorrow.
>> So, one suggestion might be 500 for the
[2:23:40] first offense, a thousand for the
second, and 2,000 for the third. And
[2:23:43] each individual date, each individual
offense constitutes a separate
[2:23:48] violation.
>> What does the council think about that?
[2:23:50] » I'm good with that.
>> Okay. Looks like we have an answer.
[2:23:54] You're good.
>> All right. Check that one off the box.
[2:23:58] [laughter]
>> I love checklists. Okay. What did we
[2:24:02] have?
[2:24:08] » Okay. So, I just want to make sure I
understand the $500 fine. the initial
[2:24:13] fine when they're operating without a
license is that 500 per day or 500 and
[2:24:19] then they have 15 days to get a license.
>> I think the way I the way I the way I
[2:24:24] recommended it is 500 for the first
offense which is day one,000
[2:24:29] for the second offense which is day two
and and 2,000 for the third offense
[2:24:33] which is day three. Now, we don't have
to apply it that way every time, but we
[2:24:37] have the ability to. And when there's a
repeat offender, you know, it would ramp
[2:24:41] up to the 2,000 very quickly.
>> I'm still good with a low first day be
[2:24:46] just because some people I mean, we
talked about a grace period for new pe
[2:24:49] for new a short-term rentals, but
short-term rentals that are in operation
[2:24:55] right now and maybe still we don't c we
don't catch on to them until two or
[2:24:59] three months from now, they're probably
still not under a grace period. But I
[2:25:03] think the $100 says, "Hey, you know,
please don't do this again. It's only a
[2:25:07] hundred bucks this time." Um, if you if
you plan to fix if you you know, make
[2:25:11] arrangements to fix it, it won't be 500
the next day. Um, but
[2:25:18] » Council Member Martinez,
>> the only the only concern
[2:25:19] » and they will they will get noticed
first. I just want to make sure you
[2:25:22] » Yeah, they're going to get a warning.
Everyone get So, to be clear,
[2:25:25] everybody's getting a warning. Yes.
>> And then you're coming into compliance.
[2:25:28] If you get a second notice, that is day
one. That is your first fee.
[2:25:33] » I was under the impression that we would
um so after the warning if you got the
[2:25:38] fine 500 and then I thought there'd be a
15 days to come and get it settled
[2:25:43] before it hits a thousand and and
>> so the so the council did bring that up
[2:25:47] as an option. I'm in in practice though
um and you we we could do that where we
[2:25:51] have 15 days in between violations. The
only caveat is they could theoretically
[2:25:56] operate 15 days, book for 15 days, then
get another violation, then operate for
[2:26:01] another 15 days, and then get the third
violation.
[2:26:05] » 500 and then 100 days for every day they
haven't come in.
[2:26:09] » And it would be it would be
>> 500, a,000 2,000,
[2:26:13] » right?
>> One, day, two, day, three. You got your
[2:26:15] warrant. They have already had a
warning.
[2:26:16] » And in practice, we don't have to apply
it as
[2:26:21] » $2,500 for a three-day run. We could
give them, you know, if they ignore it
[2:26:26] the first time, we could give them $500
for the violation and then let them give
[2:26:30] them time to comply and then wait till
the second to charge them the 2,000 to,
[2:26:34] excuse me, the the 1,000. But this gives
the latitude if there's a really
[2:26:38] significant offense, for example, to
apply a greater fine amount.
[2:26:42] » Well, to me, having the 500 in the
beginning, to me, again, like I already
[2:26:48] stated, it's above what they're paying
in the first place. So, that's your
[2:26:51] first deterrent. Plus the fact that it
would to me it's more work on staff. If
[2:26:55] you keep it low, then they have to kind
of keep going back and checking. But if
[2:26:59] they have a higher one or at least equal
like a 500 one, then their chances of
[2:27:04] coming in and getting that taken care of
is easier for staff to deal with and not
[2:27:08] having to keep following up and so
forth. So,
[2:27:10] » and if you wanted a pause between it,
you could you could say per um per
[2:27:15] booking instead of per day. But
>> too much.
[2:27:20] » I mean, it to me it appears the city
manager is recommending that we do it
[2:27:24] one, two, and three to give latitude um
for us to then use it at our discretion
[2:27:31] essentially. But that puts it to the
strictest if I'm
[2:27:34] » gives us the tool basket to do that.
Yes.
[2:27:36] » Which is five 1,00200
>> 5 1,000 2000.
[2:27:41] » I'm okay with that latitude. The concern
that I would have is
[2:27:46] homeowner A gets $5,000 fines in three
days and homeowner B gets a th000. And
[2:27:53] so there's no consistency in regards to
the fines. And that's where I would have
[2:27:57] a concern because then they're just
arbitrary or they can be. I shouldn't
[2:28:01] say that they would be, but that's that
would be my concern in that regard. the
[2:28:04] the code and the code right now has that
is actually states similar language for
[2:28:09] a lot of a lot of offenses in the code a
lot of nuisances and in practice the way
[2:28:13] it's applied is based off of you know
there's a number of factors. So for
[2:28:17] example with short-term rentals maybe
somebody's hosting a commercial wedding
[2:28:20] at their house and it lasts two days or
three days and we've we've talked to
[2:28:24] them and they're still holding it. you
know, that might be a situation where,
[2:28:28] you know, it's determined a greater, you
know, more significant application is
[2:28:33] necessary, especially if we're
validating every consecutive day. That's
[2:28:37] » well, and then I like the booking idea
as well. So, however you think is the
[2:28:40] easiest way to be
[2:28:45] » and just so to be clear for someone who
is following the rules, the initial fee
[2:28:51] is
>> $500 after a warning.
[2:28:54] I'm saying they no warning. They're just
they come in and they say, "Look at I
[2:28:58] don't want to deal with any of this. I'm
going to follow the rules. The initial
[2:29:02] fee for the license, I guess, is
>> $250 and $100 for the inspection
[2:29:07] » and then so it's 350 for the year."
>> Mhm.
[2:29:10] » Okay.
>> Correct.
[2:29:13] » Okay. Yes. I've got a concern that you
these are absentee owners and if we try
[2:29:17] to do it per day, I would think nearly
everyone's going to have a, you know,
[2:29:21] $3,000 or so by day two or three. Um
that I I like the idea of a of a time
[2:29:27] frame in between those
um you know, the fees, you know,
[2:29:32] increasing. Um so I think of maybe a
bigger fee initially for not having the
[2:29:38] license. Um, but I think there needs to
be a time frame in between. If you've
[2:29:43] got an absency owner that's on the other
side of the country, depending on what
[2:29:46] time of day you contact them, they've
already lost a day. Um, and so I think
[2:29:50] that we're getting to a point where then
it's going to get everybody's going to
[2:29:54] be looking at really high fees and it's
going to just not to say get out of
[2:29:58] hand, but it's going to get very
expensive on them and they'll probably
[2:30:02] come back to say I responded as soon as
I could and now I'm, you know, I would
[2:30:07] think a 48 or 72h hour response time
would be reasonable for somebody, but
[2:30:12] then if they're looking at a $3,000 fine
because it was the weekend or they were
[2:30:16] gone or family emergency or they were in
Tahiti or whatever,
[2:30:19] that
>> it it would be troublesome. So, I think
[2:30:23] that there should be a I like the idea
of a 15 day window in between each each
[2:30:28] increase.
>> Yeah. How are uh noise uh disturbances
[2:30:32] dealt with currently? So, if you get a
fine for a noise disturbance and then
[2:30:36] you have it the following day, how do we
currently rectify that issue? Is it day
[2:30:42] it's compounding?
>> It's dependent on it's dependent on how
[2:30:44] the note that the it's served, the
citation is served. So if it's served in
[2:30:48] person then it's it can be applied
immediate then well usually there's a
[2:30:52] period there's a 15 period day period of
correction if it's served in period in
[2:30:56] person and typically a 20-day if it's
mailed. Um however there's a caveat in
[2:31:01] the code that if it has to do with
health safety and welfare you can apply
[2:31:05] it immediately.
So, you know, and and if you want to be
[2:31:09] consistent with that and based off the
council's comments, then then you you
[2:31:13] could you could add a 15-day, especially
considering a lot of these probably
[2:31:17] would be mailed.
>> In the ordinance, they are required to
[2:31:20] have somebody that's responsible 247 and
that person be the one that pays the fee
[2:31:25] if an owner is
>> on the ball is going to have that person
[2:31:29] be able to take care of that. So, I
think that that's on on the owner to to
[2:31:32] make sure that that happens.
>> Okay. So, um,
[2:31:37] » one more comment, please.
>> Yeah.
[2:31:39] » Um, this is a first reading, right?
>> Yeah.
[2:31:42] » I think there's too many unknowns and
too many different ideas up here that we
[2:31:49] should bring it back for another, you
know, you you take into account what
[2:31:53] we're what we're talking about. Try and
find something that sort of addresses
[2:31:56] what we're concerned with and then we
bring it back for the next one as
[2:32:00] opposed to approving anything tonight.
>> Can we narrow down the concerns first?
[2:32:04] So, I'm I know it's the fees. What are
the other concerns?
[2:32:07] » I think we've voiced all the concerns
and I think you you guys normally what
[2:32:10] you do is you go back and review the
video and and and look at I think you
[2:32:14] have a good sense of where we're coming
from. We're not in that kind of a hurry.
[2:32:19] I mean, there's nothing urgent that
makes us have to move forward with this
[2:32:22] tonight without getting some of our
concerns answered. Maybe you won't
[2:32:27] answer the concerns of each one of us.
But if if you put it more in a way that
[2:32:31] that I'm I know what I'm voting on right
now, I don't really know what I'm voting
[2:32:35] on because even if we give you a list of
of things that you're going to put into
[2:32:39] this and it comes back for a second
reading and we're at the point now where
[2:32:42] we need to approve it or or start over,
that's my that's my concern and that's I
[2:32:47] would
>> I would like I don't want to table it.
[2:32:49] If if I need to table it, I'll make that
motion. But I think just bring we can
[2:32:53] address that in a second reading, can't
we? No, we I and and I concur. I think
[2:32:57] based off of some of the comments,
especially if we're adding um the gap in
[2:33:01] there, it would be good for us to have
some additional time to work on the
[2:33:04] language. So, I would I would say
continue it to the first meeting in
[2:33:07] October and we can bring it back to you
with some revised language. Okay.
[2:33:11] » So, not just as a second reading. You'd
like to continue this first meeting.
[2:33:14] » First reading, correct?
>> So, I will move to continue this to the
[2:33:17] first meeting in October.
>> I'll second.
[2:33:20] » All right. Can I get a roll call,
please?
[2:33:22] » Council member Laura?
>> Yes.
[2:33:23] » Council member Finn. Yes.
>> Council member Martinez.
[2:33:26] » Yes.
>> Mayor Prom White.
[2:33:28] » Yes.
>> Mayor Voy.
[2:33:29] » Yes.
>> All right. Well, we will go on to our
[2:33:33] next public hearing. Ebikes and
e-conveyance ordinance. Also, a staff
[2:33:37] report by Mr. Usher.
[2:33:58] Good evening, mayor and city council.
The items on the dis are the corrected
[2:34:03] versions with this uh ordinance. They're
just adjustments in the formatting.
[2:34:08] » So there's no adjustments or changes to
the to the fine amounts. It's just the
[2:34:11] formatting.
>> Got it.
[2:34:17] So tonight, council's first review of a
comprehensive local ordinance addressing
[2:34:22] bicycles, ebikes, e scooters, and other
electric conveyances. Staff is asking
[2:34:27] council to review this ordinance, adopt
the fee related schedule, and establish
[2:34:32] a clear framework for how these devices
may be operated and forced within the
[2:34:37] city.
[2:34:41] So why this ordinance is needed? Now,
the use of ebikes, e- scooters, and
[2:34:46] similar devices has increased
significantly both for transportation
[2:34:50] and recreation. With that growth, staff
has seen more concerns involving
[2:34:54] excessive speed, reckless riding,
conflicts with pedestrian and motorists,
[2:34:59] and the use of motorized devices in
parks and other areas that were not
[2:35:03] designated for this specific activity.
We're also seeing high-powered electric
[2:35:08] scooters off off the highway and
sometimes even driven on sidewalks,
[2:35:13] which does not fit neatly within the
rules most residents associate with
[2:35:16] traditional ebikes. The purpose of this
ordinance to give riders, parents, and
[2:35:21] enforcement staff one clear set of
operational standards.
[2:35:29] The ordinance focused primarily on
unsafe operation where these devices can
[2:35:33] be used. It prohibits riding against
traffic, unsafe passengers, racing,
[2:35:38] stunts, willies around pedestrians or
vehicles, distracted riding, operating
[2:35:43] without required lighting or helmet, and
operating on sidewalks or unnecessary or
[2:35:49] prohibited areas. Sidewalk riding would
be limited to 5 mph or a lower speed
[2:35:54] when conditions require it, and riders
must yield when entering sidewalks or
[2:35:59] roadways. E-conveyances would also be
prohibited in city parks, recreation
[2:36:04] areas, athletic fields, landscaped
areas, or similarly public spaces unless
[2:36:09] the city specifically designates those
areas for that use.
[2:36:17] So, the ordinance also specifically
addresses electric offhighway
[2:36:21] motorcycles. Unless they are lawfully
manufactured and registered for
[2:36:25] onhighway use, they would not be
permitted on public streets, sidewalks,
[2:36:29] parks, paths, or trails. The ordinance
preserves ADA mobility devices use and
[2:36:34] exempt for first responders performing
official duties. Helmet requirements are
[2:36:39] already within the code, which is why
it's not mentioned specifically in this
[2:36:42] code.
For minors, a parent or guardian may be
[2:36:46] held responsible for these violations,
and limited empoundment authority would
[2:36:50] be allowed if a device is to be taken
for safekeeping when an unaccompanied
[2:36:54] minor is operating in a manner that
creates an immediate danger for
[2:36:57] themselves or the public.
The proposed penalties on the screen, as
[2:37:02] you can see, for first violation offense
of any violation of this code is $500.
[2:37:09] And there's an error supposed to be
2,000, not 200. The second violation is
[2:37:14] a thousand and the third violation is
2,000. That is correct in the ordinance,
[2:37:18] just not on the presentation.
So there is a comparison with the city
[2:37:22] of Akypo, which is what we heavily base
this ordinance on where every violation
[2:37:26] is a $2,000 fine. Now the city of Meny,
they have similar to our standard
[2:37:31] administrative citation, which is a
$100, $200, and $500 tiered amount
[2:37:36] citation.
[2:37:42] So this ordinance is intended to provide
a meaningful enforcement tool, but
[2:37:46] education and clear notice are also
important. Community services and staff
[2:37:50] plan to update park signage after
adoption, and the city manager or their
[2:37:54] designate would have the authority to
designate additional no dismount or
[2:37:59] restricted areas within the within the
city specifically to address any safety
[2:38:03] concerns. Staff recommends that the city
council wave the first reading, adopt
[2:38:08] the resolution, and return and staff
will return with the ordinance for a
[2:38:12] second reading at the next available
council meeting. The goal of this is not
[2:38:15] to discourage ebike use. Is to create
predictable rules so these devices can
[2:38:20] be used safely and responsibly without
creating unnecessary conflicts in the
[2:38:24] streets, sidewalk, parks, or other
public areas. That concludes my
[2:38:28] presentation and staff's available for
any questions. I I just want to add to
[2:38:31] there actually is one mention of helmets
under 10390205.
[2:38:36] It refers to chapter 10.35
and actually we're recommending that
[2:38:40] that that um a subsection 5 be removed
um just because it's duplicative and
[2:38:48] already in in chapter 10.35 of the
municipal code which is our helmet
[2:38:53] ordinance. We don't feel like it it
needs to be um restated twice.
[2:39:01] And also um the helmet issue is already
covered in our existing ordinance and
[2:39:08] it's also raised again in 1039050
BNC. So we'd recommend approving it with
[2:39:14] those provisions deleted because we feel
like it's adequately covered.
[2:39:24] All right. Thank you. I will open up the
public hearing at 7:31. Do we have any
[2:39:29] public comments?
[2:39:33] » I have no written requests. Simone, do
we have any callers on the line?
[2:39:36] » We have no callers at this time.
>> All right. I will close the public
[2:39:41] hearing at 7:31 and open it up for
council discussion. Council member Lara.
[2:39:47] » Thank you, Mayor. Um, I had brought this
up last year, so just want to thank
[2:39:51] staff for getting on this so quickly.
And my concern at that time was I was
[2:39:55] coaching little kids on the soccer team
and they were we were in the park
[2:39:59] practicing and it was a bunch of ebikes
turn terrorizing the uh the park. Um,
[2:40:06] since then though there's been a lot of
ebike issues in regards to accidents,
[2:40:12] hospitalization as a result of those
accidents, kids riding. I mean, you see
[2:40:16] them riding all through the town without
helmets and uh and they're traveling at
[2:40:20] a high rate of speed. It just so I it's
it's good that we've got this. I think
[2:40:25] the timing is is right. Um as a the
school leaison, I did reach out to the
[2:40:31] school district because I think we need
to I really like the ordinance and I
[2:40:35] think I'd like to try to obviously if
council agrees to partner with the
[2:40:40] school district on a educ some type of
an education campaign for this
[2:40:44] ordinance.
um and and if possible to do some type
[2:40:49] of training for these uh kids that are
using these ebikes because they they
[2:40:55] they go a lot faster than they appear.
Um I got on one and haven't been on one
[2:41:00] since. So um that could be just cuz I'm
old, but I don't you know I don't want
[2:41:04] to go that going down that road. But I
think this timing is perfect. I
[2:41:07] appreciate the efforts that have been
put forth by staff. Um I like the
[2:41:11] ordinance. I just want to make sure that
we get that word out and let folks know
[2:41:14] that there is a ordinance that we have
that we're looking at. Thank you, Mayor.
[2:41:20] » Absolutely. Uh, Council Member Fen.
>> Uh, yes. Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I know
[2:41:25] that there's some legislation that's
being proposed or maybe even recently
[2:41:30] signed in reference to um, ebikes and so
forth at the state level. Is there
[2:41:35] anything that in process on that that
would impact what we're trying to do
[2:41:39] tonight?
So, I have a ledge update coming next
[2:41:43] council meeting that will address those
concerns. However, there are a few
[2:41:47] bills. I think it's about four or five
bills that address it. Some do include
[2:41:51] education. Some include speeds and even
the types of vehicles that are allowed
[2:41:54] to travel based on the speed that they
have. So, if a vehicle is in excess of a
[2:41:59] certain speed, then it requires
educational and then the state will then
[2:42:03] come out with how we're supposed to
enforce that and the time frame for it.
[2:42:06] But, I'll have more information during
the ledge update on the 15th. Okay.
[2:42:10] Thank you.
>> Piggybacking on that just a little bit,
[2:42:14] do you feel confident that this
ordinance will meet those if any of
[2:42:17] those do pass or get signed into law?
>> Yes. So, drafting this ordinance, we had
[2:42:21] it in mind that these were going to pass
due to in contact with our legislative
[2:42:25] consultant. All these bills have been
flying through the committees. So, none
[2:42:28] of them look like they won't pass, but
we've made sure that the ordinance is
[2:42:31] compliant with those bills, making sure
that if they do pass, we wouldn't have
[2:42:35] to change anything.
>> Okay, great. Thank you, Mayor Prom. Uh,
[2:42:39] first of all, I I like Mr. Lara's idea.
I think partnering with the school
[2:42:44] because I think who we really have to
reach are the parents who are going to
[2:42:47] have to pay these fines. Um, my question
here is in in the definitions you talk
[2:42:53] about um
where is it? It's an offhighway
[2:42:57] motorcycle. We're talking about an
electric vehicle that drives as fast as
[2:43:02] a motorcycle or we are actually talking
about mo gas gas motorcycles.
[2:43:08] So all this is in related to
specifically to electric vehicles. Now
[2:43:12] there are electric motorcycles that go
just as fast 60 mi or even higher. And
[2:43:17] so the whole point of this is
specifically is some of those are ridden
[2:43:21] off on the sidewalks on the side of the
street and in parks in some instances.
[2:43:26] So it's in hopes to regulate those
specific vehicles. Um I have two
[2:43:30] concerns. Uh number one is I think uh
Mr. Finn can attest to this, but you
[2:43:37] drive up and down or go for a walk on um
Oak View
[2:43:42] » Oak View and there are gas motorcycles
going on the sidewalks. Do we have an
[2:43:47] ordinance for that? Do we have a way to,
you know, to penalize that?
[2:43:52] » Yep. So, that falls under the vehicle
code and what's allowed on on streets
[2:43:56] and highways. Um this further refineses
that. So, offhighway vehicles as defined
[2:44:01] from here would be essentially a bike
without pedals. It's a motorcycle, an
[2:44:05] electric motorcycle. So, there's vehicle
code, California vehicle code
[2:44:09] definitions for this. And I'm happy to
call um Chief or his design up to
[2:44:13] » because my, you know, my concern is um
especially with what you guys just said
[2:44:18] um is that gas driven motorcycles
um are a vehicle violation, which means
[2:44:27] the police are involved. are they
involved with electric bikes or is that
[2:44:32] something that a that a citizen can can
file a complaint? Um and then the other
[2:44:38] question I have is there is an area
right in front of um my my development
[2:44:45] where I live in Stson. It's a goodiz
area that is a
[2:44:50] required natural um natural area the
city owns and maintains. Um, and it's
[2:44:57] turning into a motorcycle track because
the kids are going out there both with
[2:45:02] ebikes and with ga mainly gas motorcycle
and they're not kids. They're in their,
[2:45:07] you know, I would call them kids, but
they're adults.
[2:45:10] » Oh, so they're my age.
>> No. [laughter]
[2:45:16] » Uh, thanks.
>> Sorry.
[2:45:18] » Thanks.
>> I could get I couldn't. But if we're not
[2:45:22] addressing that um here I know that in
here it talks about uh these vehicles
[2:45:27] cannot these rules and restrictions are
based on being on city rightaway
[2:45:33] property. Um and so again I just wonder
if if there's not a way to to make this
[2:45:38] apply to uh kids on on motorcycles
because they're all over Oakland or Oak
[2:45:46] View. Yeah. So anyways, that's just my
two cents.
[2:45:52] » Yeah, just to address if the question is
is yeah, the those that are riding in
[2:45:56] the field as well as on um city manager
said when it comes to the gas uh
[2:46:01] motorcycles, we yeah, anything on the
roadway has to meet the same as the DMV
[2:46:05] for blinkers, for you know, brake lights
and so on so forth. So, we have that
[2:46:09] ability to um they would have to have a
license that meet the requirements as
[2:46:15] well as have a valid driver's license.
We can sign them for that. Impound the
[2:46:19] motorcycle, impound the vehicle. And we
do that as well with some of the e-
[2:46:24] motorcycles um as well that uh as Miss
Rusher mentioned when it comes to the um
[2:46:31] that do reach up to that 60 plus mile an
hour and treat them as as vehicles on
[2:46:36] the roadway and have to have licenses
accordingly. So the ordinance would
[2:46:39] strengthen that or give us another
option to enforce um when it comes to um
[2:46:44] it's nice to have multiple options out
there and hold accountability. Sometimes
[2:46:47] at the local side we have that more in
our grasp to uh deal with than through
[2:46:53] maybe the court system. So it gives
gives options.
[2:46:57] » Okay. Um
okay. Thank you.
[2:47:00] » Does that Okay.
>> I too want to I just thank you. I think
[2:47:04] this adds to the tool in the tool box
that we have to enforce some of these
[2:47:08] things. Um we have a a local neighbor
that rides up and down the street doing
[2:47:12] wheelies every day and I think Addison
screams and yells at him every time.
[2:47:16] you're going to die. Um because she too
is concerned for this uh kid as well. Um
[2:47:22] additionally, I think that the education
campaign if we could coordinate through
[2:47:25] the PIO and communications office I
think would be absolutely vital
[2:47:29] specifically for the younger generation
um who are writing these that maybe
[2:47:34] they're writing them when their parents
aren't home or are working um and they
[2:47:37] don't even know that their kids are on
them uh out during those time frames. So
[2:47:40] um thank you for the work on this. I
think that it um you know the goal is
[2:47:44] compliance once again and not revenue
and that it is a true public safety
[2:47:48] concern. Um I am back in the hospital
now as a nurse and I can't tell you how
[2:47:52] many of these um I mean we call them
auto versus auto at this point, right?
[2:47:57] Or auto they're not auto peds um because
it's not hitting a pedestrian. This is
[2:48:01] truly an auto versus auto uh traffic
collision for us now with the impacts
[2:48:05] and they have much less um protective
gear on um and the speeds are
[2:48:10] essentially the same. So, the injuries
um are significant. So, um I truly thank
[2:48:15] you guys for the work that's gone into
this because I know that it was
[2:48:18] collaborative.
So, with that, if there's no further
[2:48:22] comments or no changes,
um I will move to wave the full reading
[2:48:28] um and adopt the recommended action.
>> I'll second.
[2:48:32] » All right. Can I get a roll call,
please?
[2:48:34] » Council member Laura,
>> yes.
[2:48:35] » Council member Finn,
>> yes.
[2:48:37] » Council member Martinez,
>> yes.
[2:48:38] » Mayor Prom White,
>> yes. Moroy.
[2:48:41] » Yes.
All right. That takes us to our action
[2:48:46] items and we will be moving on to item
J1, memorandum of understanding with the
[2:48:51] Bowmont Chamber of Commerce for fiscal
year 2627 sponsorships and determination
[2:48:57] uh that the sponsorships provide a
public benefit. And for that we have a
[2:49:02] staff report by Julie
[2:49:07] and Laura.
>> Good evening council. Um I do that every
[2:49:10] time and um actually Laurel will be
joining too um for tonight's
[2:49:15] presentation. So before you is anou
between the city and the Bowmont Chamber
[2:49:19] of Commerce and in the audience today we
have executive director Crystal Leaper
[2:49:24] with us um here tonight to support um
theou in front of you is just under
[2:49:29] 40,000. Um it was actually um the amount
was already approved in your budget
[2:49:34] allocation back in June.
The agreement itself before you is just
[2:49:40] um to establish a framework uh between
the city and the chamber with a primary
[2:49:44] focus on planning and presenting the
2026 state of the city. The um how theou
[2:49:50] is written the chamber will take lead on
hosting and supporting this year's event
[2:49:55] um which includes a couple things such
as collaboration on the event
[2:49:58] production, some marketing and
collaboration here with the city as well
[2:50:02] as engagement and with our business
community.
[2:50:06] the city will provide some leadership
content um highlighting accomplishments,
[2:50:11] video um production um information on
our current projects, programs, and
[2:50:15] future initiatives to name a few. So um
the other half of the the agreement also
[2:50:22] provides a structure for other community
and business initiatives um throughout
[2:50:27] the year that we do with the chamber.
And so at this point, I'm going to hand
[2:50:30] it over to Laura to talk a little bit
about that.
[2:50:36] Good evening, mayor and council. Thank
you. So, as Julie said, the main focus
[2:50:40] of thisou agreement is um regarding the
state of the city event coming up.
[2:50:46] That's $30,000 of the proposed $37,350.
[2:50:52] The remaining
$7,350 of thisou agreement covers other
[2:50:58] events that we traditionally do in
partnership with the Chamber of Commerce
[2:51:01] throughout the year. Those are listed on
the final page of exhibit A in your
[2:51:05] packet and they include the uh one
sponsorship of a good Morning Bowont
[2:51:10] breakfast at $300. The communitywide
business egg hunt sponsorship which is
[2:51:15] an event that the chamber organizes and
the city supports that gets the
[2:51:19] community going out and visiting
different businesses all throughout the
[2:51:22] city. And that we split the cost of in
half. So, it's estimated that that costs
[2:51:29] about will cost about $700 this year.
And then the chamber's annual
[2:51:34] recognition night, the city has
traditionally provided whatever the top
[2:51:38] level sponsorship. And on some of these,
you'll see a range. This says 3500 up to
[2:51:42] $5,000. That's because the chamber has
recognized that some of their
[2:51:46] sponsorship prices need to increase a
little bit this year because the cost of
[2:51:50] putting on events has gone up quite
dramatically. So, so the first numbers
[2:51:54] there that you're seeing are kind of
what they've historically been, but the
[2:51:57] projected new amounts for this year are
those higher higher numbers. And then
[2:52:02] the final one is our chamber sustaining
membership, which we get lots of great
[2:52:06] recognition for at $1350.
So those those events combined make up
[2:52:11] the remainder of this amount. And in
total, as Julie said, it all falls well
[2:52:16] under the initial $40,000 that was
allocated in the budget. Um, so we are
[2:52:22] happy to answer any questions. Either
Julie, myself, or Crystal.
[2:52:26] » All right. Great. Thank you.
>> All right. Do we have any public comment
[2:52:30] on this item?
>> I have no written requests. Simone, do
[2:52:33] we have any callers on the line?
>> We have no callers at this time.
[2:52:37] » Okay. We will open it up for council
discussion.
[2:52:42] All right. Seeing none, I'll entertain a
motion.
[2:52:47] Mayor, I'll make a motion to move and
approve the memorandum of understanding
[2:52:50] between the city of Bumont and the
Bowmont Chamber of Commerce authorizing
[2:52:54] sponsorships for fiscal year 2627 and
further determine that the sponsorship
[2:52:58] provide a public benefit because the
help support they help support and
[2:53:04] further local businesses within the
community.
[2:53:07] » I'll second.
>> All right. Can I get a roll call,
[2:53:09] please?
>> Council member Laura,
[2:53:11] » yes.
>> Council member Finn,
[2:53:12] » yes.
>> Council member Martinez,
[2:53:14] » yes. Mayor Prom White,
>> yes.
[2:53:16] » Mayor Voy,
>> yes.
[2:53:19] » All right. Thank you.
And that will take us to J2.
[2:53:24] Consideration of a relocation agreement
between the city of Bowmont and Lamar
[2:53:28] Advertising Company. And uh Mr. Steven
Jones.
[2:53:32] » Yes. Good evening, your honor. Again,
thank you. Mayor Pro Tim and council
[2:53:34] members, assistant planner Kylie
Presiato will briefly present key
[2:53:38] details for tonight's council
consideration of a proposed relocation
[2:53:42] agreement. Miss Braciato.
>> Good evening, council members and mayor.
[2:53:46] Kylie Brciato, planning staff. The item
before you tonight is a request to
[2:53:50] review and consider the resolution in
the billboard relocation agreement
[2:53:53] between the city of Bowmont and Lamore
Central Outdoor LLC.
[2:53:58] The project was approved pending a
relocation agreement with terms that are
[2:54:02] agreeable to the city. The proposed
relocation agreement is subject to the
[2:54:06] council's discretion regarding
parameters. The request is to convert
[2:54:09] the southern face of the existing static
billboard located at 174 Bowmont Avenue
[2:54:14] to an electronic billboard with a
digital display. Lamar Outdoor Palm
[2:54:18] Springs limited a sign permit
application to the city prior to the
[2:54:21] draft billboard ordinance. Therefore,
the application is not subject to
[2:54:25] pending regulations. The existing static
billboard was originally constructed in
[2:54:29] 1989, but in March 2007, the city passed
provisions prohibiting billboards making
[2:54:35] the billboard non-conforming.
On July 22nd, 2026, the planning
[2:54:40] commission unanimously approved the
billboard.
[2:54:43] The existing billboard is located in the
community commercial zone and has a
[2:54:47] general land use designation of general
commercial. The billboard policy in the
[2:54:52] Bowmont Municipal Code allows existing
billboards to be relocated through a
[2:54:55] relocation agreement with the city.
The proposed project would deconstruct
[2:55:01] and remove the existing south-facing
billboard face and construct a new
[2:55:05] electronic billboard in the same
location with a slight change in
[2:55:08] orientation. The north face is proposed
to remain static, but the south facing
[2:55:12] display would be converted to a digital
display measuring 9 ft 8.25 in by 32 ft
[2:55:18] and maintain an overall height of 28 ft
10 in. The applicant also proposes to
[2:55:24] install a decorative support pole that
incorporates city of Bowmont
[2:55:27] identification.
The proposed relocation is subject to
[2:55:32] council's discretion for parameters. The
staff recommends that city council
[2:55:36] review and consider the resolution and
relocation agreement and if terms are
[2:55:40] not agreeable, direct staff to make
findings for subsequent council action.
[2:55:46] This concludes my presentation. We are
happy to answer any questions that you
[2:55:50] might have.
All right, thank you for that. Do we
[2:55:54] have any public comments related to this
item?
[2:55:56] » Yes, I do. I have a couple in person.
>> Uh, first one is last name of Fiser.
[2:56:03] [snorts]
[2:56:11] Oh, I see.
[2:56:15] » Um, Mayor Voit, uh, Mayor Pon White,
members of the council, my name is Ethan
[2:56:20] Fischer and I'm from AMG Outdoor
Advertising. We would urge the council
[2:56:25] to reject the relocation agreement. Um,
we understand that the planning
[2:56:29] commission next week is going to be
considering a um a uh comprehensive
[2:56:35] ordinance to regulate all digital
signage. And uh we feel that you should
[2:56:39] establish a co coherent policy governing
the number location, concentration of
[2:56:44] digital billboards before allowing
additional conversions. Um we spoke
[2:56:48] about the signs being illegal
non-conforming. Uh once these signs are
[2:56:51] up, they're impossible to get down. The
the city's got to pay pay to get them
[2:56:55] down. We're concerned because we're
spending about a million dollars to
[2:56:59] construct a welcome to Bumont sign on
the 10 freeway that's supposed to reach
[2:57:04] 140,000 140,000 cars a day and try to
bring people into the city to shop,
[2:57:09] shop, and spend money here. Um, there is
a limited advertising market and the
[2:57:15] investment we're making requires that we
be able to sell advertising at certain
[2:57:19] rates. Lamar is one of the largest
companies in the country. They have
[2:57:23] signs in 45 states. I think they haveund
uh let's see actually
[2:57:29] 360,000 signs across the United States
and in Canada. Uh this is a minor deal
[2:57:35] for them. This is a major deal for AMG.
We're a local company. Uh this is a uh
[2:57:40] sign we're we care about. We're going to
maintain. We're going to try to promote
[2:57:44] the city. We're going to offer discounts
to local businesses when we have this
[2:57:48] kind of competition. And we're not we're
not uh concerned so much about fair
[2:57:53] competition, but this is going to be
oversaturation. There's only these you
[2:57:57] have to remember these signs. Each one
of these signs has eight slides on it.
[2:58:01] So this one sign becomes effectively
eight signs on one side and the static
[2:58:06] sign remains one sign. So you're adding
you're adding eight additional signs,
[2:58:11] seven additional signs to the city. Uh
the air the advertising traffic in there
[2:58:16] already can't support this. So, it's
going to mean that we're going to have
[2:58:19] less money for maintenance, less money
to um provide discounts for local
[2:58:23] businesses and free advertising to the
city. And just generally, it's not it's
[2:58:28] not a good idea. What you want to have
is you want recognition of Bowmont. You
[2:58:32] want people driving through here to know
that they're in Bowmont and to want to
[2:58:36] stop here. You don't want saturation,
oversaturation of these signs. Um, in
[2:58:41] particular, we want the planning
commission to consider the the how much
[2:58:44] light pollution you want, how how much
of these these glowing signs you want at
[2:58:48] night. One sign is a nice nice feature
to tell people where they are, but you
[2:58:53] don't want a forest of these things.
We've encountered this sort of thing in
[2:58:56] other cities and it just is not it's not
economically viable. It the South Bay
[2:59:01] curve in Los Angeles or in Long Beach
area is a good example. It's just run
[2:59:05] down because there's no money for the
advertising and the structures are not
[2:59:09] maintained and so forth. If I have any
if there are any questions, I'd be happy
[2:59:12] to answer it.
>> Thank you.
[2:59:14] » Thank you.
[2:59:18] » I have one more speaker, uh, Lesie
Lockin.
[2:59:28] » Good evening, honorable mayor and
council members. It's good to see you
[2:59:31] all again.
Um Lamar, first of all, I want to
[2:59:35] respectfully disagree with uh the
comments ahead of of mine or or what I
[2:59:41] have to say. Um fair care competition is
something that exists in every market
[2:59:47] and um one comment I want to address is
the uh oversaturation.
[2:59:54] um this would be a second digital
billboard and I would not consider that
[2:59:59] oversaturation
um of digital billboards. The
[3:00:04] location that we proposed is a gateway
to the city and we we feel that we chose
[3:00:10] this location because of the gateway to
the city and the benefit that it has to
[3:00:15] the city with the decorative sign and
the identification welcome to Bowmont.
[3:00:21] Um, my comments are to address the
alternative recommended by staff or
[3:00:28] suggested [snorts] by staff. Lamar
respectfully asks council to approve
[3:00:32] plan 2026-0042
as recommended by staff and by the
[3:00:38] planning commission without imposing the
takedown alternative described on the
[3:00:42] last page of the staff report. The
alternative should not be adopted for
[3:00:46] four reasons and with legal input
provided by our council as follows.
[3:00:51] First, the al alternative is
inconsistent with the very draft
[3:00:55] ordinance it references. The draft DBOD
ordinance under council's consideration
[3:01:00] would require a 3:1 takedown ratio only
for new digital billboards approved by a
[3:01:06] major sign permit within the Bowmont
Freeway digital billboard overlay
[3:01:11] district along Interstate 10 or State
Route 60. The Mr. Taco site is on State
[3:01:18] Route 79 and is not within the proposed
overlay. More fundamentally, the draft
[3:01:24] ordinance expressly accepts from the 3:1
ratio any project authorized through a
[3:01:30] relocation agreement under section 17C
08040
[3:01:36] M2,
which is exactly the path Mr. Taco
[3:01:40] follows. Even if the draft ordinance
were adopted tomorrow, it would not
[3:01:44] require a 3:1 takedown for this project.
Second, applying an unadopted ordinance
[3:01:50] to a pending application is contr
contrary to California law and to basic
[3:01:55] fairness under settled California land
use principles and applicants rights are
[3:02:00] determined by the ordinances in effect
when the complete applica application is
[3:02:04] filed. Lamar submitted its complete
application in March 2026 and staff has
[3:02:11] expressly determined in the staff report
before council today that the subject
[3:02:16] application has been evaluated under and
is consistent with the city's existing
[3:02:21] regulations. The alternative will layer
on a requirement that staff in its own
[3:02:26] professional judgment did not find
necessary or applicable under the rules
[3:02:30] that actually govern.
Third, Lamar has been working on this
[3:02:35] project with the city since 2024 in
reliance on the rules then and now in
[3:02:39] effect. Through Lamar's initial inquiry
in 2024,
[3:02:45] I received an email confirmation from
the city that this location would be
[3:02:50] acceptable and that Lamar could move
forward. Since that time, Lamar has
[3:02:54] expended substantial time, resources,
including engineering, application fees,
[3:02:59] entitlement work, and attorney work.
Changing the rules at the final approval
[3:03:04] stage based on an ordinance that has not
been adopted undermines any applicant's
[3:03:09] ability to rely on published city codes.
Fourth, the alternative would establish
[3:03:15] a precedent that harms every future
applicant in Bowmont. If council can
[3:03:20] impose the terms of an unadopted
ordinance on pending fully vetted
[3:03:25] applications, no applicant can plan,
invest, or process a project through
[3:03:30] Bumont with any confidence in the
standards that will actually govern
[3:03:34] approval. The city's own interest in an
orderly and predictable entitlement
[3:03:39] process cuts strongly against this
alternative.
[3:03:43] We are prepared to move forward
immediately and with the modernization
[3:03:47] of this site as discussed and we believe
this agreement represents a balanced
[3:03:52] reasonable path forward for both Lamar
and the city.
[3:03:57] Lamar respectfully requests approval as
recommended by staff and by the planning
[3:04:02] commission. Thank you for your
consideration.
[3:04:09] Simone, do we have any callers on the
line?
[3:04:13] We have no callers at this time.
>> Okay. Very good. I will open it up for
[3:04:18] council discussion.
[clears throat]
[3:04:23] » Council member Fen.
>> U Mayor U. I have a point of order
[3:04:27] question. Could we give uh Mr. Ethan
Fischer another minute or two to
[3:04:31] respond? Um given that Lesie went over
the three minutes.
[3:04:37] » Yeah, we can.
>> Thank you.
[3:04:39] Um I would just point out that uh this
is a discretionary action by the
[3:04:44] council. Uh there's no there's no issue
that uh Lamar's relied upon laws in
[3:04:49] place. The law in place says that the
council can approve or disapprove. It's
[3:04:53] entirely discretionary. Um again Lamar
has built for example a bunch of bunch
[3:04:59] of these signs on the 91 freeway. We're
aware because we have other operators
[3:05:03] out there that the sign advertising
rates have plummeted to about $2,000 per
[3:05:08] slide, which is not viable. The signs
can't can't maintain and the other
[3:05:12] companies are going out of business.
This is the equivalent of letting Costco
[3:05:15] come in and driving out smaller
businesses. Uh this is a major major
[3:05:19] investment for AMG. Lamar's not even
putting up two two sides. They're
[3:05:23] spending a little bit of money to
modernize one side because this is not
[3:05:27] this is only a dot on a on a national
map for them. this we we is a Southern
[3:05:32] California company. We're in Corona and
we have a limited number of signs in
[3:05:37] premier locations that we we've for
example put one in uh banning and we've
[3:05:42] we've invested a great deal in the land
empire and it's important to us uh far
[3:05:46] more important as a local company than a
national company. Uh this is not about
[3:05:50] competition. This is about a controlled
growth. The city is going to put one
[3:05:54] large welcome to a bowont sign on the 10
freeway the major entrance to the city.
[3:05:58] uh other other growth should be planned
and if this if the planning commission
[3:06:02] is going to put come up with an overall
overall uh idea of how many signs you
[3:06:06] want because you can't get rid of these
again you have bill you have static
[3:06:10] billboards in the in town and I'm sure
you would get rid of those if you could
[3:06:13] but you can't and you're going to end up
with a situation if you do this peace
[3:06:17] meal where you've got digital signs
where you don't want them night
[3:06:21] » okay thank you all right council member
Laurara
[3:06:26] » thank you mayor Um so just just to
verify this um relocation agreement is a
[3:06:33] discretionary action. Correct.
>> Yes, that's correct.
[3:06:38] » Okay. Um
so ju just a a couple things. One is I'd
[3:06:44] like because I believe Lamar has
reviewed the draft ordinance. Um Mr.
[3:06:49] Fischer, have you had an opportunity to
review the draft ordinance as well? I
[3:06:53] just would suggest that you do that. We
would appreciate any input you have uh
[3:06:57] just as well as any other billboard uh
company.
[3:07:01] » Thank you.
>> Um
[3:07:04] I
mayor pro Tim White had brought up a a
[3:07:08] point early on when we that we first
started discussing this which was the
[3:07:12] option for potential revenue sharing of
electronic billboards. Um, I would like
[3:07:19] staff to consider that. Um, work with
the developer to see if that's something
[3:07:24] that they would be interested in. Um, I
do think that the removal of at least
[3:07:29] three static signs or something else
that the developer would agree to would
[3:07:32] be something we could work on. Um, I I
like the sign, but I would like to see
[3:07:39] something a little bit more monument
type style that is coming into Bulmont.
[3:07:44] It is the only sign coming in off the
79. So, I like the direction they're
[3:07:48] going, but I would just like to see
maybe something a little bit um
[3:07:53] more stylish, I guess I would say. Um
and those would be the the things that I
[3:08:00] would like and the staff to give an up
to give staff an opportunity to discuss
[3:08:04] with the developer. Thank you, Mayor.
>> Sure. Mayor Promip.
[3:08:08] » Um wow. Um,
I've been working on this for five, six
[3:08:14] years trying to get a movement towards
more billboard signs or I'm sorry,
[3:08:19] digital signs. And I think one of the
issues as as Mr. Laura just brought up
[3:08:23] is is the ability to uh to share
revenue. I know that that's happening in
[3:08:30] other cities. Um, and I think but at the
same time, you know, he brings up my
[3:08:36] argument that now it makes sense the
revenue. I'm going to bring up his
[3:08:40] argument which was that we
[clears throat] believed that
[3:08:47] Let me back up for a second. What does
our ordinance say now? Because my
[3:08:51] understanding is for years we had an
ordinance no billboard signs or no
[3:08:56] digital signs and then I thought we came
up with an ordinance that said there
[3:09:01] they were available in some cases. Um,
and if we have a draft ordinance, then
[3:09:08] the existing ordinance is is in place at
this point. Correct. So any decisions
[3:09:12] that Lamar made was based on the
ordinance at the time.
[3:09:17] She brought up two dates. She brought up
uh May of this year as far as the
[3:09:21] application and she talked about working
with the city in 2024. So I'm really I'd
[3:09:28] like to get a better understanding on
where we are as far as what's required
[3:09:31] and when it's required.
So,
[3:09:35] I'll jump in first and then they can
correct me if I'm wrong. So, council
[3:09:38] discussed um a draft ordinance several
times and the last time council
[3:09:43] discussed it uh you referred it back to
the planning commission for further
[3:09:47] refinement. That has not occurred yet.
There there um we we are continuing to
[3:09:52] work on the draft and it's most likely
going to go to planning commission next
[3:09:56] month. The so today the current
ordinance prevails and the current
[3:10:01] ordinance states that a relocation
agreement is required. It does not it's
[3:10:05] silent on digital billboards but through
through the relocation agreement excuse
[3:10:08] me through the relocation agreement a
digital billboard can be approved and uh
[3:10:15] Stephen can correct me if I'm wrong.
>> That's correct, Mr. City Manager. and
[3:10:17] and the language does include that the
term should be agreeable to the city
[3:10:21] council and that leaves it broadly open
for your discretion and your your
[3:10:25] parameters for what an agreement should
look like.
[3:10:29] » See, and and and my concern or my issue
is I don't I was a one in the four votes
[3:10:36] for this is about the maybe the fourth
time we've addressed this, third or
[3:10:40] fourth time. Um, and I thought
originally we said no digital at all.
[3:10:45] And that's what I was trying to change.
And I don't ever remember a vote coming
[3:10:49] forward that was in favor of digitals.
Um, other than the idea, I think
[3:10:56] originally we had the idea, is the
ordinance the one that says um, for
[3:11:00] every face you take down, you have to or
you want to put up, you have to take two
[3:11:05] down.
>> That's the that's one of the drafts that
[3:11:08] have come before you.
>> Okay. So So are what ordinance? What are
[3:11:11] we under right now? It's is it
>> discretion
[3:11:14] » a very broadly worded relocation
agreements should be agreeable to the
[3:11:19] terms of the city council and that that
can authorize a digital or electronic is
[3:11:24] what it's called but trending now
marketwise we call it digital but it
[3:11:27] says an electronic billboard may be
placed with approval of an a re
[3:11:31] relocation agreement. So, all the all
the discussions and and votes we've had
[3:11:36] in the past
um I thought were to allow digital
[3:11:41] boards in the city and
>> subject to
[3:11:46] » sub subject to
>> let me let me read you the relevant
[3:11:49] provision of this is our existing code
>> and I'm not going to read the whole
[3:11:53] thing but I'll read what I think goes to
the point that you're uh raising a
[3:11:57] question about notwithstanding any other
provision of this chapter upon entry
[3:12:01] into a relocation agreement with the
city. In accordance with business and
[3:12:05] professions code section 5412, the owner
of an existing billboard within the city
[3:12:10] may convert a static billboard to an
electronic billboard subject to approval
[3:12:17] of a permit application. And then it
goes on and then it talks about what a
[3:12:22] relocated billboard is. A relocated
billboard is an existing billboard that
[3:12:26] is located in the city that is relocated
through a city council approved
[3:12:31] relocation agreement including the
replacement of a static billboard phase
[3:12:35] with an electronic message. The
relocated billboard is not considered a
[3:12:40] new billboard. Then under state law,
business and professions code section
[3:12:44] 5412,
it [snorts] provides um it defines what
[3:12:49] relocation is and as used in this
section includes removal of a display
[3:12:53] and construction of a new display to
substitute for the display removed. And
[3:12:58] then it talks about these relocation
agreements. It says cities are, and I'm
[3:13:02] paraphrasing, I'm just cutting to the
chase here. Cities are specifically
[3:13:06] empowered to enter into reloc relocation
agreements on whatever terms are
[3:13:13] agreeable to the display owner and the
city. So as was stated by the city
[3:13:18] manager earlier the agreement the
relocation agreement is discretionary on
[3:13:23] terms that the two parties agree to.
>> Okay. And the two parties agreeing to
[3:13:29] this is the the applicant
>> and the council. not applicant and
[3:13:36] staff.
>> So, so but at this point we do not have
[3:13:41] an application agreement until we make
it official tonight. Is that correct? I
[3:13:46] mean that was what I think that's what
uh the um the representative from Lamar
[3:13:52] pointed out was that we're going under
the original the existing ordinance
[3:13:57] » and what I just read is the existing
ordinance. So, what's before you tonight
[3:14:00] is the terms of a relocation agreement
that would permit them to replace their
[3:14:06] static billboard face with an electronic
one. But you have to agree to those
[3:14:10] terms. They have to agree to those
terms. It's a negotiated agreement.
[3:14:13] » Okay. And and a negotiated agreement, if
it's not approved by both sides, can
[3:14:18] continue to be renegotiated. Correct.
>> Right. It requires
[3:14:22] two willing parties that agree on the
terms.
[3:14:25] » Okay. And I have I have a question for
both representatives if you don't mind.
[3:14:30] » Yeah, absolutely.
>> So I'll start with the gentleman from
[3:14:32] AMG, please.
[3:14:37] » So you mentioned the sign in Banning. Um
there's two signs in Banning, right?
[3:14:42] There's another digital those, right?
There's two digital.
[3:14:46] » That's correct.
>> Who's who's the owner of the other
[3:14:48] digital?
>> Uh I believe uh actually I don't I don't
[3:14:50] know. They might be general. I'm not
sure.
[3:14:53] » Okay. And so which one is closer to your
sign?
[3:14:57] » Which of which
>> or Mr. Taco?
[3:15:00] » Oh, I see. Uh I
>> No, not Mr. Taco.
[3:15:03] » The the welcome Bont. Which banning sign
is further west?
[3:15:08] » Yours or theirs? Yours or Generals?
>> Uh Generals, I believe.
[3:15:12] » Okay. So, I just wonder um because you
bring up the saturation issue,
[3:15:18] you're saturating yourself.
>> Yes. It's just it's just a matter of how
[3:15:23] many signs you want. I'm just saying it
might be a good idea to to set overall
[3:15:27] parameters rather than do this peace
meal. That was my only suggestion.
[3:15:30] » Okay. Because I think what we discussed
and even though it's not yet ordinance
[3:15:34] that's been drafted, it's it's the the
position or the point of view of of the
[3:15:40] council was what we wanted in the
ordinance and some of those things are
[3:15:44] not um not being applied in in in this
agreement as far as I understand at this
[3:15:49] point. Uh thank you sir. If I could ask
for the other um representative,
[3:15:56] » I I my first question may be for you or
for staff. I'm sure you probably know.
[3:16:00] » Sure.
>> Um the the one that's coming in on the
[3:16:04] 79 is a much smaller billboard. Correct.
>> It would be a 10x6 by 36, which um is
[3:16:11] not Yes.
>> And what what
[3:16:14] » it would be the same size that it is
now. And what is the size of of a usual
[3:16:18] like the uh the other billboards we're
talking about?
[3:16:21] » They're called bulletins and those are
14 by 48. So this would be a smaller
[3:16:26] sign. The Mr. Taco site would be smaller
than a a freeway sign that you see. And
[3:16:32] if I may just make a couple of
corrections
[3:16:35] um to this gentleman's comments, the
billboard the there is another digital
[3:16:40] billboard on the I 10 freeway besides
the AMG sign and it is a Lamar sign and
[3:16:46] it was approved by the city to banning
under a relocation agreement oh gosh
[3:16:50] four or five years ago. Um, I'd also
like to point out that um AMG was I
[3:16:57] believe um here before council a few
weeks ago or I'm sorry maybe at the last
[3:17:02] council meeting and had a extension to
an existing relocation agreement
[3:17:08] approved to modify the sign that has
been in existence for many years that
[3:17:15] unmaintained. Um, and at that point, I
don't believe that he brought up that
[3:17:22] council should possibly delay or I'm
sorry, or approve his relocation
[3:17:28] agreement um, under the terms of the new
ordinance as he's asking that ours be
[3:17:35] but that
>> not to get in a debate or an argument
[3:17:39] with you, but um, the ordinance was just
read to us and the ordinance says that
[3:17:44] it it's mutual agreement. Absolutely.
>> And if the council here is of the
[3:17:48] mindset that we like what the direction
the draft ordinance was going
[3:17:52] » that even though it's not it's still a
draft ordinance we can talk about some
[3:17:57] of those those issues and those concerns
in that.
[3:18:01] » Let me the question I wanted to you
brought that up. So the question I
[3:18:04] wanted to ask you is the concern that
that we've all had and and Mr. Laura has
[3:18:10] presented this many times over the years
is the number of billboards on the tin.
[3:18:15] Not just digital but static billboards
and they're all Lamar, right?
[3:18:20] » Well,
>> in Bumont
[3:18:21] » in the city of Bowmont, the static
billboards are Lamar. We are the largest
[3:18:26] stakeholder. One of one of our ideas and
one of our big concerns here was that
[3:18:30] first of all, I don't have I have a
problem with the the language and I
[3:18:35] don't know where it's coming in the
draft ordinance, but I had a problem
[3:18:37] with the language that said um only the
o only owners of existing signs can can
[3:18:43] bring in new digital signs because that
limits other individuals who want to
[3:18:47] come in who may who make who may make a
better revenue offer to us than than
[3:18:52] than um than you might.
>> Sure. and and we bring in another
[3:18:58] digital off the 79. We still have I
don't know how many on do you know how
[3:19:03] many are on on Lamar that are on the 10
by the train tracks and on the other
[3:19:08] side of the freeway?
>> You know, I'm sorry I don't have that
[3:19:11] exact number with me. Um no, I don't
know. [laughter]
[3:19:14] » Will you will you um make a commitment
to re to eliminate some of those if we
[3:19:20] we start putting in digitals? and and
that is what the um Lamar has been
[3:19:26] involved and worked with Mr. Jones on
the um the forthcoming uh draft
[3:19:34] ordinance that would make those changes
and we are in agreement with the 3:1 for
[3:19:41] future ordinance. This this one that
we're here forth tonight obviously is as
[3:19:47] you are everybody is aware based on the
reading
[3:19:52] is permitted um without the takedown,
but we absolutely would agree to any
[3:19:59] future um digitals by Lamar or any
digital request or to the 3 to1
[3:20:05] takedown. In fact, when Mr. Jones
consulted us and our attorney, we we
[3:20:09] were in agreement with that.
>> Well, I I mis I guess I misunderstood
[3:20:13] either the our attorney's uh opinion or
your your opinion. um if you're in
[3:20:19] agreement to doing that. Actually, our
current ordinance says it's permitted
[3:20:26] and we don't put a restriction on how
many you have. But as we know, our
[3:20:32] current ordinance also says we can say
yes or no to whatever we want to say yes
[3:20:36] or no to.
>> That is true. And and all I'm asking for
[3:20:40] is um if if Lamar would make a
commitment going forward to to reducing
[3:20:47] the number of billboards that are on the
tin. Now I'm I'm in favor if you've
[3:20:51] watched some of our rather I'm in favor
of the billboards and I'm also in favor
[3:20:55] of the idea that we put one at each
entrance and and yours in 79 I think
[3:21:00] makes sense to me. I think uh the
welcome Bowmont coming in west makes
[3:21:04] sense. We've already agreed that the uh
the uh Regency uh property is going to
[3:21:11] have one coming in from that direction.
We've all already agreed one coming into
[3:21:15] the 60, but it doesn't address the
problem that I've been trying that I've
[3:21:19] been that Mr. Laura and I have been
discussing for years now is it doesn't
[3:21:24] bring down any additional um billboards
at this point. And we have an
[3:21:29] opportunity here to to get that kind of
commitment from you. Um, and if we have
[3:21:34] to make it part of the agreement for me
to for me to vote yes on this, um, I'm
[3:21:39] in favor of that.
>> Sure. And I I think I I I thought I had
[3:21:43] stated that we are in favor of the new
ordinance, which
[3:21:47] » but but you're saying in favor you're
not
[3:21:49] » Well, we are I'm not sure how you want
me to say it. I we are in agreement that
[3:21:55] the new ordinance should have a um 3:1
ratio takeown.
[3:22:00] » So why not take down two now? will agree
to to to your your proposal.
[3:22:05] » Couple of reasons. Um one there's a
financial impact that this sign Mr. Taco
[3:22:12] when when we um evaluate whether a
digital makes sense. We look at all the
[3:22:18] factors in revenue and and advertising
dollars and and the cost to Lamar and
[3:22:23] you know the cost to even uh upgrade
this sign with the city um wrapping pole
[3:22:28] wrapping if you is what it's called is
about $45,000. So we we consider all
[3:22:33] those factors on whether this digital
makes sense. It made sense under all the
[3:22:37] parameters with the existing ordinance
and and with the existing um parameters
[3:22:43] that the city has. We would have to take
another look at this because there may
[3:22:48] be another
sign or digital location that would make
[3:22:53] more sense if you're asking us to take
down faces. So we have to look at the
[3:22:58] financial impact and then we also look
at the impact of um your local you know
[3:23:04] the local uh land owners who are going
to be affected by this
[3:23:10] » and and I understand that and that's the
argument you brought up in the past and
[3:23:13] and I we have a shot clock up here. It's
unspoken shot clock and I'm over it
[3:23:18] [laughter] and and I can see there's
other light
[3:23:20] » but I do want to finish my thought and
that is
[3:23:24] » when we talked to you about this before
and I've had a phone call with you as
[3:23:28] well. Sure.
>> You've made the argument that those are
[3:23:31] properties that those current billboards
are billboards that are the property is
[3:23:36] owned by local land owners and we would
be impacting them for taking them down
[3:23:40] which is a really good argument. But it
also tells me that if if we put this
[3:23:45] bill if we approve your billboard now on
the 79 and then we change our we now
[3:23:51] have an ordinance in place where you
have to take two or three down, you
[3:23:54] can't take them down anyways.
>> Well, we would look at where what
[3:23:58] locations those would be. So, I mean,
there's there's
[3:24:01] » you would have to tell us and and I'm
I'm like I said, I've overdone it, but
[3:24:05] um
>> but but we look at there's there's many
[3:24:08] um considerations, financial
considerations that Lamar takes in into
[3:24:13] consideration um as to what location
makes the best sense or most sense for a
[3:24:20] digital. What's the financial impact?
What's the financial impact on taking
[3:24:23] down other signs to you know, should we
do we look at the railroad? Would that
[3:24:28] be a better um less impact so we're not
impacting local residents? There's
[3:24:33] there's several factors. I mean, the
city has a a billboard um you know, do
[3:24:38] we look at taking this city's billboard
down and reducing your revenue? I I
[3:24:42] don't think that's something we'd want
to do. [laughter]
[3:24:46] » Not a great way to to start talking
about a negotiation development
[3:24:50] [laughter] agreement.
>> No, but I think we're I think we're
[3:24:52] saying the same thing. I we are
definitely in favor of everything the
[3:24:57] new ordinance states. We are just trying
to get this approved under the current
[3:25:01] ordinance because honestly I started
this process with Carol Kendrick, I
[3:25:06] believe her name was.
>> You know, I understand, but I really
[3:25:08] would like my other my colleagues to
have a chance to speak.
[3:25:11] » No problem.
>> All right, Council Member Fen.
[3:25:13] » Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Uh staff, am I
correct that there's only two billboards
[3:25:17] on Bulmont Avenue south of the freeway?
Um, I know that there's another one at
[3:25:23] the norththeast corner of Bowmont Avenue
and Fourth Street, just a few feet away
[3:25:28] from the entrance to the freeway. So, to
my understanding, there's only two
[3:25:33] billboards on that whole part of of
Bowmont Avenue. Is that correct?
[3:25:37] » Based on Lamar's website, there's four,
but it might be four faces. I would have
[3:25:41] to validate,
>> I would think.
[3:25:42] » Okay. Um, and from a satellite photo, I
can tell that this is a two-face
[3:25:47] billboard. the one that I'm talking
about fourth and um and Bulmont Avenue.
[3:25:52] Um when as when you're driving up into
Bowmont, coming from the south, I think
[3:25:57] a monument type sign and a welcome to
Bulmont's a good idea. Um I think and
[3:26:03] the discussion with swapping billboards
for other billboards that to me would be
[3:26:09] in higher saturated areas along the 10.
I don't think we're overly saturated on
[3:26:14] 79 south of the freeway. Um, and again,
I think there's only the two billboards.
[3:26:19] Um,
Lesie, do you know if that billboard
[3:26:22] belongs to Lamar?
>> Yes. And it's um it's on the city
[3:26:25] property.
>> Okay.
[3:26:26] » So, that is that's
>> and it's a and it's a small one. It's
[3:26:30] very close to the freeway.
>> That's exactly right. That is actually
[3:26:32] city property and that is one that the
city does um you do a revenue share with
[3:26:38] the city. Okay. And they
>> they get a percentage.
[3:26:41] » Have her use the mic.
>> And I would think that that's probably
[3:26:44] not a good place for digital
billboarders. People are trying to get
[3:26:46] on the freeway right there and they're
probably not even paying attention to
[3:26:49] that quite so much.
>> It's it's a size um there's a size
[3:26:53] limitation that's a smaller billboard
and it it does not
[3:26:56] » is that even smaller than the t the Mr.
Taco one? Yes, it is. Okay. All right.
[3:27:00] » It's a considered a poster.
>> So to move forward to give some type of
[3:27:04] direction, I would I would support
what's being proposed tonight. Thank
[3:27:07] you.
>> Thank you, Council Member Martinez.
[3:27:09] » Yeah. It baffles me that we're even
having a discussion on billboards when
[3:27:13] we're process revising our ordinance.
Um, you know, there's a comment made
[3:27:18] about the uh we shouldn't be looking at
the ordinance that's still in draft form
[3:27:23] yet because it's not finalized. But the
whole idea of that is because our
[3:27:27] mindset was still in many different
places. We still don't have an agreement
[3:27:31] on an overlay. We still don't have an
agreement on how many we take down
[3:27:35] statics where they go. And to sit there
and to start saying yes, we'll approve
[3:27:39] this and that to me is ahead of
ourselves because we haven't seen the
[3:27:43] whole totality of what the ordinance
looks like. I think we really should
[3:27:47] wait until the ordinance is done, see
what it says because I have a feeling
[3:27:51] we're still going to go through some
debate on it and then once we get to a
[3:27:54] consensus for those things that come up,
we can start looking to see how are they
[3:27:58] fitting in this, you know, whole
totality. Because what we're doing is
[3:28:02] one-offs. We're doing this one. Yeah.
And then what happens when the next one
[3:28:06] comes up? And then well, we're going to
is that a saturation? Is that an
[3:28:09] outsaturation? And that's what the whole
idea of the ordinance revision is for is
[3:28:14] to sit there and come up with a plan of
how this is looking. So why would we sit
[3:28:18] there and start saying yes and no before
that's done. It makes no sense to me.
[3:28:23] Um, so I I have in agreement uh to not
pass anything right now until that's
[3:28:28] done so we can look at this in totality
because I think, you know, we made a
[3:28:32] comment which is a good comment and let
me be clear, I'm not for or against the
[3:28:37] sign or anything like that. I I think
it's a good place for one. I think it'll
[3:28:41] work. But to me, doing a decision or
making a decision without having the
[3:28:45] ordinance in front of us doesn't make
sense because it's a oneoff and then and
[3:28:51] I just don't know where it's going to
stop. So I say, why don't we wait and
[3:28:55] get the thing here, get it fine-tuned,
and then come up and say, "Okay, where
[3:29:00] does that fit in this totality?" Because
the comment is, well, it makes sense to
[3:29:04] them, but it doesn't make sense to us if
we don't have an agreement of what what
[3:29:09] it is we're talking about. Because we
brought up saturation, we brought up
[3:29:12] zoning, we brought up uh how many to
take down, and we there's just too many
[3:29:17] questions. And to me, to make a decision
on something that we don't even have
[3:29:22] clear uh vision and unity on doesn't
make sense to me. So, maybe I'm I'm solo
[3:29:28] on that. But to me, I think the council
got ahead of itself and I I think we
[3:29:32] should say, you know, thank you for
this, but let's wait until it's done,
[3:29:36] then come back and let's see how it fits
in with the ordinance. That's my
[3:29:39] comment.
>> Thanks, Council Member Martinez. Mart
[3:29:41] Mr. Martinez, I do believe that we have
the city attorney who has some
[3:29:44] additional information. Yeah, I just
wanted to say, you know, I read earlier
[3:29:48] provisions that I think are relevant to
this discussion from the existing
[3:29:51] ordinance and that's the only ordinance
or law that you have before you on which
[3:29:57] to deal with this application
and you know the the the provisions that
[3:30:04] deal with the discretionary agreement.
If there are terms, if if you're able to
[3:30:09] work out a deal with the applicant on
terms that you find acceptable, that's
[3:30:14] the way to deal with it is through the
mutually negotiated agreement. Um rather
[3:30:20] than applying a rule that has not been
adopted yet, you should work with the
[3:30:24] ordinance that you have on the books
now.
[3:30:26] » So, so may I ask on that?
>> Yes. So going back then, so when we look
[3:30:32] at something to our discretion as the
ordinance is written now, we would be
[3:30:36] discussing what where it fits,
where it stands.
[3:30:42] » It's it's actually what does that mean?
Our discuss
[3:30:45] » Well, that's that's a good question and
and it's very broad both under the city
[3:30:49] ordinance and I think intentionally
broad under the city ordinance and under
[3:30:53] state law. it's um to enter into
relocation agreements on whatever terms
[3:30:58] are agreeable to the display owner in
the city. So you can negotiate those
[3:31:02] terms but do it through the agreement
rather than trying to apply what might
[3:31:06] be adopted at a future date.
>> So then let me rephrase and say that I
[3:31:10] don't believe that we should have
digital any more digital at this moment
[3:31:14] and that's what I would base my decision
on. So I I think I'd like to step in for
[3:31:18] just a second. And I think when I'm
looking at things through the lens of
[3:31:22] always trying to think about right
reason, right time, right place, and and
[3:31:26] for the right purpose, you know, these
are often things that we're thinking
[3:31:30] about and contemplating while we're up
here. And and we have to look at it
[3:31:33] right now, which is we have the
opportunity to enter into an agreement
[3:31:38] and have a discussion. And I think that
we can direct staff to go further out
[3:31:42] into that discussion and then to bring
back what that agreement would look
[3:31:46] like. Now, at that point, there's
negotiating power and we do have the
[3:31:50] opportunity to come to a sensible
agreement that says, "Hey, yeah, this
[3:31:53] might be the place to go." But
currently, right now, I personally have
[3:31:58] an issue with not looking at what is in
place currently. So, right now, we are
[3:32:04] bound by this ordinance, which actually
gives us great latitude to be honest
[3:32:07] with you. And when I'm looking at policy
decisions, sometimes it's nice to have
[3:32:10] great latitude because then I'm not
painted into a corner. You know, there
[3:32:14] in policy from a nursing perspective, I
have what's called nursing judgment. And
[3:32:18] sometimes it's important to exercise my
judgment because not everything is black
[3:32:23] and white. And sometimes we need to live
in a gray area. And for this, this feels
[3:32:27] like a gray area. This is, is it the
right
[3:32:32] project for the right reason for the
city of Bmont? I think that's really the
[3:32:37] question that we're grappling with and I
think that we all at this point probably
[3:32:41] to council member or mayor pro Tim
White's point for the previous
[3:32:45] discussion don't have enough information
to make that decision today and I would
[3:32:50] like to see us go to the drawing board
on what an agreement looks like that has
[3:32:54] further parameters and I don't know what
the rest of the council looks like or to
[3:32:57] investigate right now we don't know a
revenue sharing we've heard on the table
[3:33:01] a removal of other ones um and so for me
it makes sense to go out into an
[3:33:06] agreement and to start negotiating that
process.
[3:33:10] » So, so yeah, just to tear off what you
said and you know, of course staff can
[3:33:14] go back and further work with the
applicant. The the ideas that were
[3:33:16] brought up tonight include um removal of
additional static billboards in exchange
[3:33:21] for approval of this one. U potential
revenue sharing. Uh looking at the
[3:33:27] opportunity to make this into more of a
monument sign or aesthetic improvements
[3:33:32] to what it's what's currently proposed.
Um, I believe that's all the I believe
[3:33:37] that solidifies all the comments I've
heard. I
[3:33:39] » I just have one more that I forgot to
add. I apologize. Um, it it kind of goes
[3:33:44] along the lines of revenue sharing or
perhaps maybe um
[3:33:48] where it go public uh public service
announcements like if the city has
[3:33:53] something projects that they could be on
there and then that's a it's a a
[3:33:58] trade-off so to speak. So just something
else to negotiate.
[3:34:01] » Thank you, mayor.
>> Yeah, absolutely. Go ahead, M.
[3:34:03] » I just want to mention that I guess
tonight I'm fickle. So, I will say that
[3:34:08] um I've never wanted to stop, you know,
discussion and compromising. So, I am
[3:34:13] also for going back to see maybe what we
can do about this to to see if this
[3:34:17] could work. So, go ahead and state that.
>> Okay. Very good. Do we need a motion to
[3:34:21] move forward?
I think we
[3:34:25] » my sense is we probably have the city
manager just went over his understanding
[3:34:29] of some of the direction that was given
and and we could work um staff can work
[3:34:34] with the parameters that have been
provided and then try to negotiate and
[3:34:38] see if there's an interest on the other
side.
[3:34:40] » Okay.
>> And then bring something back based on
[3:34:42] the direction given tonight.
>> Okay.
[3:34:44] » So yeah, direct staff to move forward
and I would table the item tonight and
[3:34:48] then we'll bring it back.
>> Okay. So, I will make a motion to table
[3:34:52] the item. Uh, pending further
discussion.
[3:34:55] » I'll second.
>> Can we get a roll call, please?
[3:34:58] » Council member Laura,
>> yes.
[3:35:00] » Council member Finn,
>> yes.
[3:35:02] » Council member Martinez,
>> yes.
[3:35:03] » Mayor Pro Tim White,
>> yes.
[3:35:05] » Mayor Voit,
>> yes.
[3:35:08] » All right. Do we want to take uh 10
minutes?
[3:35:12] » Five.
>> Five minutes. Okay. How about we take a
[3:35:15] five minute break? We'll we'll come back
at How about 8:35?
[3:35:20] 8:35 we'll come back. All right.
[3:45:22] All right, we are back at 8:37
and we will be moving on to J3, adoption
[3:45:30] of the city of Bowmont sponsorship
policy and we have a staff report by Mr.
[3:45:33] Craw.
>> Mayor, I'd like to uh interject if if
[3:45:36] it's possible to see if there's any
public comments. I'd like to make a
[3:45:39] motion if there are no public comments.
Are there any public comments on this
[3:45:43] item?
>> I have no written requests. Simone, do
[3:45:46] we have any callers on the line?
>> We have no callers at this time.
[3:45:50] » Okay. So, I will move to approve the
city of Bowmont sponsorship policy and
[3:45:54] direct staff to administer future
sponsorship requests in [clears throat]
[3:45:58] accordance with policy and subject to
available funding. I did read the right
[3:46:01] one this time. Right.
>> Yes.
[3:46:05] » Okay. Before I've done it
>> for the recommended action.
[3:46:09] » I'll second if it's the right one.
All right, we have a first and a second
[3:46:13] and it was the right one. Uh, can I get
a roll call then?
[3:46:16] » Great job, Don.
>> Wow.
[3:46:18] » Council member Laura.
>> Yes.
[3:46:20] » Council member Finn.
>> Yes.
[3:46:22] » Council member Martinez.
>> Yes. I'm sorry.
[3:46:26] » Mayor Prom White, sit down.
[3:46:32] » I just want to know if you have a pool
tonight. Which ones are going to get
[3:46:35] pushed through?
>> Okay. Are you operating?
[3:46:39] » Uh uh yes, I approve it. [laughter]
>> Mayor Void.
[3:46:43] » Yes. Okay. [snorts]
And in an expeditious fashion, we'll go
[3:46:47] to J4 2026 Bowmont Night season recap
and proposed 2027
[3:46:53] program.
>> Yes. Uh mayor and council, we do want to
[3:46:57] provide a recap of some of the successes
from uh this last year and our Bowmont
[3:47:04] Nights program. This is our third season
running the Bowmont Nights on Thursday
[3:47:09] nights in downtown. Uh, and we had some
great successes. I have Ashley here from
[3:47:14] our staff to go over some of the uh,
exciting things that we saw this year to
[3:47:20] help provide uh, just a little bit of
context of some of the victories and
[3:47:23] things that uh, happened out there. So,
I will turn it over to Ashley and I will
[3:47:28] pull up a PowerPoint as she goes through
her presentation.
[3:47:35] So
there we go. So our 12week Bumont nights
[3:47:41] ran from April 30th to July 30th from
6:30 to 9:30 p.m. Um we had
[3:47:46] approximately 130 vendors applied for
our 94 available booth spaces. Um which
[3:47:52] did represent 1.4 applicants per
available booth space. The 94 space
[3:47:58] figure represents our physical capacity,
not a target of 94 vendors because we do
[3:48:03] have like food trucks take up two
spaces. So, um that does impact the
[3:48:09] number of vendors we are allowed to
take. For our visits, Placer AI um
[3:48:15] estimated there are approximate 33,000
total visits across the 12 event dates
[3:48:20] with an average of about 2,700 visits
per event. The strongest estimated
[3:48:25] attendance occurred during block one,
which is in April and May with visits
[3:48:29] about 3,500 on May 7th and 3100 on May
21st. We do estimate that some of the
[3:48:37] numbers for our events were a little
under reppresented specifically with
[3:48:40] National Night Out. Due to how Placer AI
uses their analytics based on cell phone
[3:48:45] data, events that are heavily attended
by youth may not be captured in that
[3:48:50] data because they don't come around with
their cell phones. So we do anticipate
[3:48:54] that there were highly attended events
later on in the year as well. Uh next
[3:48:59] slide Doug.
>> Okay. So your enterprise and downtown
[3:49:02] civic life. This whole event provided
affordable opportunities for our small
[3:49:06] businesses, our food vendors, artisans,
entrepreneurs to reach the residents as
[3:49:10] well as our city departments and our
nonprofits to engage with the community.
[3:49:14] Um you can also see if you attended the
events that we had a lot of the downtown
[3:49:18] businesses came out to participate. You
had Red Dragon Karate, the Modern Music
[3:49:22] Studio,
um, Red, Dance Spectrum, Chamber of
[3:49:28] Commerce was out there, the antique shop
did little promos to get people to come
[3:49:31] inside. So, it's really engaging, not
for just the vendors, but also the
[3:49:34] downtown businesses as well. The family
experience, we had live entertainment
[3:49:39] and activities with a broad range of
ages and encouraged which encouraged
[3:49:43] repeat attendance. Um we do remain
committed to providing a broad range of
[3:49:47] musical entertainment across a variety
of genres. Although do we do typically
[3:49:52] see higher attendance and we have like
classic rock and country bands.
[3:49:58] Next slide.
>> Yeah.
[3:50:01] [snorts] So, new for this year, we did
have our Battle of the Bands, which took
[3:50:05] place June 11th through July 23rd and
added a participatory element to the
[3:50:10] entertainment program um providing
emerging musicians of the opportunity to
[3:50:16] um showcase their talents and connect
with the residents. And this also tied
[3:50:21] in with our Blizzard bash. So, the
winner of the Battle of the Bands, which
[3:50:25] was Crimson Rose, is now going to
perform on December 12th. Um, we did
[3:50:30] learn that these local entertainments,
they do bring out more attendees. They
[3:50:34] invite their family, their friends to
come out and watch and to vote for them.
[3:50:38] So, it does increase attendance earlier
on in the evening, which was amazing to
[3:50:42] have that. Another enhancement we had
this year was our kids zone and our
[3:50:45] extended shade structure. So, we moved
our kids zone from 7th Street over to
[3:50:50] the Sheer Wonders parking lot, which
provided a little bit more area so we
[3:50:54] could have different types of games and
activities. We also had um Highland
[3:50:59] Academy Charter School. They attended
with us, had a booth, did some outreach
[3:51:03] as well. And then our shade structure
was a 30 foot x4t extended shade
[3:51:08] structure, which provided a lot more
comfort to our attendees, especially
[3:51:13] during the summer months.
And we had the addition of a four pod
[3:51:20] layout. The two previous years we had
pods of six and fours as a variety
[3:51:24] throughout the event, but streamlining
it to a four pod layout made the whole
[3:51:28] event space just planned out a little
bit better with a little bit more flow
[3:51:32] of traffic through the event.
And then our July 23rd beer garden was a
[3:51:38] success. So, we look forward to your
feedback on bringing that back in the
[3:51:42] future. And I'll turn it back over to
Doug for our 2027 plans.
[3:51:47] » Yes. And as we get into the 2027,
um Ashley and her staff did just a
[3:51:55] fantastic job. And I know um each of you
were out at different times and saw
[3:51:58] different things going on with the
staff. I can't um give them enough
[3:52:01] credit. And I, you know, please continue
to give them their praise because they
[3:52:06] they worked hard. They deserve it and
did a fantastic job. We did learn a lot
[3:52:09] of different uh lessons and a lot of
things throughout the 2026 season and
[3:52:13] going into the 2027. Uh a couple of
things that we are looking to change and
[3:52:20] to adjust is uh the offerings the dates
in which we offer the um program. Uh we
[3:52:27] are finding that the hotter summer
months definitely impacts the attendance
[3:52:30] and um as we have multiple years of data
uh we see that kind of no matter no
[3:52:37] matter what we do and what we offer you
know it's just hard to get people to
[3:52:40] come outside when it's 102. Uh and so
one of the things we want to do is
[3:52:45] adjust the schedule. We would like to
introduce an opportunity to have um a
[3:52:50] single night of a month uh dedicated to
a Bowmont Nights program where that'll
[3:52:56] open us up an opportunity to have some
other thematic programming go on during
[3:53:00] those nights. So what we're looking at
is um doing um single nights per month
[3:53:06] in the months of March and April. uh in
March that would allow us to do some fun
[3:53:11] theming maybe with St. Patrick's Day. Uh
in April, we have some fun opportunities
[3:53:16] with some partnerships that are coming
to the city and hopefully some an
[3:53:19] exciting event uh that's going to be
able to happen on that day as well. And
[3:53:22] so we're going to kind of incorporate
some of some of that as well. Then you
[3:53:25] go into uh the month of May where we saw
our highest nights. That's when we would
[3:53:30] start our each week program. And so we
would operate uh the four weeks in May
[3:53:34] and then offer the times in June as
well. Uh, and that would be our
[3:53:39] consistent weeks that we would work
through the summer. Uh, and then as we
[3:53:42] get into the July, uh, we would have our
Fourth of July night tied with our
[3:53:46] weekend for the Fourth of July event.
And then we'll end it with a national
[3:53:51] night out event again as well. Then as
we go into the fall, open us up for some
[3:53:55] new opportunities, take uh, the hot the
hot time of August off. Uh, and then get
[3:54:00] back into things in September and
October. perhaps do like an October Fest
[3:54:04] themed night where we can have some of
those fun things or a fall themed event.
[3:54:08] And then November 11th is Veterans Day
and we want to do a a fun uh just a a
[3:54:14] really great uh national themed day and
honor our veterans and bring out some
[3:54:18] real special agencies and groups uh that
can partner us with those days. No
[3:54:22] matter what day we do the market night
event, we'll have some of the same
[3:54:25] formatting. So, we're looking at having
u musical performance, we'll have the
[3:54:29] same type of closure, the same type of
stage performance. uh the the shade uh
[3:54:33] when we need it uh and then be able to
offer some of that other thematic uh
[3:54:37] opportunity. So the scheduling we're
looking at tweaking a little bit. Uh
[3:54:41] we're able to absorb these into our
current budget that we have right now.
[3:54:45] And so we're not necessarily asking for
additional funds to fix any of these
[3:54:49] right now. We're just going to shorten
some of the things that we have. And
[3:54:52] this also uh we have in our budget some
other events that are taking places at
[3:54:56] other places. Uh we've tried to do a um
St. Patrick's Day event up at the CRC.
[3:55:01] Uh, and it's been great and our staff's
been doing a fantastic job, but now this
[3:55:04] kind of opens us an opportunity to bring
it downtown and make it a little bit
[3:55:07] bigger. Uh, so some of these things are
already in the budget in different
[3:55:10] categories and we're just going to move
them into the Bowmont Nights category.
[3:55:13] Uh, and then [clears throat] one of the
other enhancements and that Ashley
[3:55:18] mentioned too as well is the the beer
garden. We did try a beer garden and one
[3:55:22] of the nights that operated on on
Seventh Street and we had a local uh
[3:55:26] vendor that operated that for us. we
were only in charge of kind of setting
[3:55:30] up that area for them and then they
operated that area. Uh went through the
[3:55:34] necessary permitting and the process
with ABC and the police department to go
[3:55:38] through that. Uh and and that was a a
great turnout and I think people really
[3:55:42] enjoyed having additional areas to sit
and enjoy the the music and the
[3:55:47] environment and the fun. Uh and they
were able to make it successful on
[3:55:50] probably one of the the hottest nights
that we had out there. Uh and so that is
[3:55:55] something that we want to look uh at uh
if if council's in favor of that is
[3:56:00] figuring out ways to uh encourage that
and expand that opportunity in the
[3:56:05] event. We're also looking at adding some
specialty items to our market nights.
[3:56:09] One of those and one of the requests
from community has been a certified type
[3:56:14] farmers market that sells vegetables and
different foods and artisan eats and
[3:56:19] stuff. Uh and so we're looking at
carving out that. there's a few uh
[3:56:22] additional hoops that we have to jump
through in order to have a farmers
[3:56:25] market on site, but we think we can
navigate through that process. Uh so
[3:56:29] there's uh some really cool uh
distinctive programming and some
[3:56:33] different elements that we would like to
encourage adding in 2027. So all in all
[3:56:37] uh has been a great thing uh mostly
because we have such a great staff and I
[3:56:41] will say that I think over the three
years our staff has become uh very
[3:56:46] proficient and efficient in putting on
these events. um whether that's through
[3:56:51] building relationships with the county
or different permitting agencies and
[3:56:54] getting this process done or also
teaming with all of our other
[3:56:57] departments that we have here. Uh we
couldn't do it without public works and
[3:57:01] planning and building and everyone else
who comes out and fire and PD and
[3:57:04] everyone who's there to to help support
us. But um the community and the staff
[3:57:07] as a whole feels that that um those
experiences have been really strong and
[3:57:11] it's it's just providing a great
opportunity for our community. So, we'd
[3:57:14] love to continue to operate it and offer
it to our community and love to hear
[3:57:18] some comments from your experience.
>> All right, great. Thank you. Do we have
[3:57:22] any public comment for this item?
>> I have no written request, Simone. Do we
[3:57:26] have any callers on the line?
>> We have no callers at this time.
[3:57:32] » All right, great. First off, I'd like to
start off with a huge thank you. As you
[3:57:35] said, um I spent many nights down at
Bowmont Nights this year and absolutely
[3:57:39] enjoyed myself thoroughly. um the family
time, all of the families that were out
[3:57:44] there. Um you know, and even a date
night out there as well. So, I thought
[3:57:49] it was an excellent event. Um I think
the entertainment was better this year
[3:57:53] as well and uh that truly helped to step
it up. Um I sat many times underneath
[3:57:59] that shade structure. So, I can tell you
that that was a very added very much an
[3:58:03] added benefit. And in fact, uh, the two
nights I sat underneath the shaded
[3:58:07] structure, I met people from other
cities, um, who were there, who were
[3:58:11] coming to our event. And I think that
not only is this a community event for
[3:58:15] us, but it also showcases our community
to other communities. Um, and I truly
[3:58:20] appreciate all of the work that has gone
into that. Um, on another note, I like
[3:58:26] beer and I like uh the opportunity uh to
partake. Um, and so I appreciate the
[3:58:34] addition of the beer garden as well. I
think that it provides um an area
[3:58:40] outside for um our community to be able
to listen to the entertainment and enjoy
[3:58:46] it uh in a safe manner. Um and I
appreciate all the work that went in for
[3:58:50] that night to try it out. Um I also like
an October Fest and so I think that that
[3:58:55] is a great addition and a wonderful
theme uh to bring to the town. In fact,
[3:59:01] uh I had this vision for State of the
City. I didn't really voice it to a lot
[3:59:04] of people. Um but I thought that I could
string lights, you know, down a street
[3:59:08] one day and have picnic tables line it
and it would be like a coronation for
[3:59:11] me. Um but who knows, maybe we could do
that at an October Fest [laughter] in
[3:59:16] the beer garden downtown. Um but great
work on this. I really um like the
[3:59:22] addition. I have heard consistently that
vendors would like more options
[3:59:27] throughout the year. Um, and I also have
visited uh numerous businesses downtown
[3:59:32] who have said that Bowont Nights is what
gets them through the summer when um it
[3:59:38] is slower for them. And so I think that
being that partner with our community
[3:59:43] businesses is absolutely vital to their
success as well. Um, and I really thank
[3:59:48] the team for you guys being such great
partners with the businesses downtown
[3:59:52] because they can feel it. So great job.
All right, Council Member White.
[3:59:58] Um,
there was no way I was going to pass on
[4:00:02] this one to have the discussion. So,
sorry there Doug. Um,
[4:00:05] » happy to have it.
>> Um,
[4:00:08] it's amazing you guys have raised the
bar significantly each year. Um, it's
[4:00:14] going to be hard to continue to do that,
but I know you will. Um, and I'm I'm not
[4:00:19] texting other people. This is how I
write notes since I don't have a pen up
[4:00:22] here, but um,
uh, what happens? We had last year the
[4:00:29] very first event was I think in March or
was it even April?
[4:00:33] » April. It was very April
>> rainy and it rained on us cold.
[4:00:37] » It was
>> and what happens if we do a special
[4:00:41] event earlier in the year and it just
bombs because of the weather.
[4:00:46] » Yeah. And it is a I mean weather as
awesome as our staff is you know
[4:00:51] controlling weather is still a challenge
for us and we have to operate within the
[4:00:56] confines of weather. We get it. Um you
know we do have some because we do a lot
[4:01:02] of events and so when um rain p you know
for specifics you know we have
[4:01:08] thresholds where it's got to be a
certain percentage of rain guaranteed
[4:01:11] during the event uh in order for us to
cancel it. So, we try to do things rain
[4:01:15] or shine or in different in different
weathers. Um, we are counting on the,
[4:01:20] you know, it will be a little bit of a
challenge. I think that because we'll be
[4:01:23] out there when it's not just 102 and so
we'll probably deal with a little bit
[4:01:27] cooler weather, we could deal with a
little bit of rain or different things.
[4:01:30] We have some parameters that would be be
set um and if we had to cancel it when
[4:01:34] most of our vendors know that um we're
collecting a fee uh where we would we
[4:01:39] usually give back 50% of that fee if the
vendor comes to all those events. So
[4:01:42] obviously if if we initiated that
cancellation, we wouldn't we wouldn't do
[4:01:46] that. If we still had the event and it
was like marginal weather uh or not the
[4:01:51] best weather, um we would still
encourage that vendor to be out there um
[4:01:54] because they paid that fee and they want
to get that part of that fee back.
[4:01:58] » Um the shade structure this this year
was was amazing.
[4:02:03] » Um if we did if we consider I think we
need to do the beer garden. She's
[4:02:08] actually made four references to
drinking tonight.
[4:02:11] » [laughter]
>> Not who's counting
[4:02:13] » not counting the
>> crown long item. It was a long item.
[4:02:18] » Um I think a second straight shade
structure. I don't know how much you
[4:02:23] know how much those cost. Um it's
something we're renting. Correct.
[4:02:27] » Yes, sir. Yes.
>> Yeah. So I you know maybe another one
[4:02:30] because the first the first couple
nights when it was really hot there was
[4:02:35] there wasn't a whole lot of room under
there. Um
[4:02:37] » Yeah. And um
I think the farmers market is is a great
[4:02:43] idea. I think people have been asking us
for that forever and and if you can put
[4:02:47] it together. I think in the past when
we've brought it up it's the response
[4:02:51] has been that it's not easy to do. But I
guess there's companies that will put
[4:02:56] those together for you. Yeah, we're
reaching out and trying to build some
[4:02:59] relationships and there's some
successful ones in the area and we're
[4:03:02] trying to build those relationships and
figure out how they're doing it and see
[4:03:06] if we can get them to come out on some
of our specific dates.
[4:03:08] » Okay. And two suggestions
even [clears throat] on the really I
[4:03:13] missed one night
>> and it was ACTC and I couldn't believe I
[4:03:17] I missed that one night but I had I had
something else to go to. Um,
[4:03:23] what about on the hot nights going
later? Because even on the very hot
[4:03:28] night, the one of the last ones was
really hot. People started showing up at
[4:03:31] 7:00 or 7:30.
>> Mhm.
[4:03:33] » You know, [clears throat] I got we got
there, we came late and when we came
[4:03:37] there, it was sort of lower attendance
and then within an hour everyone came
[4:03:41] out because it was the sun was down.
Yep.
[4:03:44] » And it was cooler.
>> Yeah. And that was one of our successes
[4:03:47] of this year. I think in 25, 2025, and
2024, we started at 5:00 p.m. And then
[4:03:53] after two years doing that, we realized
it is just it's really, really hot on
[4:03:56] some days at 5:00 p.m. And so bumping it
to 6 helped us do that. And then we
[4:04:01] extended it a little bit longer till
9:30. We were originally ending at 9:00
[4:04:05] and then we kind of left it open till
till 9:30. Uh, but you're right. I think
[4:04:09] the the later the once the sun starts
getting behind those trees and heading
[4:04:14] down uh it it definitely makes a big
difference. People more people come out.
[4:04:17] So we can look at that and see if that's
an option for us.
[4:04:19] » Yeah. And and a lot of the people
especially if you do have a beer garden,
[4:04:23] a lot of people are still hanging around
after 9:30, you know, [clears throat]
[4:04:26] watching you you guys take the whole
thing down and that that's something fun
[4:04:30] to watch. Um, and then one last
suggestion. When when we first started
[4:04:34] discussing Bulmont Nights, we still
hadn't really decided what downtown was.
[4:04:40] And I think with all the investments
we've made on Grace Street, trying one
[4:04:46] Belmont night there might be just just
worth trying. I know you're right by the
[4:04:50] freeway. Um, I know all of that, but
it's set up for for bringing in vendors.
[4:04:56] there's a lot of, you know, the parking
you don't really
[4:04:59] » want to you you could use that parking
for more vendors and more activities,
[4:05:02] but um just just think about it. Um I
thought that was an idea and that's all
[4:05:07] I had. But good job and I really
appreciate the fact that every year
[4:05:11] you're trying to make it better and
you're doing it. So thank you.
[4:05:16] » Yes. And I echo the sentiment on the
farmers market. I forgot to mention
[4:05:19] that. Uh Council Member Martinez.
>> Yes. So thank you, Mayor. So, when I
[4:05:23] first saw that we were uh increasing
days, my first thing is, "Oh my gosh,
[4:05:27] we're going to burn the staff out."
>> But you made it so clear that the
[4:05:32] efficiencies improved, that we're
spreading it out, and you know, they've
[4:05:37] they got the routine now, and best of
all, they're motivated. They want to do
[4:05:41] it. And thank you for clarifying that um
with me when we talked um because it
[4:05:45] makes me confident that we're not
putting too much, you know, they're
[4:05:49] they're handling it. and I'm sure they
would speak up and said, "Hey boss,
[4:05:52] we're probably stretching it." So,
[laughter] I encourage them to do that.
[4:05:56] But, you know, we really have been
upping the bar. Um, I'm supportive of
[4:06:00] the beer garden. I think it's necessary
because it has that and, you know, I
[4:06:04] wouldn't want to disappoint the mayor,
but it brings that element, you know, in
[4:06:09] uh for those extra. And I think it was
well done and and I compliment the
[4:06:14] public safety presence. Uh, I sense a
clear message that we're familyfriendly.
[4:06:19] people felt comfortable because they
were there and you know and it just it
[4:06:23] just had that overall fun feeling. So,
um you know I'm supportive of everything
[4:06:28] you're doing and I appreciate you
thinking how you know adjust here and
[4:06:32] there and so forth. And like I said, it
just keeps getting improving and things
[4:06:36] that didn't work, we'll we'll adjust
that and maybe that time didn't work or
[4:06:39] so forth. Another shade structure would
definitely be nice if it's possible. I
[4:06:43] know they're expensive. Um, but I just
and I like the data, the ability to go
[4:06:48] back and and quantify things. Um, so
we're just not guessing. So that helps
[4:06:53] us subst, you know, um, uh, with the
decisions for, you know, money that we
[4:06:57] give into it that it's, you know,
substantiated. So I appreciate that. So
[4:07:00] I think everything's going in the right
direction. I'm fully supportive. Um, you
[4:07:05] know, just come back when you think we
need to adjust things here and there as
[4:07:08] you usually do, but um, I think we're on
the right track. So, I appreciate it and
[4:07:12] thank you staff for all their hard work
and everyone because it just takes this
[4:07:16] whole village to do to make those work
every time. Not just one time, but every
[4:07:21] time. So, thank you.
>> Thank you.
[4:07:23] » All right, Council Member Fen.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Uh Doug and your
[4:07:27] staff, thank you so much for the good
work that you guys have been doing. I
[4:07:30] appreciate that. And I'm excited about
the farmers market.
[4:07:33] » First year that we did it and I was
mayor that year and was there nearly
[4:07:37] every night and that was something I
heard multiple times every night. Hey,
[4:07:40] can we get a farmers market? So,
appreciate the effort towards that and
[4:07:43] look forward to hopefully that works
out. Um, two questions for you. Um, one,
[4:07:48] the Veterans Day, would you would staff
be planning on maybe blocking out a
[4:07:52] certain number of spaces for veteran
services or something like that? Is that
[4:07:56] kind of the vision for it?
>> Yeah. and and council member Fen, you
[4:08:01] know, with our relationship with the Vet
Expo, uh we have just a really great
[4:08:06] connection with different vet groups
that um are wanting to either provide
[4:08:11] information or um help provide services.
And so that would be our one of the
[4:08:16] goals uh is is is reserve some of those
spaces for them or or maybe a little
[4:08:20] area uh for them, but then also
incorporate some some fun recognition
[4:08:25] maybe before or after the concerts and
and get some folks on stage and uh maybe
[4:08:29] get some of our electeds from from
outside of even Bowmont to give some
[4:08:33] certificates and just really acknowledge
some some great people in our community.
[4:08:36] So uh tie that in. We'll still have a
parade that day as well. Uh and so we'll
[4:08:42] coordinate all those things together and
just make it a real fun day uh where we
[4:08:46] honor our veterans.
>> Very good. Would it make sense to try to
[4:08:48] do the parade in the afternoon then?
>> We're working on some of those
[4:08:52] logistics. So Okay. Yes. So we've we
we've
[4:08:55] » that's a challenge we do is we during
the week that it's hard to get folks out
[4:08:58] in the morning sometimes.
>> Yeah. So, that's one of the things we're
[4:09:01] considering. And we've we've in the past
with Blizzard Bash, when we do the
[4:09:05] Blizzard Bash and we also do the the
Christmas light parade, uh, we've
[4:09:08] changed that route to be able to have
Bowmont Nights up and running, but also
[4:09:12] allow for a parade route to kind of come
in and around the, uh, the event area.
[4:09:18] And so, yeah, that's one of the things
that we would consider doing as well.
[4:09:21] » Okay. Very good. And then, um, if I
understood you correctly, you had more
[4:09:25] vendors than you had spaces. Is that
right?
[4:09:27] » Yeah, we have a really large waiting
list. There's a lot of people that
[4:09:29] really want to be in Bowmont for
>> Do we have a priority like pecking order
[4:09:34] like, "Hey, Bowmont business gets first
dibs." That kind of thing.
[4:09:37] » Yeah. If you're in the downtown, if
you're a Bowmont business, if you're
[4:09:41] local, you get first dibs on things. And
then once we have that all settled, we
[4:09:45] start moving uh down that list, but we
do have a priority for everyone that
[4:09:49] comes in.
>> All right. Very good. Thank you. Thank
[4:09:50] you, Mayor.
[4:09:54] » All right. Well, that leaves us to a
motion for tonight. So, I will move to
[4:10:00] receive and file the 2026 Bowont Knights
season recap and direct staff to develop
[4:10:04] the proposed 15 date 2027 program
calendar through the annual budget and
[4:10:10] contracting process. As I'm doing this,
Mr. Laura, did you want to
[4:10:14] » Okay, sorry. Um, and to approve alcohol
services within a designated beer garden
[4:10:19] at 20 in 2020, excuse me, at 2027
Bowmont Nights event in the Town Center
[4:10:25] area subject to applicable licensing and
responsible alcohol service
[4:10:29] requirements.
>> I'll second.
[4:10:32] » Can I get [snorts] a roll call, please?
>> Council member Laura,
[4:10:34] » yes.
>> Council member Finn,
[4:10:36] » yes.
>> Council member Martinez,
[4:10:38] » yes.
>> Mayor Proim White,
[4:10:39] » yes.
>> Mayor Voy,
[4:10:41] » yes. All right. Thank you for that. And
that takes us I don't believe we have a
[4:10:45] ledge update today. City manager report.
>> Well, in light of me losing my bet
[4:10:52] against um Deputy City Clerk Willight on
what time this meeting will end, I'm
[4:10:56] going to give you a really a bridged
version of my report tonight. So, um I
[4:11:01] really the biggest thing is I want to
announce just remind everybody that
[4:11:04] we're going to have a ribbon cutting
tomorrow at the sports park uh at 400
[4:11:08] pm. It's a great opportunity to
recognize the completion of a $4.5
[4:11:12] million investment that brings
significant improvements and upgrades to
[4:11:15] the park and its athletic facilities and
um we'll have a number of fun activities
[4:11:20] for anybody who joins. So, we hope that
the public can make it and we're looking
[4:11:23] forward to it. And that's it.
>> Great. I will be there and hopefully the
[4:11:29] rest of us can join as well. All right.
Any future agenda items?
[4:11:35] Council member Martinez.
>> No.
[4:11:37] » Okay. All right. That takes us to our
council reports. We'll start with
[4:11:40] council member Finn.
>> Well, yes, Mayor. Thank you. Um question
[4:11:43] for Stephen out there. He mentioned when
I asked about the ebikes, he said there
[4:11:47] was um state that we'd have an update.
Did I
[4:11:52] » Did I It was next meeting. Okay. All
right. Just making sure I heard that
[4:11:55] correctly. Okay.
>> All right. Very good. All right.
[4:12:01] » I just heard later and I wasn't sure
what the later was. So, thanks for the
[4:12:04] clarification. Um on the 27th of um of
August, I attended RTA's um general
[4:12:10] meeting. And after that meeting, we had
a ribbon cutting um for a new hydrogen
[4:12:15] bus um that was delivered and a ribbon
cutting for the new hydrogen fueling
[4:12:20] station that's there at their facility
on Third Street in Riverside. So, we're
[4:12:23] all excited about that. Um trying to
meet the mandates from the state in
[4:12:27] terms of zero or very low emissions. And
we think the the hydrogen wave for now
[4:12:32] is the the best way to make that happen.
So, uh, that's my report for the
[4:12:35] evening.
>> All right, Council Member Martinez.
[4:12:38] » Thank you, Mayor. I attended the
libraryies, uh, books and bruise,
[4:12:42] » and, uh, it was, uh, well attended. It
was well attended, and it's really nice
[4:12:46] to see how the new annex fits, um, in
the whole scheme of things being my mind
[4:12:52] couldn't get around it because I was
still thinking Carnegie side. And, you
[4:12:56] know, they explained to me and it
several times what the difference was.
[4:13:00] They built a false wall between the two.
So, my brain's looking for the old and
[4:13:05] it's not there and I know now it's
behind the other side being part of
[4:13:09] phase two. So, it's really nice to see.
I think the community should be really
[4:13:13] appreciative of the modernization going
on and I'm proud to have it in the city
[4:13:17] because it really gives that feeling of,
you know, we are really building up here
[4:13:21] and and moving things. So, I just want
to give kudos to Lauren and and all the
[4:13:26] trustees at the library and all library
and all of the uh volunteers because it
[4:13:31] takes a lot to get the library going and
there are a lot of volunteers, friends
[4:13:35] of the library and so forth and and
kudos to all of them.
[4:13:39] » Great.
Mayor Pro Tim.
[4:13:46] » Okay, Council Member Laura.
>> Okay. Um
[4:13:51] they moved the WRCOG meeting to the
14th, Monday the 14th because of the
[4:13:56] holiday coming up. Um I did attend the
senior citizen day at Chhattney Center
[4:14:01] was uh well attended at least that I can
remember you know. So um and I did they
[4:14:08] did allow me to call a bingo game which
was great. Um, and then just just
[4:14:12] lastly, the staff here, you know, with
the Bulmont Knights and all the stuff
[4:14:17] that it takes to prepare uh the the
ideas that they have for the different
[4:14:21] events for seniors and youth and it's
just they do it with a great attitude
[4:14:26] just like council member Martinez
referenced and it's just very proud to
[4:14:30] be a part of that. So, I just wanted to
reference that and that's all I have,
[4:14:32] mayor.
>> All right. Thank you, Mayor Prom.
[4:14:36] » I have nothing to report.
>> Oh, look at that.
[4:14:40] Uh I attended uh the mayor breakfast. We
were able to get it off the ground for
[4:14:45] um Calama and Banning. It was great to
see our colleagues. Um a lot going on in
[4:14:50] those areas as well, but always good to
collaborate with them. And then today I
[4:14:54] had the absolute honor to attend um our
Banning and Bulmont Unified School
[4:14:59] District student of the month. Um these
four students that they um awarded today
[4:15:06] had every single one of us crying in the
room today. The dads were so proud um
[4:15:12] and it was just a great great experience
to start off the day and I am so
[4:15:15] thankful that we participated in that as
well. So it was truly a wonderful day.
[4:15:19] All right so with that we will adjourn
to our next meeting at 9:07.