[0:00] The 2025 current time is 300 PM. Madame Clerk, could you call roll, please?

[0:07] » Council member Beaver

[0:11] » here. >> Council member Miller

[0:14] » here. >> Council member Wolsey

[0:16] » here. >> Mayor Proton Venable

[0:17] » here. >> Mayor Thorp

[0:19] » here. >> All present.

[0:21] » Thank you, ma'am. And no public comment.

[0:25] » No comments tonight. >> All right. So, with that, we will move

[0:28] into our conference room. Current time is still 3 p.m.

[0:32] » Thank you.

[1:43:37] There you go.

[1:43:41] Gabe, check. Check. Test us.

[1:43:46] » You're muted. >> Check. Check.

[1:43:50] » There we go. >> Sorry, I had to run from the uh

[1:43:53] » AV room down to the podium. So you could so you could hear me.

[1:43:57] » Okay. How about this? >> Um do you have like you're on your phone

[1:44:02] or could you can you hit your volume up? You're not bad but I can um

[1:44:07] » I'm on speaker phone. So I'll take it. Hold on. Let me try this. How about with

[1:44:12] it on just regular device instead of speaker?

[1:44:15] » Um that's a little better. Let me just go. Let me grab the iPad. Give me two

[1:44:20] seconds. Yeah.

[1:44:38] All right, I bumped you up a little bit. Can you try again?

[1:44:41] » Yeah, how about now? >> Yeah, it's much better.

[1:44:45] » Hello. Okay. >> Do you want to try to kick back to your

[1:44:48] speaker so you can see the um presentation stuff?

[1:44:54] Yeah, because I'm in the gym right now, so there's going to be some background

[1:44:56] noise, but how about now? I'm on speaker.

[1:45:00] » That sounds pretty good. Um, let me just >> Okay,

[1:45:03] » I can kick it. If you want to see the presentation, I can share the screen or

[1:45:06] you you think you're good? >> Yeah, I'm good. As long as it's as long

[1:45:09] as we're tracking. I'm just gonna have to have somebody bump it to the next

[1:45:12] slide, but uh Trevor said he'll do that. >> Yeah, if Trevor's there or we can do

[1:45:16] that if you just say next slide. Um, whatever's easier. So,

[1:45:20] » yeah, I'll just say next slide. Yep. Sounds like a plan. Cool. Um, well, you

[1:45:24] sound good. So, >> yeah, just join.

[1:45:27] » No, I'm doing both because we kind of left it ambiguous on the stats, but I'll

[1:45:31] let her know. >> Sounds like a plan.

[1:45:34] » Cool. Thanks, Gabe. >> You got it. Thank you.

[1:45:37] » See you. >> All right. Bye.

[2:34:54] Hey, Grant. It's Gabe.

[2:34:58] » Hey, let me uh You got me? >> Yeah, you're good. We can hear you. Can

[2:35:03] you see the screen? >> I can. Yes. Thank you.

[2:35:07] » Okay, awesome. Thanks. So, I'll I'll mute it until uh till I'm up.

[2:35:11] » Perfect. Sounds good. >> Cool. Thanks.

[2:36:08] Hey Sandy, can you hear us? >> Yes, I can.

[2:36:12] » Okay, perfect. We got you clear. If you just uh mute yourself till you're ready,

[2:36:16] you'd be good to go. >> Yes.

[2:36:17] » Thanks. >> Thanks.

[2:36:55] Don't pull that against me. This is

[2:37:05] good.

[2:37:35] Keep it cranked up.

[2:38:25] Look who's here.

[2:38:32] This is a good

[2:38:49] morning.

[2:39:00] She's doing

[2:39:16] Thank you so much.

[2:41:03] Cheers.

[2:41:30] Yes, I'll get in the morning.

[2:43:59] Hey, Councilman Beaver, can you hear us? >> Loud and clear.

[2:44:05] » Sounds good. Thank you.

[2:44:33] » Hey Jasmine, can you hear us?

[2:44:47] Y >> Hey. Hey, Jasmine, you're muted. Could

[2:44:52] we just get a test for audio, please?

[2:45:32] is now joining.

[2:45:40] » Hey, is that you, Jasmine? Can you hear us now?

[2:45:43] » Yes, I I can. >> Great. Coming through loud and clear. If

[2:45:46] you'll just uh mute yourself till you're ready, we're good to go.

[2:45:50] Thank you. >> Thanks.

[2:46:17] » 30 seconds.

[2:46:26] Okay.

[2:46:29] » Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Call our normally scheduled city council

[2:46:34] meeting to order for August 25th, 2025. Current time is 6 pm.

[2:46:40] We'll have uh Pastor Mike FR lead us in prayer, followed by our new captain

[2:46:45] doing the pledge of allegiance. Could I get everybody to please rise?

[2:46:52] Let's pray together. Heavenly Father, thank you for our city. Thank you for

[2:46:57] our leaders. God, I pray that tonight you would give them wisdom to know what

[2:47:00] to do and the courage to do it. God, I pray that as we speak to each other,

[2:47:04] whether we agree or disagree, we would do that with honor and with dignity and

[2:47:08] with respect. And that tonight would honor you. We're grateful, God, for

[2:47:12] where you've brought us. And we look forward to where you're going to lead

[2:47:15] us. And so lead us tonight and thank you for the privilege of being here and

[2:47:20] thank you for the opportunity that's in front of us. And it's in the name of

[2:47:23] Jesus we pray these things in Jesus name. Amen.

[2:47:34] » To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it

[2:47:39] stands nationy

[2:47:44] andice for all.

[2:47:51] Thank you, pastor and captain.

[2:47:55] » Madame clerk, would you please call role?

[2:47:58] » Council member Miller >> here.

[2:48:00] » Council member Wolsey here. Mayor Prot Benibal

[2:48:03] » here. >> Mayor Thorp

[2:48:04] » here. >> Joining us via teleconference tonight is

[2:48:07] Council Member Beaver. Council member Beaver, are you present?

[2:48:11] » I am. >> Thank you, sir. And can you confirm that

[2:48:14] the agenda was posted at your location 72 hours in advance?

[2:48:20] » It was. >> Thank you. And for the record, Council

[2:48:23] Member Beaver is joining us from the Courtyard Washington Downtown Convention

[2:48:26] Center.

[2:48:30] » Thank you, ma'am. Mr. City attorney. >> Uh thank you, mayor. Uh for the item of

[2:48:37] uh city manager recruitment, uh the city council interviewed executive search

[2:48:43] firms in close session. Uh and the city manager will be executing an agreement

[2:48:49] with HR dynamics and performance management in an amount not to exceed

[2:48:53] $25,000. Thank you.

[2:48:57] » Thank you, sir.

[2:49:01] » Interim city manager. Any changes to the agenda?

[2:49:08] Uh, mayor, there there is one change to the urgency item uh, regarding the fire

[2:49:12] code. We have an amended uh, urgency ordinance has been placed in the back

[2:49:16] and and is available on the city's website. A copy has been given to all

[2:49:19] the council members. Uh, the short version is that we removed remodeling

[2:49:24] from one of the trigger requirements uh, for the fire sprinklers. So now it is

[2:49:28] simply new uh mobile homes, manufactured homes or or relocated mobile homes and

[2:49:33] manufactured homes. We no longer have remodeling listed.

[2:49:37] » Perfect. Thank you, sir. With that, we'll move to our special presentations.

[2:49:41] We have our lieutenant in the sheriff's department.

[2:49:50] » Good evening, honorable mayor and council. As you know, our captain Walker

[2:49:56] has been reassigned to our specialized investig investigations division. We do

[2:50:02] have our new captain, Captain Brandon Weeble, here to give a real quick uh

[2:50:06] introduction to himself and do the public safety update. Uh Captain Weeble

[2:50:11] came from the scientific investigations division and I will turn it over to him

[2:50:15] for a little brief intro. >> Good evening, mayor and city council. My

[2:50:20] name is Brandon Weeble. I'm the newly assigned captain at the Ukipa station. I

[2:50:24] want to start by saying that I'm really excited to be here, although this will

[2:50:27] be my first time assigned to the UKIPA station. It's not the first time that

[2:50:31] I've been involved with the station. Uh my father was assigned here as a

[2:50:35] detective between 1995 and 2000. I spent numerous hours with him at the station,

[2:50:39] which is where my interest in law enforcement began.

[2:50:43] I'm a lifelong resident of the surrounding area. I was raised in Grand

[2:50:47] Terrace and I currently live in Bumont. I have several friends and family that

[2:50:50] live in Ukipa and I've always enjoyed being here. I've heard nothing but great

[2:50:54] things about the personnel assigned to the station and the support that we

[2:50:57] receive from the community and city officials. I'm looking forward to

[2:51:01] picking up from where Captain Walker left off, however great that challenge

[2:51:05] may be. I say that because from what I've uh seen and been told, Captain

[2:51:09] Walker did a phenomenal job here. I'm also looking forward to building

[2:51:13] relationships with the city and the residents that we serve and working in a

[2:51:17] collaborative manner to ensure that Ukipa continues to be one of the safest

[2:51:21] cities in California. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. With that, we like to

[2:51:26] come down and join us in the front of the DAS for a quick photo.

[2:51:58] Thank you. [Applause]

[2:52:20] So now that everybody knows who you are, you want to do the safety report for the

[2:52:24] sheriff's department.

[2:52:37] All right. So for the safety report for July of 2025

[2:52:44] for calls for service, we had 3,659 uh little almost 500 more than the month

[2:52:51] of June. Uh however, we maintained a 3minut average response time to

[2:52:55] emergency calls. Uh peak call times continued to be Sunday through Tuesday

[2:53:00] afternoon. Part one crimes, we had one reported

[2:53:04] rape. Um, here it says one robbery. However, uh that's going to be a county

[2:53:11] uh issue. Um, and we had 22 aggravated assaults, uh,

[2:53:17] seven burglaries, 18 thefts, two motor vehicle thefts.

[2:53:25] For arrests in July, we had 95 arrests. 63 were adult bookings into one of our

[2:53:30] correctional facilities. The most common arrests were uh narcotic related

[2:53:35] offenses, warrant arrests, trespass offenses, and domestic violence

[2:53:39] incidents. For our traffic enforcement division, we

[2:53:43] had 145 traffic citations issued in the month of July and 15 traffic accident

[2:53:49] investigations, two DUI arrests, and three office of

[2:53:53] traffic safety operation uh operations, sorry.

[2:53:58] And finally, for our solutionoriented policing team, they handled 33 CH

[2:54:03] transient calls for service. Uh, six complaints came in via the UKIPA app in

[2:54:09] July, which is down from about 33 in June. Five subjects accepted assistance

[2:54:14] or information, and there was one placement. Uh, they conducted

[2:54:18] approximately 40 park patrols and banket property checks. the continued

[2:54:23] collaboration with local business owners and managers, and 13 updated letters of

[2:54:27] agency, uh, code enforcement drone flights to locate illegal firework

[2:54:32] activity, which resulted in three cited for fireworks. And I'm happy to report

[2:54:38] that during the 2025 point in time count, uh, we had four unsheltered

[2:54:42] subjects, which was a 70% decrease from 2024.

[2:54:48] Any questions? >> Thank you, sir. My colleagues have any

[2:54:52] questions? No. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:54:57] Next will be the fire department. Chief Brownowski

[2:55:01] by by >> Good evening.

[2:55:03] » There he is. Okay. >> Yes, sir.

[2:55:05] » Good evening, Mayor and Council. Sorry, I apologize I couldn't be there. I'm

[2:55:08] currently deployed on a strike team uh up in Fresno County. Um besides our 100

[2:55:14] degree plus days, we're seeing a uh statewide lightning activity causing an

[2:55:20] immense amount of initial attack and extended attack fires. So nothing quite

[2:55:24] major fires yet, but uh helping out our our neighbors up north. Uh so stats for

[2:55:30] uh Yukipa fire for July. We can go next slide.

[2:55:35] Uh 781 calls per service, which is a very busy month. Um and uh your kind of

[2:55:43] normal breakdown there on calls. Nothing out of the ordinary. We'll go next

[2:55:46] slide. Uh so on July 16th, units from Ukipa uh

[2:55:53] city Calire and the Forest Service received a report of a fire at Potato

[2:55:58] Canyon. Uh upon leaving the office, I uh saw we had an obvious working fire. I

[2:56:03] was able to rolling request uh you know just coming out of the office there uh

[2:56:09] doubling our our air assets including a sorry about that a large air tanker

[2:56:15] um which is a like a -8 not the uh jumbo jet. So, I was first on scene, found an

[2:56:21] acre in heavy old growth oak that was immediately uh threatening

[2:56:26] structures on Sunset. Uh tied in with Captain Walker, we issued evacuation

[2:56:30] order uh for Sunset and Potato Canyon with some road closures. Uh our

[2:56:36] resources out of the Bryant station took immediate action and they had task

[2:56:39] forced up our 2,000galon water tender that we have from the Oakland contract

[2:56:44] uh which proved valuable to mitigate that structure threat. uh air tankers

[2:56:48] were allow allowed the uh the fire to be boxed in with retardant before it

[2:56:52] reached an adjacent canyon which is uh primarily grass. Had it spread in that

[2:56:57] canyon, we would have been looking at an extended attack or a major incident

[2:57:00] there. Um firefighters were able to uh contain

[2:57:06] the fire to one and a half acres. And just, you know, a note for the

[2:57:10] public, we get a lot of pressure to open roads and and lift orders as soon as

[2:57:13] they don't see smoke in the air. But as a reminder, that fire started with one

[2:57:17] spark and until we mop it up 100% there's thousands if not hundreds of

[2:57:21] thousands of sparks in the ground we got to mop up. And now next slide.

[2:57:28] Uh so part of the advantage of me being a certified large tree faller for our

[2:57:33] department, I was able to certify all our staff in wildland chainsaws. Uh this

[2:57:37] is a formalized training that's a a didactic uh test and field evaluation.

[2:57:42] Next

[2:57:46] And then Fourth of July, as we do annually, we were able to uh I was able

[2:57:50] to issue a permit along with our fire marshal for the fireworks show at Yappa

[2:57:54] High School. We provided standby for that on the firing pad and in our

[2:57:57] adjacent wildlands, uh with no issues. And then also enforcement, um which we'd

[2:58:03] kind of talked about previously, um anecdotally living in the city and I

[2:58:08] think stats wise, we saw a large decrease in aerial fireworks and overall

[2:58:12] fireworks. Uh during our our multi- um agency enforcement, our CalFire law

[2:58:19] enforcement did confiscate several hundred pounds of fireworks. Uh all safe

[2:58:24] and sane type. They uh issued warnings. A lot of it was a misconception on, hey,

[2:58:30] I bought this from a fireworks stand. It's good to go. And uh not

[2:58:34] understanding that no fireworks are legal in Ukipa. Uh our staff uh wasn't

[2:58:39] unable to track down any aerial fireworks uh despite their best efforts

[2:58:43] and roving patrols uh although sheriffs did uh site several people for aerial

[2:58:48] type fireworks even though all are dangerous and will cause fires. That's

[2:58:52] end report and answer any questions. >> Thank you chief colleagues have any

[2:58:57] questions comments? All right. Thank you sir. Brings us to code enforcement. Mr.

[2:59:03] Vincent.

[2:59:07] » Mr. Mayor, council, good evening. These are the code enforcement

[2:59:12] statistics for July 2025. Uh we had 44 new cases submitted. 10 of

[2:59:19] those 44 were resolved by the end of the month.

[2:59:23] Like usual, the uh top cases are overgrown vegetation, maintenance of

[2:59:27] rideaway, and trash and debris. This is an example of kind of a flop pad I

[2:59:33] describe it as. It's a shed in an abandoned property or a a rural property

[2:59:38] that uh some people kind of turned into like their little drug den. So, we

[2:59:43] cleaned that up for them.

[2:59:47] As far as inspection activity goes, we had 94 inspections, 67 total cases

[2:59:52] closed out. Uh over $10,000 received in citation fees. Uh, one comprehensive

[2:59:59] mobile home inspection was completed, three poultry ranch inspections were

[3:00:03] completed, and uh, one property was approved for the fine forgiveness

[3:00:08] program. They applied for that program while it was still active and we're

[3:00:14] still going through the process. It was finally completed in July. Uh, this is

[3:00:18] another uh, transient camp uh, that we cleaned up in the city

[3:00:23] in July. Uh, that's the end of my report unless you have any questions.

[3:00:28] » Thank you, sir. >> I don't have questions, but I have two

[3:00:32] comments. >> Yes, ma'am.

[3:00:33] » Um, about two weeks ago, um, I noticed in front of our mobile home park two

[3:00:41] individuals that were in the drainage ditch. Um, and it looked like one

[3:00:46] possibly was using drugs. I took pictures. I text that to you. Within 10

[3:00:51] minutes, I swear they had them. They had left the area, walked down the street,

[3:00:57] and uh the one car got the individuals. The second one came up and uh checked

[3:01:02] down in the drainage as to what all was there, if there was anything. So, uh I

[3:01:07] know for the people in my mobile home park, we definitely appreciate that. Uh,

[3:01:12] second comment. Last Monday, I got to observe two junk cars removed from the

[3:01:20] corner of Third and E, which uh was a result of the ordinance that we passed.

[3:01:26] And I got to talk to the neighbor that lived next door, and she is so excited

[3:01:31] and so happy and so appreciative that we were able to do that. Now, we just have

[3:01:37] to get them to clean up their junk, but at least we've got rid of the cars. And

[3:01:41] I just personally want to thank code enforcement and the soft team and the

[3:01:45] job that uh your people do. We appreciate you.

[3:01:48] » We appreciate your thanks. Thank you very much, ma'am.

[3:01:51] » Anything else? >> You

[3:01:56] Chris. Yeah. >> All right. Thank you, sir.

[3:01:58] » Thank you, sir. >> Justin, you have to remind me if you

[3:02:02] have anything to say because I'm not used to being on the speaker.

[3:02:09] » All right. I definitely will if I need to, sir. Thank you.

[3:02:11] » Okay, there we are. Just want to make sure we still had you. Uh, with that,

[3:02:14] uh, Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment?

[3:02:17] » We do. >> We will start with Michelle Farah,

[3:02:21] followed by Hansen Wong.

[3:02:35] Just a quick reminder, you have three minutes to speak. Please state your name

[3:02:39] and address for the record.

[3:02:44] » Uh, my name is Michelle Farage. I live at 332

[3:02:49] 33 Colorado Street. Um,

[3:02:54] I just wanted to ask or make some statements about some policies that uh

[3:02:59] you folks have for the city. Uh, your general rules about building and who

[3:03:05] gets to build and who doesn't. Um there's a big ordinance about no metal

[3:03:10] buildings, no metal roofing, and yet in today's climate where we are all worried

[3:03:16] about fires. Um we're still not being allowed to put together metal sheds and

[3:03:23] put metal roofs on our homes or anything of that sort. But yet there are lots of

[3:03:28] properties who get to like in the middle of our um shopping area there is a

[3:03:37] I think it was considered a senior housing project uh which is totally made

[3:03:42] out of metal metal siding, metal top. I know we're supposed to be building

[3:03:47] things that look like surrounding area and that by means

[3:03:53] does not, you know, portray that code. There are buildings planted on the

[3:03:59] outside uh corridors of the 10 freeway, all done out of metal. all do not

[3:04:06] represent the housing around it or buildings around it. So I just want to

[3:04:10] know that um is it just deep pockets that get to do

[3:04:15] these things or does the average person get to protect their properties by

[3:04:19] building them in ways that more or less protect them?

[3:04:25] So I also can take a moment and just say that I'm not for a lot of your corridor

[3:04:31] area uh plans. Um, I think it's called the freeway corridor. I'm live there. I

[3:04:39] get to see all that traffic. Sunday mornings takes me 13 minutes to get to

[3:04:43] work. During the week, it takes me 45. Unless there's an accident, then it can

[3:04:48] be well over an hour. So, I can't imagine what it's going to be like with

[3:04:52] all these additional houses and trucks trying to go through there. And as far

[3:04:57] as I've seen, I haven't seen any expansion for our freeway corridor

[3:05:01] through that area either. But

[3:05:06] so I guess there's no comments back. But um Long Oak Glenn Road, great to have

[3:05:13] businesses get put in there, but I'm also very incredibly disappointed that

[3:05:18] you took away the Dunlap Park. Dunlap has always been sort of the red

[3:05:22] stepchild of Ukipa, and it shouldn't be. Those citizens deserve more than they

[3:05:28] usually get. from schools to parks to a drainage system that took 40 years to

[3:05:34] develop. So, good job on the drainage system.

[3:05:39] Really boohoo for the rest of it. That's all I needed to say. Thanks.

[3:05:49] Next, we have Mark Westwood followed by Rain Mendoza.

[3:05:56] at the conclusion of our meeting. Could we have someone reach out to that last

[3:05:59] public speaker to kind of go over the code section?

[3:06:03] » Thank you.

[3:06:06] » Okay. I'm uh here to represent KQH and do a quick followup on the fireworks.

[3:06:11] And I don't know whether you're aware or not, but KQH has over 90,000 listeners a

[3:06:15] day now. 92.5. It's Ukipa's radio station. And I got together with Judy

[3:06:19] Wley. We're talking about animals and pets and fireworks. And uh we did 75

[3:06:24] 92nd announcements on KQH 4 days prior to the 4th of July. So uh we just wanted

[3:06:31] to say that we're proud to have done that and maybe we've helped a little bit

[3:06:33] on that. So thank you.

[3:06:39] » Next we have Rain Mendoza.

[3:06:54] Okay.

[3:06:58] » All right. Hi. Um, my name is Rain Mendoza and um, I follow Representative

[3:07:03] over newsletter and I noticed that he came to UKIPA and discussed with um,

[3:07:08] Mayor John Thorp about uh, key priorities for the city and how to

[3:07:12] continue working together. But I couldn't find online what exactly these

[3:07:16] key priorities were and such which way would be continuing working together. Um

[3:07:22] so if there's any way I can get that information I would really like that.

[3:07:27] This is my concern because we are trying to develop in Ukipa and a lot of us are

[3:07:32] very open about our opinions in the way we want Ukipa to grow and so I don't

[3:07:38] know if or where representative over Nol's

[3:07:43] um stance is such as the um per warehouses

[3:07:49] in Ukra and industry. Um, that is all I would just like more

[3:07:55] transparency with how our our city government is communicating with the

[3:08:00] rest of government. Um, especially how it pertains to us because we live here.

[3:08:06] So that's it. Thank you.

[3:08:11] » I have no more comments for general public.

[3:08:14] » All right. Thank you, ma'am. With that, um, this is the time for city council

[3:08:19] members to disclose if they have any, uh, conflicts of interest.

[3:08:24] Seeing seeing hearing none. Okay. Brings us to the consent agenda.

[3:08:32] Is there any items that council wants to pull or talk about?

[3:08:36] » Yes, I would like to pull item five. >> Okay. Anybody else?

[3:08:43] Mr. Miller.

[3:08:48] Okay. With that, do I have a motion to accept items one through four and six

[3:08:55] through eight? >> Mr. Mayor, I'll approve or make a motion

[3:08:58] to approve uh the items uh except for number five, which we'll have for

[3:09:03] discussion. >> I'll second that.

[3:09:05] » So, we got a first and a second. Those in favor?

[3:09:08] » I I mayor >> I

[3:09:10] » um you know what? I'm so sorry. We got to do a roll call vote. I apologize.

[3:09:14] » That's right. >> So,

[3:09:16] » Council Member Bieber, >> yes.

[3:09:20] » Council member Miller, >> yes.

[3:09:22] » Council member Wolsey, >> yes.

[3:09:24] » Mayor Prom Benibal, >> yes.

[3:09:26] » Mayor Thorp, >> yes.

[3:09:27] » Motion carried. >> Okay, with that, item number five.

[3:09:33] » Okay, thank you. Um, few questions that I have. Uh first of all um does work

[3:09:40] have to be done on this project before the grant is applied for?

[3:09:49] Uh good evening mayor and council members. Um

[3:09:52] for this grant program uh the only work that occurs after the grant is awarded

[3:09:58] is is eligible for grant funding. So we would have to wait until we would have

[3:10:02] to wait until the results of their review and and if the grant is approved

[3:10:07] then we can begin the work. >> So we have to wait for the grant to be

[3:10:12] approved before the work can be done. >> Yes. Correct.

[3:10:15] » Okay. Just trying to clarify here. Okay. Um I do have concerns about the grant

[3:10:21] anyway. um you know with the um atmosphere that's going on between

[3:10:27] federal government and state government um I would think that grants will be

[3:10:33] very iffy uh for money to come to California. So uh that was my major

[3:10:38] concern about whether the work could be done first or not. Um have we gotten any

[3:10:43] bids or anything on what this project is actually going to cost?

[3:10:48] » Uh yes we have. We uh we did receive an estimate uh regarding the ballfield

[3:10:54] lighting itself. I think it was 740,000 for the ballfield lighting.

[3:10:57] » Okay. >> And then for the landscaping is about

[3:10:59] 200,00060,000 for the parking lot lighting.

[3:11:05] » Okay. Now also in here um it talks about the letter of con of intent for that one

[3:11:11] acre of land to be purchased which will have to be sold to help pay for our

[3:11:17] share of the grant. Am I correct on that?

[3:11:20] Yes. >> Okay. Um, what happens if that letter of

[3:11:23] intent would go away? If they change their mind or something, do we have

[3:11:28] anyone else interested in this property? Has it been advertised?

[3:11:33] » The the property has not uh been advertised since uh there's an exclusive

[3:11:38] negotiation agreement between uh the city and uh the other party. I believe

[3:11:43] it's Tuscanos. Um so that that is the only process that we've gone through

[3:11:48] today. Um I believe that if if that if the uh property is not sold u you know

[3:11:57] under the terms and conditions of that exclusive negotiations agreement then

[3:12:01] the city council would have the you know the option to uh pursue that same type

[3:12:07] of agreement with another party. But it uh to answer your question it it has not

[3:12:11] been advertised. It was something that was uh it it it came to uh the city and

[3:12:17] then um that opportunity came to the city which was presented to the city

[3:12:20] council for the exclusive negotiation agreement

[3:12:22] » and that was in 21 correct? >> Yes.

[3:12:25] » Yes. Okay. So I just um to clarify this for myself

[3:12:31] for the people watching and the for the people sitting here $1 million would be

[3:12:37] borrowed from the general fund. Uh uh no no it would it would be um

[3:12:45] » from the diff fund. >> It would be from the diff fund where the

[3:12:47] where the project is >> to put into the general fund.

[3:12:53] » The the grant the grant is for the grant is the grant request is for half a

[3:12:58] million >> which would require a half a million

[3:13:01] dollar local match from the city. >> And we what we are recommending is that

[3:13:07] the half a million come from the proceeds of the sale of the property

[3:13:11] that you referred to earlier. >> Okay.

[3:13:18] Okay. I just need to clarify this. Um the 1 million we would be going after a

[3:13:24] grant for$1 million. >> Uh now we would be going and we would be

[3:13:30] requesting half a million dollars. >> Okay. Because the way I was reading it,

[3:13:35] you know, we would be requesting a $1 million grant, but we had to put up the

[3:13:39] $500,000 to show that we had that. >> We we are requesting $1 million for a

[3:13:47] project of which the city will pay 50% and the grant will pay 50%.

[3:13:51] » Okay. Phil's going to straighten me out here.

[3:13:53] » Yeah. No, for me, not it exactly correct. So, the grant award is

[3:13:57] $500,000. Um the grant requires a match of of an

[3:14:02] equal amount. So the total project costs of a million dollars is funded half with

[3:14:06] the grant and then half um really uh through the development impact

[3:14:12] fee fund. Um and uh that would require uh transfers from the general fund that

[3:14:18] would be funded through sale of surplus property.

[3:14:22] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[3:14:24] » Um I'm not against the ball fields lighting the ball fields. It's very

[3:14:28] important, you know, that the kids have a place to safely play and um they could

[3:14:34] be used more uh than they are currently now. Uh you know, actually, we could

[3:14:39] probably use more ball fields. We could use more facilities where our uh young

[3:14:45] or maybe um younger, healthier, older um children could play. Uh we have a lot of

[3:14:54] problems now with ebikes and and uh bicycles and all this type of thing

[3:14:58] going on in the city because they have no place to ride. Uh there's lots of

[3:15:03] trails which is good for hiking and horse riding but there's nothing for

[3:15:08] these kids. So um you know we've cut out a lot of services that people have

[3:15:14] complained about and I think down the road uh we need to um take that into

[3:15:19] consideration also. uh not just spec specialize like in in ball fields. We

[3:15:25] need to look into providing more services for these kids. Uh I'm not I'm

[3:15:30] not against the ball fields. I'm not really against this or for this. Um I

[3:15:35] need to um do some uh thinking on this before we vote.

[3:15:42] Just to clarify too, this area of Ukipa was previously owned by the Finkelstein

[3:15:48] family. And so any property that the city owns in that area that was

[3:15:53] originally donated to the city of Ukipa, the revenues generated from the sale can

[3:15:58] only be used specifically in that area of the community. So I just wanted to

[3:16:01] make sure we weren't just picking always one spot and it helps us complete the

[3:16:06] 13th Street Sports Complex. >> Right. And to clarify, the revenue will

[3:16:10] have to be can only be used for recreational purposes.

[3:16:13] » Okay. And once again, just to clarify, no construction will be done until the

[3:16:18] grant is awarded. >> Correct.

[3:16:20] » Okay.

[3:16:24] » Thank you, uh, Council Member Wizzley. I appreciate your comments and I'm I'm

[3:16:27] glad to see we're going to be lighting some ball fields down there. I know the

[3:16:30] youth league is going to love that. And I think that's been a plan for a while

[3:16:33] is to upgrade them. And can you tell me what fields we're going to be upgrading?

[3:16:36] I think we had talked about a little bit earlier. Uh yes, the uh there are four

[3:16:39] fields at the facility. Um actually three little leagues softball fields and

[3:16:44] then one smaller field which is essentially just an infield uh no

[3:16:48] outfield. So the the three fields that are being proposed for lighting are the

[3:16:53] the three larger fields. So not not the smaller t-ball field and and these are

[3:16:57] the the ball fields that are located on the west side of 13th Street at the um

[3:17:02] adjacent to the skate park. >> Thank you. you know, and we have to

[3:17:05] remember baseball is a wonderful brand in this town, softball, baseball, and I

[3:17:10] think anything we can do to encourage that uh in the future is a good thing,

[3:17:13] and I know our youth leagues will be appreciative of that. So, uh I hope we

[3:17:17] get the grant. Uh no, no problem. Most of these grants are matching grants

[3:17:20] anyways. Um and u obviously it's been a historical thing that we're able to do.

[3:17:25] So, I appreciate the work that staff has done on that uh to seek these grants.

[3:17:29] But I do appreciate council members Wisley's uh comments especially about I

[3:17:33] agree with you on the ebike issue and and now it seems to be many bikes

[3:17:37] running up and down the road. So we'll chat about that with our new captain u

[3:17:41] pretty soon I'm sure. So thank you. >> Thank you sir. Mayor Proton

[3:17:49] me. >> Councilman Beaver.

[3:17:53] » I'll make a motion to approve the item. >> I'll second. Okay. I've got a first and

[3:17:58] a second. Those in favor? >> I

[3:18:00] » I mayor. >> Oh, I did it again.

[3:18:03] » I'm so sorry. Just a reminder, every vote tonight has to be via roll call

[3:18:07] vote um due to Councilman Bieber joining us via teleconference.

[3:18:12] » Council member Bieber. >> Yes. And my apologies.

[3:18:17] » Council member Miller. >> I.

[3:18:19] » Council member Wolsey. >> Hi.

[3:18:21] » Mayor Prom Benibal. I >> Mayor Thorp.

[3:18:23] » Yes. I motion carried.

[3:18:29] All right. Thank you. That takes us to item number nine, Chief Malinowski.

[3:18:35] » Yes. Good evening again, Mayor and Council. Uh so the item before you is uh

[3:18:39] bringing back the procurement of the command vehicle for the uh second staff

[3:18:44] battalion chief. Uh we diligently worked on the recommendations from council. Uh

[3:18:48] given uh the fact there was about a week of reflex time um before having to turn

[3:18:53] in staff reports for this meeting. Uh we did reach out to Bangor. We did get some

[3:18:58] informal uh quotes with that amount of time. They were unable to provide us a

[3:19:03] formal uh quote and the informal quotes um they gave us a range of 145,000 to

[3:19:10] 165,000 um with an estimated estimated uh

[3:19:15] purchase of 155,000 which was the same purchase that we had had received on our

[3:19:20] estimates for an outright purchase. Uh, as we discussed, Phil and I

[3:19:26] discussed, there was also some other uh, purchasing policy issues. Um, so we

[3:19:30] didn't see an appreciable savings with this purchase. And since this vehicle

[3:19:34] was a one-off and they didn't have an existing,

[3:19:37] uh, contract, like, state contract, DJS contract, source wall contract, we were

[3:19:41] unable to piggyback. we would have to put this out to RFP with our spec uh fly

[3:19:46] that accept the bids and then uh close it and award an RFP to a lender and

[3:19:53] without an appreciable savings and with the additional lag time of that we

[3:19:57] didn't see that as a good option for this. However, in looking into it and

[3:20:02] discussion from last council, uh staff did see that there may be a potential

[3:20:05] benefit for a fleetwide uh leasing contract at least to get more due

[3:20:10] diligence with uh additional time we'll need to take a better accurate look at

[3:20:14] that. So, the recommendation for you tonight was to uh approve the

[3:20:18] procurement of the vehicle with the downtown of Sacramento for a purchase

[3:20:22] price of $64,72. Uh we would also come back to you for

[3:20:26] the command portion built on a separate agenda item at a future staff or future

[3:20:31] council meeting. And then we also uh uh provide direction to staff regarding a

[3:20:35] comprehensive lease strategy for the city's vehicle fleet which I don't want

[3:20:40] to speak for Phil but I believe would be uh more in time with bringing that back

[3:20:44] for our next uh city budget. That's what I have for you and answer

[3:20:50] any questions. >> Thank you sir. My colleagues have any

[3:20:54] questions or comments? >> No, I'll make a motion.

[3:21:01] » I'll second. >> All right, we have a first and a second.

[3:21:03] And with that, a roll call vote. Council >> member,

[3:21:09] » yes. >> Council member Miller,

[3:21:10] » yes. >> Council member Wolsey,

[3:21:12] » yes. >> Mayor Promal,

[3:21:13] » yes. >> Mayor Thorp,

[3:21:14] » yes. >> Motion carried.

[3:21:19] » Okay, Madam Clerk. Item number 10. >> Thank you, Mayor. Item number 10 is

[3:21:24] going to be the monthly usage report for the uh UKIPA mobile app. This is going

[3:21:28] to be for the month of July of 2025. Okay. Very similarly to last month, we

[3:21:34] had a total of 274 monthly users uh reports submitted, reports issued, uh

[3:21:40] 355 and the top issue again was streets.

[3:21:47] We had a total of I'm sorry 97 uh street issues that were

[3:21:53] reported. Uh we had code issues that came in in a close second with 77 issues

[3:21:57] and then illegal fireworks was a close third with 67 issues reported.

[3:22:02] Uh per council's request at the last presentation of this item you had

[3:22:06] requested that we add some response times. I went ahead and added response

[3:22:10] times for the top three um street city issues. The average response time is two

[3:22:15] and a half days. for code enforcement is just a little over two and a half days.

[3:22:18] And then unfortunately our um our app was not able to capture the uh response

[3:22:24] time for illegal fireworks. But those were the top three issues. And that

[3:22:28] concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[3:22:33] » Thank you, ma'am. Anybody have questions or concerns, comments?

[3:22:40] » All right. That's a receiving file. We don't have to vote on this one, right?

[3:22:42] » We don't have to vote on this. Um I did have a question though. I just wanted to

[3:22:45] see if I could get some clarification from council. Um, this item as it is a a

[3:22:50] recoccurring monthly item. Is this something that the council would like to

[3:22:53] cons continue to see as a report or should we add this to the consent

[3:22:57] agenda? I'd be happy to add additional information to the report. If you'd like

[3:23:02] for it to go back on consent, um, we can add some more detailed information, but

[3:23:06] it's completely up to the council. Are we getting more users by by um you know

[3:23:12] reporting this? >> Yeah, it's it's uh I would say it's very

[3:23:19] consistent. Um July we had 274. Last month we had 169.

[3:23:26] So I think it just varies. Um it varies on the time of the year. Um but

[3:23:31] consistently you're going to see that every month the top issue is always

[3:23:34] going to be streets. Um the response times are going to be pretty consistent.

[3:23:39] It's going to be a lot of the same report.

[3:23:42] » Yeah, I just Matt that's one of the reasons why I brought it, excuse me, to

[3:23:46] the attention, you know, just to get more users out there because there's

[3:23:49] full of information on anything that we do here in the city. We try to be more

[3:23:55] transparent for everybody to see what we do and stuff. And it's all on the app.

[3:24:00] you know, you can go in there for dates on the ribbon cutting cutings and and

[3:24:05] everything that that we do in the city and stuff. And I think that there's

[3:24:08] reports in there from code enforcements that we you can see, you know, the

[3:24:12] progress that we're doing and and so that's that's why I really like to see

[3:24:17] it on the regular agenda than the consent to maybe help boost it. So,

[3:24:24] » yeah, absolutely. Completely up to the council. There's some other things that

[3:24:27] maybe we could do. We could do some social media posts to try to promote

[3:24:30] this. Um, but whatever the council would like.

[3:24:33] » So, I'm good with anything either way. >> Any input.

[3:24:37] » Uh, comment. Yeah, >> I think

[3:24:39] » Go ahead, Justin. Sorry. >> Apologies. I think uh um having this is

[3:24:46] number one, our our we know that our police and our fire and our code

[3:24:48] enforcement are doing outstanding jobs um for our community. Public works does

[3:24:53] an amazing job as well. we um we may not see it as often, but anytime we have an

[3:24:58] opportunity for, you know, even if Scott himself is to come up and kind of give a

[3:25:01] report on big projects that our our public works have undertaken, um the

[3:25:08] community sees the issues. They see the potholes. They see any type of uh

[3:25:11] roadway conditions or signage issues. I think it's an opportunity for them to

[3:25:14] come out and say, "Yeah, here's in the last two weeks since our last meeting or

[3:25:18] or the last four weeks, here's kind of what our public works have captured." um

[3:25:22] that honestly our public works I think they're uh overworked certainly

[3:25:25] understaffed and I would love to try to champion them their cause because they

[3:25:29] they are doing truly phenomenal work while the rest of us especially during

[3:25:33] times in inclement weather know during hurricane I think Hillary we were all

[3:25:38] batting down the hatches and staying indoors and our public works were out

[3:25:41] there clearing drainage canals so um I know Fine and Fine's team Scott

[3:25:46] Washurn and all the folks over there do incredible work and I would love to

[3:25:49] highlight it at our city council meetings on a monthly basis

[3:25:57] Do you want to vote on that? >> Um, I have a comment.

[3:25:59] » Go ahead. >> Okay. Um, I've used the app myself to

[3:26:03] report uh a couple of complaints that I received and I thought I need to use the

[3:26:08] app to see how it works so I can tell people it does work. Go, you know,

[3:26:13] please use it. However, uh, and I did get good results. However, I did have a

[3:26:18] complaint from a builder uh last week that was uh extremely upset with it. He

[3:26:24] felt that it's very difficult to use. He was overcharged on uh a couple of

[3:26:29] things. Uh so these are things that um we am I looking at the wrong thing?

[3:26:35] » Yeah, there's a difference between the app where you can report Oh,

[3:26:39] » the app and the >> homeless issues, potholes, things like

[3:26:42] that. What he's talking about about our is our EPNL program. Um, we do have

[3:26:47] resources, but if he had if he needs assistance, please have him reach out to

[3:26:51] Ben or his team or come into the counter and we will walk him through it.

[3:26:55] » Okay. Sorry, I got that mixed up, but it was a concern and I did.

[3:26:58] » No, I appreciate it. >> Yeah. Okay.

[3:27:00] » Thank you, >> Council Miller. Any concerns, questions?

[3:27:05] Do you need a motion and a vote on this then?

[3:27:08] » Um, I think if we're keeping it as is, then I think we're okay.

[3:27:11] » Okay. >> Thank you. Yes, ma'am. With that, we're

[3:27:16] moving on to item number 11.

[3:27:21] » Uh, thank you, Mayor. Uh, Steven Graham, your city attorney. I'll be handling

[3:27:24] item number 11 and number 12. These are both municipal code updates. Item 11,

[3:27:30] ordinance number 463. Uh, we're looking at a sort of surgical strike, a small

[3:27:35] change to the definition of a responsible person under section

[3:27:40] 1.12.010. Now this is a small change but it's

[3:27:44] going to have a very big impact. Uh if you look at the current definition of a

[3:27:48] responsible person, it means a property owner, a tenant, a person with a legal

[3:27:53] interest in real property or a person in possession of real property. So those

[3:27:57] are the four categories of individual that code enforcement can hold

[3:28:02] responsible. It's why they're called the responsible person for a violation of

[3:28:05] the city's municipal code. If you look at the updated ordinance, those four

[3:28:10] things that I just listed, those are 1 2 3 and four under the new ordinance. But

[3:28:14] we've also added a property manager or a management company with contractual or

[3:28:19] actual authority over the property. So if you contract with a property

[3:28:24] management company to maintain your property in the city of Ukipa and it is

[3:28:28] not maintained, the city can site that property management company going

[3:28:33] forward. Uh, number six, a contractor, subcontractor, or developer performing

[3:28:39] work at the property. If they're the one creating the nuisance, then we can site

[3:28:44] them instead of citing just the property owner. Uh, number seven, a operator or

[3:28:49] host of a short-term rental or other transient lodging use. Uh, number eight,

[3:28:55] a business operator or franchise conducting operations on the property.

[3:29:00] Number nine, a homeowners association or similar entity responsible for managing

[3:29:04] or maintaining common areas of the property. So, if we have an HOA and

[3:29:09] they're failing to live up to their obligations to maintain property within

[3:29:13] the city, we can now issue citations to the the HOA. And then lastly, number 10,

[3:29:19] and unfortunately, number 10 is one that happens way too often in this community

[3:29:23] and others. a family member, caretaker, or other occupant who exercises control

[3:29:29] over the use or condition of the property. So, oftentimes what we've been

[3:29:33] seeing is we have maybe an elderly individual who is the owner, the legal

[3:29:37] owner of the property, but they have a younger relative, perhaps a son, uh

[3:29:43] perhaps just someone who lives with them, a caretaker, and that person

[3:29:47] actually exercises control over the property and is responsible for the

[3:29:51] condition of that property. And so we've encountered situations like that and our

[3:29:57] option is to initiate an action or citation against the elderly property

[3:30:02] owner when they're not actually the person who's responsible for it or can

[3:30:05] fix it. And so this gives us the ability to actually deal with the person

[3:30:09] responsible and who's capable of resolving it. Um, the goal here is to

[3:30:14] put additional tools in the toolbox for our code enforcement to make sure that

[3:30:18] we are holding those individuals responsible who are actually creating

[3:30:22] the nuisances in our community. I'm happy to answer any questions the

[3:30:25] council may have about this change. >> Thank you, sir. Any questions, comments,

[3:30:30] concerns from my colleagues?

[3:30:35] » Seeing hearing none, do I have a motion?

[3:30:40] I'll move to approve. We got a first one.

[3:30:44] » Oh, sorry. >> First being uh Councilman Miller.

[3:30:48] Second, Councilman Wolsey. >> With that roll call vote, please.

[3:30:51] » Council member Baieber, >> yes.

[3:30:54] » Council member Miller, >> yes.

[3:30:56] » Council member Wolsey, >> yes.

[3:30:57] » Mayor Promal, >> yes.

[3:30:59] » Mayor Thorp, >> yes.

[3:31:00] » Motion carried. >> Thank you, ma'am. All right, sir. Back

[3:31:04] to you again. Item 12. >> Yes, Mayor. and and what we have in

[3:31:07] front of us is an urgency item, emergency ordinance number 464U.

[3:31:11] We're bringing this forward on an urgency basis, not because the city has

[3:31:15] been sitting around waiting to bring something on on an emergency basis like

[3:31:18] this, but rather because we're responding to urgency legislation that

[3:31:22] the state of California legislature actually adopted not that long ago. Uh

[3:31:27] the the legislature was looking at uh AB 306 for the last year, primarily in

[3:31:34] response to the Palisades fires and what they were considering at the at the

[3:31:39] legislature was freezing the building codes in the state of California as it

[3:31:43] relates to residential uh construction. uh and the intent was to prevent I'll

[3:31:50] call it some of our more coastal uh neighbors in the state from enacting

[3:31:55] ever more complicated and burdensome amendments to the building codes at the

[3:31:59] local level making it really challenging for people to rebuild their homes

[3:32:04] following those fires but also just to build residential housing in general

[3:32:07] increasing the cost of that residential housing. Um the legislature instead of

[3:32:14] uh adopting AB306 on regular order, which would means it

[3:32:18] would probably be adopted right about now and then signed into law by the

[3:32:23] governor and it would go into effect in January. What the legislature did was

[3:32:28] they took the language from AB306 and they put it into their budget bill and

[3:32:33] they adopted it on an urgency basis back in June. And the language prevents local

[3:32:39] jurisdictions like the city of Ukipa from enacting changes to our building

[3:32:44] codes including our fire code that would have an effect on residential housing.

[3:32:50] And it's going to have this moratorum on changes until 2031.

[3:32:55] And so conversations that local jurisdictions like this have had are

[3:33:00] there important changes that we were planning on bringing forward in the

[3:33:03] trienal review later on this year that we need to get on the books now before

[3:33:09] uh September 1st so that it is essentially grandfathered in for the

[3:33:14] next six years. And after talking uh about it with staff, the one issue that

[3:33:20] we felt very strongly that we we wanted to bring forward to the council for your

[3:33:23] consideration was whether newly constructed or relocated

[3:33:30] uh mobile homes and manufactured homes would be required to have fire

[3:33:35] sprinklers. Now, we don't control the design of the fire sprinkler systems.

[3:33:39] That's the state. That's through HCD. We control only the question of if

[3:33:44] does it need to have a fire sprinkler system. Uh as it stands now that that

[3:33:49] requirement is not in our code. Uh as many of you saw we did have a recent

[3:33:53] fire at at a at a mobile home community I believe in Cal Mesa. Uh that can show

[3:33:58] you just how quickly fire can spread u in in in these communities. Uh this the

[3:34:04] original version of that we had included uh new relocated and remodeled mobile

[3:34:12] homes, manufactured homes. Um after hearing some feedback from the community

[3:34:18] uh from residents uh from from owners uh and and frankly a lot of questions that

[3:34:24] we acknowledged raised issues. Uh we're recommending to remove the remodel

[3:34:28] language. So you'll have you have an amended version of the ordinance in

[3:34:31] front of you. it's been placed in the back. We've given it to interested

[3:34:33] parties. You know, we were getting questions like, "If I change my carpet,

[3:34:36] do I need to put in fire sprinklers?" And that really wasn't the issue that we

[3:34:41] were attempting to resolve. Uh, and you know, we don't want to make we don't

[3:34:45] want to disincentivize people uh from upgrading their existing units. Uh, we

[3:34:50] want to address uh when new ones are coming into the community and being and

[3:34:54] being relocated. Uh, so you have it in front of you. This is an urgency item.

[3:34:58] It does require a four-fifths vote. uh if it is to go effect, it will go into

[3:35:02] effect immediately. Uh and this will preserve the city's ability uh to

[3:35:06] implement that that fire sprinkler requirement. I I would add that uh based

[3:35:10] on feedback that received from the uh building safety department, we did add

[3:35:16] uh section 2 subsection B uh which also uh requires that uh newly constructed

[3:35:23] and relocated mobile homes and manufactured homes uh will be

[3:35:27] constructed using ignition resistive materials and practices. So again, this

[3:35:32] is uh a requirement uh that that we are preventing these types of homes uh from

[3:35:40] being from essentially uh being tinder boxes. Uh these requirements are not

[3:35:46] unique uh to mobile homes and manufactured homes. Uh we do have other

[3:35:51] requirements for single family homes. Uh, and you are going to see a new uh

[3:35:58] code coming forward later this year. It's going to talk about ignition

[3:36:02] resistant materials for those. But we need to get this one on the books now to

[3:36:06] ensure that it gets grandfathered in. Uh, it's a policy question though. It's

[3:36:10] ultimate up to the council. Uh, and if you want this to go into effect, we will

[3:36:14] need four affirmative votes. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

[3:36:18] » Thank you, sir. With that, council have any questions or concerns, comments?

[3:36:23] I um immediately jumped on this because I live in a mobile home and I did meet

[3:36:30] with Jennifer this morning and since then there's been these changes so I had

[3:36:34] to kind of redo my thinking here a little bit but um it still um involves

[3:36:42] mobile homes to a point. My I guess my first question would be uh will this

[3:36:47] affect all mobile home parks in the uh city when we bring in the uh newly

[3:36:56] constructed or um those type of things? Uh or is it just the

[3:37:03] parks on the outskirts in the high fire security zone?

[3:37:09] » So that's a really good question. So section 2A affects all mobile homes

[3:37:14] throughout the entire community and that's the fire sprinkler requirement.

[3:37:18] » Uh B uh only affects those in a high fire severity zone and that's the

[3:37:23] requirement for the ignition resistant materials

[3:37:26] » for the materials. >> Yes.

[3:37:28] » But A would would affect uh is for the sprinklers.

[3:37:31] » Yes. >> Okay.

[3:37:32] » And again it's only for new homes most of which are already built with

[3:37:36] sprinklers anyway or for relocated. RE, that's the word, relocated, right?

[3:37:41] » Yes. >> So, you're bringing it into the

[3:37:43] community, >> right? Okay. Well, if you're relocating

[3:37:47] uh new relocating mobiles into the parks,

[3:37:53] uh fire sprinklers are very expensive and also uh they require a lot of water.

[3:38:00] We've had this problem in our park with um too much pressure. They require more

[3:38:07] pressure. So with too much pressure then we have issues where our underground

[3:38:12] water pipes would spring a leak and it would cost a lot of money to have to dig

[3:38:17] down and and fix those issues. So um you know that's a concern for me with the

[3:38:24] sprinklers is the water pressure and I don't know you know how that affects or

[3:38:29] how that works with the water district but I think this is something that you

[3:38:33] know needs to be taken into consideration.

[3:38:36] Um, can you clarify for me where does a

[3:38:42] remodel permit come from? >> Does it come from the HTC?

[3:38:47] » It come from HD, but again, we've removed the remodel.

[3:38:50] » We removed. >> Okay. So, some of those

[3:38:53] » for that exact reason. >> Yeah. Okay. So, that that takes care of

[3:38:56] that then. >> So, um,

[3:38:59] » and then to your to your point about water pressure,

[3:39:02] » uh, >> I'm a lawyer, not an engineer. Right.

[3:39:04] » Right. So, grain of salt. this way for better advice. Uh but uh typically the

[3:39:09] the resolution that I've seen to that is installation of uh pressure regulators

[3:39:14] on the system to keep the pressure under control.

[3:39:19] Okay.

[3:39:24] Okay. Um I I just have I understand the pressure

[3:39:29] regulators because I am familiar with those. even with like an RV, you use a

[3:39:34] pressure regulator. But um I I just am concerned about the uh the pressure that

[3:39:42] could cause a lot of issues for uh parks.

[3:39:46] You know, that's my concern right there. >> So, I put the cart in front of the horse

[3:39:52] a little bit. We have a public comment on this. So, let's hear that first

[3:39:54] before we go any further down the line here with comments and concerns.

[3:39:59] Madam clerk, >> we do have one public comment. Mr. Mark

[3:40:04] Westwood,

[3:40:11] » course I dropped everything, right? Sorry about that. At least you can know

[3:40:16] I can still touch my knees. Okay. Uh Mark Westwood, chair of the UKIPA Mobile

[3:40:20] Home Residence Association. I'm very happy and pleased that, you know, we got

[3:40:24] together with a couple council people, talked to people individually, uh,

[3:40:28] talked with Jennifer Coffford, talked with Steven Graham, and they very much

[3:40:31] accommodated some of our our worries. Uh, I'm here mostly for education

[3:40:35] tonight. Uh, there's a lot of misnomers that you, mobile homes are so much more

[3:40:40] flammable than regular sticku. And I want to make the argument that they're

[3:40:44] not. Um, and just give you some facts. Mobile homes in UKIPA as of 2023 2270.

[3:40:50] But AI, which by the way, we had to use AI for a lot of this because this was an

[3:40:54] emergency ordinance and a lot of what was happening, uh, we had to get

[3:40:58] information where we can. So AI said there's 4,8 488 mobile homes in Ukipa,

[3:41:04] probably outlying areas. Uh, traditional built non-manufactured stick homes as of

[3:41:09] 2023, 18,500. Number of mobile homes burned in Ukipa

[3:41:13] since 1991, six.

[3:41:19] So there's not a whole lot of mobile homes burning up. One was arson. Uh a

[3:41:23] couple were accidental and those mobile homes still stand. They were repaired.

[3:41:26] They didn't completely burn down. Um and I don't have the statistics on the other

[3:41:29] ones, but uh it's a very relatively low number of traditional houses burned in

[3:41:34] UKIPA in the same amount of time, 80. So if you go by that data, you would say

[3:41:41] that regular stick built traditional homes are more flammable than than

[3:41:45] mobile homes. But that's not also true. Uh we understand and that but we we do

[3:41:50] know that it would be an awful burden to put in fire sprinkler systems and of

[3:41:55] course that we talked about that about roofs about different improvements about

[3:41:59] conversions. We talked about a whole nine yards and uh we came up with this

[3:42:04] idea of taking out and striking and they did they struck remodeled uh our you

[3:42:09] know mobile homes but relocated mobile homes if they had to relocate a mobile

[3:42:14] home for whatever reason. I found one quote that was $12,000

[3:42:18] plus the pump and plus the all that just for the mobile home. And that also

[3:42:22] affects the park too because they're going to have to put in new piping as

[3:42:26] well most of the time. So I'm glad that we came to this especially for the

[3:42:31] mobile homes that are in level one danger zone which has been uh identified

[3:42:35] in Ukipa by the state fire marshal and those are lock cases executive, El

[3:42:39] Dorado, Lake View and Fremont. those were all mobile homes that would have

[3:42:42] been very drastically impacted by this possibly. So, we're glad that um but you

[3:42:48] know going back to uh 306 which is the emergency bill which is what's caused

[3:42:52] this urgency ordinance um it states very clearly that the changes and the

[3:42:57] modifications necessary as an emergency standard to protect health and safety

[3:43:01] can still go forward. And then my other question I I don't know if I can ask a

[3:43:05] question but maybe through uh council Mosley is if you do this amendment

[3:43:09] tonight and you approve it by four fifths then can you come back and amend

[3:43:14] that ordinance even before June 1st 2030 which is when that emergency ordinance

[3:43:21] ends. Thank you very much.

[3:43:25] » No more comments. >> Thank you ma'am. Sir would you like to

[3:43:29] respond to that? >> If the council would like me to I'd be

[3:43:32] happy to. Uh yes uh we would be able to amend it. If by amend it we mean

[3:43:38] reducing the standard. Uh the issue under 306 is increasing standards. Um so

[3:43:45] if for whatever reason it was determined that this isn't working in our

[3:43:49] community, you could always pull it back. Yes.

[3:43:54] » Thank you. Any other comments, concerns, questions?

[3:43:59] » Miller minimal. Beaver.

[3:44:05] » No, sir. >> Um, I don't know if he's still on the

[3:44:10] phone and I don't hate to put him on the spot because I didn't have a chance to

[3:44:13] talk to him about it, but Chief Alowski, are you still there?

[3:44:20] » Sir, he's not, but if you need him, I can have him join the meeting again.

[3:44:23] » No, that's okay. If he was here, I was going to ask him a question, but it's

[3:44:25] probably not pertinent. So, okay. Um, then, uh, I need a motion.

[3:44:35] I'll move to approve. Yeah, we got a first. Do I have a second?

[3:44:39] » Seconded. >> Perfect. With that, a roll call vote,

[3:44:42] please. >> Council member Beaver,

[3:44:45] » yes. >> Council member Miller,

[3:44:47] » I. >> Council member Wolsey,

[3:44:49] » no. >> Mayor Pretendable,

[3:44:51] » no. >> Mayor Thor,

[3:44:53] » yes. >> Motion failed.

[3:45:02] Did you say it failed? >> Isn't there three yeses?

[3:45:06] » You needed a four fifths vote. >> Oh, I apologize. Okay. All right.

[3:45:12] Okay. With that, item number 13. It's a public hearing.

[3:45:16] So, I'll open the public hearing

[3:45:22] and current time

[3:45:26] 659.

[3:45:32] Good evening, mayor and uh council members. This item, this public hearing

[3:45:36] is for the freeway corridor uh specific plan update and the Pacific Oaks

[3:45:41] Commerce Center uh project.

[3:45:46] Um I know that this will be uh probably the fourth or fifth time that the city

[3:45:50] council has seen a lot of this information in the public hearing

[3:45:54] setting. So, uh, there's a lot of there are several slides that are going to be,

[3:45:59] uh, presented to you tonight. I'll that you have seen before that the public has

[3:46:02] seen before. Uh, I'll spend a little bit of time, uh, on them, uh, just to to,

[3:46:08] uh, get the information out there. Um, so we'll we'll start with a little bit

[3:46:12] of, uh, history. Um, you know, as as you are aware, this the area the the focus

[3:46:20] of this item is the area along the I 10 freeway. And for years, going back to

[3:46:25] the city's first general plan that was adopted in 1992, that area has always

[3:46:30] been identified as a key component to the city's long-term plan as far as

[3:46:34] economic uh development. And uh you know, for years after that,

[3:46:40] uh the city the city council has planned uh that to be um you know, the future of

[3:46:47] of uh commercial and housing needs for the city. The 2004 general plan uh

[3:46:52] continued that goal. Uh the 2016 general plan update also uh added more goals

[3:46:58] that reinforces the how important the freeway corridor specific plan area is

[3:47:04] not just for the commercial and residential needs of the city but also

[3:47:07] the the future the economic uh development uh of the city.

[3:47:22] So, so again, you know, just a little more history, you know, back between

[3:47:26] 2005 and 2008, the city council um they authorized the use of uh $750,000 in

[3:47:32] general fund funding, and that was to help uh facilitate the development in

[3:47:37] the freeway corridor specific plan area. Um that resulted in the freeway corridor

[3:47:43] specific plan adoption. That plan was adopted by the city council in uh 2008.

[3:47:50] And again, I wanted to emphasize, you know, that the the city council back

[3:47:54] then had prioritized the use of general fund money to facilitate development in

[3:48:00] on this property or on these properties. Typically, uh cities won't invest um

[3:48:05] money like that to excuse me to kickstart uh this kind of development.

[3:48:11] So uh once the current uh plan was adopted back in 2008, you know, that's

[3:48:17] been in in place for for almost 17 years. Um this slide here shows that uh

[3:48:24] essentially what the land use distribution of the current plan is.

[3:48:28] Again, this is a current plan. Um what you are considering tonight is an adopt

[3:48:32] is an update to this plan. If that update is not approved, then we default

[3:48:38] back to this current 2008 plan.

[3:48:45] Um uh so the 2000 the current 2008 plan um you know it includes the commercial

[3:48:51] areas um as well as well as the open space areas and residential areas. Uh

[3:48:57] one thing I wanted to point out is that on on this plan the commercial areas are

[3:49:02] in red. Uh currently the warehouse use is allowed in these red areas. Um as you

[3:49:08] can as you know uh there's a warehouse that is currently being developed on the

[3:49:14] on the bottom right edge of the screen here in uh southeast area off of County

[3:49:19] Line Road. So the the warehouses are currently

[3:49:23] allowed in the in the red commercial zoned areas. Uh there are some uh what

[3:49:29] is not shown on this plan is the natural drainage courses. Um on this exhibit on

[3:49:34] the screen we've overlaid the those natural drainage courses in blue. As you

[3:49:38] can see they do uh overlap with a lot of the the not only open space area but

[3:49:44] also the residential zoned area in yellow and much of the commercial zoned

[3:49:50] um area in red. And it's important to to to note this um because you know right

[3:49:57] now currently with the current plan if a commercial or residential project is

[3:50:03] proposed on the on with it on on the the uh land use on the properties that are

[3:50:09] shown on this plan. They would still still have to go through a conditional

[3:50:13] use permit process and an environmental review process which may also include uh

[3:50:19] permitting. So the current plan does require some additional steps which may

[3:50:25] uh it may prohibit development within some of these natural drainage courses.

[3:50:30] But if the property owner chooses to uh develop on within those drainage

[3:50:35] courses, then there would be some more extensive environmental review uh that

[3:50:40] would be necessary that uh which comes with a um an additional cost. And in

[3:50:46] addition to that, there's the mitigation requirements that are required by the

[3:50:50] permitting agencies to be able to develop within these areas. So this

[3:50:54] exhibit here, it's, you know, it's important that to note the overlay of

[3:50:59] these natural drainage courses over the current plan as it's adopted.

[3:51:06] So since the the plan uh was adopted in 2008, there are some uh issues that that

[3:51:12] we've found uh with the plan. Um you know some of them are noted here on this

[3:51:16] slide. The high infrastructure costs there have been uh some changes in the

[3:51:20] economic market between 2008 and today. Um this plan you know it won't work with

[3:51:26] the city's current housing element. Um and the arena requirements with the new

[3:51:31] state housing laws. Um the business park and the regional uh commercial land uses

[3:51:38] are indistinguishable. And and what I mean by that is right now it's not quite

[3:51:42] clear as to which uh which retail uses and which business park or or warehouse

[3:51:49] uses are allowed in each of those two uh the land uses. And then also the open

[3:51:54] space was supposed to be a natural area and and it didn't really recognize those

[3:51:59] uh sensitive environmental areas or or those uh drainage areas that you saw on

[3:52:04] the previous slide. So, so once uh um you know this was

[3:52:09] realized in 2021 and 2022, uh there were some goals that were um that were set by

[3:52:17] the city council. Uh the goals related to an update to the plan. You know,

[3:52:21] there those were important to note because um you know, the the city

[3:52:26] council at the time wanted to maintain the general goals and policies of the

[3:52:30] the 2008 plan, but at the same time be consistent with the city's general plan.

[3:52:35] not only not just the the current general plan but some of the policies

[3:52:39] that were in the previous plan that evolved to the policies that are in in

[3:52:43] place with the 2016 16 plan. Um again the the current economic market um you

[3:52:50] know addressing the needs of the current economic market is also important and

[3:52:54] then probably one of the most important things is the providing the flexibility

[3:52:59] for the property owners moving forward. Um, you know, I mentioned that with the

[3:53:03] current plan, there's some additional environmental work and mitigation that

[3:53:07] is required in these drainage channels and sensitive uh environmental areas.

[3:53:11] Well, the with the update, we wanted to uh provide um more flexibility for the

[3:53:16] property owners to be able to do uh to do uh what they choose to do with their

[3:53:21] property in the future. And even if that means that they would have to go back

[3:53:24] and revisit some some of the envir environmental reviews or the studies,

[3:53:28] but they would still they would still have that flexibility uh and ability to

[3:53:33] do that in the future. So once those goals were established,

[3:53:38] the city council uh provided direction to staff moving forward with the update.

[3:53:42] Um, as you can see on the screen, there were several public meetings or study

[3:53:46] sessions that were held um in 2021 and 2022. And again, there's that direction

[3:53:54] from city council um was very specific uh you know to allow more flexibility in

[3:54:00] open space, consider the natural views, um uh preserve the ridge lines from the

[3:54:05] freeway and Oakland Road, uh manage traffic impacts, and then to hide

[3:54:09] warehouses from the freeway and the adjacent city streets.

[3:54:14] Um so in May of this year, city council was presented with five options and

[3:54:18] directed staff to move forward with option number three. Uh the the plan

[3:54:24] that you see on the screen before reflects that option number three. Um

[3:54:28] and the update that the city council is considering tonight. The overall

[3:54:32] specific plan update is based on this option number three that city council

[3:54:37] gave direction to staff on uh back in May.

[3:54:44] One of the things that was requested um at a previous meeting was a side-by-side

[3:54:50] comparison of the 2008 plan, the current plan and the updated plan. And as you

[3:54:56] can see on the screen, um you know, we kept the the colors the same. Uh the

[3:55:01] commercial areas are in red. Um and I mentioned earlier that with the

[3:55:06] current plan on the left um the warehouse uses are uses are allowed in

[3:55:11] the red commercial zoned areas. Um one of the the key differences um on the

[3:55:18] updated plan. Uh there is that dark the dark green colors which is the open

[3:55:23] space conservation uh area. um that is essentially that is very similar to the

[3:55:30] exhibit you just saw that showed the blue natural drainage courses. So this

[3:55:36] updated plan, you know, we wanted to identify those sensitive environmental

[3:55:40] areas and those drainage courses and essentially um complete all the envir

[3:55:46] the environmental work that is required that the that a developer would have to

[3:55:51] do with the current plan. We we completed that environmental work and

[3:55:55] the mitigation studies as part of the update. That way if a property owner

[3:56:00] chose to develop on that property, they would not have to to uh do that.

[3:56:04] Obviously, they do have the f they if this plan is up, if this updated plan is

[3:56:09] approved, the property owners will still have the ability that flexibility to

[3:56:13] develop within those areas, but they would have to uh complete some

[3:56:17] environmental review, additional environmental review on their own at

[3:56:22] their expense. And which is pretty typical, pretty common with uh any uh

[3:56:29] property owner who wishes to develop their property.

[3:56:36] again with the so with the uh updated plan uh this slide here shows the the

[3:56:42] number of residential units the existing uh plan uh provides for uh 2447

[3:56:48] units. The proposed plan uh adds an additional 25 units. And one thing

[3:56:54] that's important to mention is that the the residential land uses, the

[3:56:59] densities, they were updated to work with the market demand. On the left side

[3:57:02] of the screen on the bottom, you you see the different residential density types.

[3:57:08] Um, you know, the R six and the R12 land use, those were added to the updated

[3:57:13] plan for flexibility. Those two don't exist in the current plan. And again

[3:57:17] that is was uh those two were added to add flexibility and also to work with

[3:57:22] the current housing uh market demand. And the the area in pink there where the

[3:57:30] pumpkin patch is. Um I wanted to note that that is another land use that was

[3:57:33] added in the update. uh the um the agricultural tourism. And again, that

[3:57:40] was added uh after some conversations with the uh pumpkin patch uh property

[3:57:45] owners and their operators. Again, this is to support their current pumpkin

[3:57:49] patch and also to allow for uh for their flexibility in the future to continue to

[3:57:55] to to use agricultural based use with some commercial uh u uh capabilities.

[3:58:05] So with the freeway corridor specific plan update, there are some uh here are

[3:58:10] the results that that come from the proposed update. Um you can see that

[3:58:15] that there is some increased development potential for property owners uh

[3:58:18] specifically to the Robinson owned property. They do gain that the they do

[3:58:24] gain an an additional 6 600 housing units and 50% more commercial area with

[3:58:31] the updated plan. Um I mentioned earlier that there's more flexibility for the

[3:58:35] pumpkin patch compared to the current plan. And then u it also allows for the

[3:58:39] mixed use development development in certain areas primarily on in on the

[3:58:44] Robinson owned property. Um again there's you know the current market uh

[3:58:49] does um look for those types of developments where you can have a

[3:58:53] mixeduse type of development. Um, this updated uh plan also considers the

[3:58:58] sensitive environmental areas and the and uh the habitat and the permitting

[3:59:03] that's consistent with state law. I talked about that earlier with the

[3:59:07] development in these natural drainage drainage courses. It reduces the infra

[3:59:11] in infrastructure costs for the city, the property owners and and one

[3:59:15] important thing is that the updated plan does result in approximately 52% less

[3:59:22] traffic or less vehicle trips compared to the current plan. And again, keep in

[3:59:26] mind that the this comparison is is the the the 52% reduction is between the um

[3:59:36] buildout of the current plan and buildout of the proposed plan. So not,

[3:59:40] you know, we're not comparing that number. That number doesn't compare

[3:59:44] today's traffic.

[3:59:50] So, the second component of the item uh before you tonight is the Pacific Oaks

[3:59:55] Commerce Center project. You've heard a lot about this uh proposed warehouse

[3:59:59] project in previous uh uh meetings. You know, it it includes the 312 acre site,

[4:00:05] proposes two uh uh warehouse buildings.

[4:00:11] You know, the access uh to this proposed commerce center will be off of Livo

[4:00:16] Canyon Road uh via a new road that will that is uh uh conditioned to be built

[4:00:22] and paid for by the developer. Uh there is a future connection to the

[4:00:26] interchange to the east, the Wallwood interchange that is uh being proposed

[4:00:30] for the future. And this project uh um if approved, it is conditioned to

[4:00:36] provide and and by that I mean to construct and pay for the inf the

[4:00:40] infrastructure uh to that serves their facility and that includes the roads,

[4:00:45] drainage, water, sewer, electric, and telecommunication. And I'll talk a

[4:00:50] little more about that here shortly. Um here's just some visuals that you've

[4:00:54] seen before regarding the the warehouse project the the vantage point from the

[4:01:00] Live Oak offramp at the freeway and uh viewing the project site from the I 10

[4:01:05] freeway. As you can see the where the warehouse house uh buildings are

[4:01:10] proposed uh they are not visible from either of those public streets.

[4:01:17] One uh question that came uh before us at the previous hearing was uh what

[4:01:22] about higher elevations? Will you be able to see the warehouse from higher

[4:01:26] elevations such as uh you know the residents that live along Colorado

[4:01:30] Street? The the warehouse developer has has provided these diff renderings of

[4:01:35] what it would look like from that higher elevation.

[4:01:40] And as you can see on the photo on the bottom, the the warehouse project would

[4:01:45] it is visible in between the hills there from that higher vantage point.

[4:01:55] The architectural review for the warehouse project did go before the

[4:01:59] planning commission and is also here before you tonight. Um you've seen some

[4:02:03] of these renderings. Some of these renderings are included in that package.

[4:02:06] This is one of the uh rendering that was shared. um uh with the the city council

[4:02:12] in a previous hearing. And again, there is additional renderings in the agenda

[4:02:17] packet for this item.

[4:02:21] And just a quick timeline on the supplemental environmental impact report

[4:02:25] for the uh the updated plan, the freeway corridor specific plan, the update to

[4:02:30] that as well as the proposed warehouse project. And again, it's important to

[4:02:36] consider that the the supplemental environmental impact report, it it only

[4:02:42] considers the impacts that resulting between the the changes in the current

[4:02:46] plan, the current adopted plan, and the proposed plan. So, um the the um EIR

[4:02:53] that was completed for the original plan in 2008 is the basis of this

[4:02:58] supplemental environmental impact report.

[4:03:08] And uh so the as part of completing the update to the freeway corridor specific

[4:03:12] plan, one thing that was important is to make sure that the update to the plan is

[4:03:16] consistent with the city's general plan and also the city's housing element

[4:03:20] strategies. And so it's important to note that that the the plan the updated

[4:03:26] plan that's before you tonight is consistent with those two documents.

[4:03:33] And so, as I mentioned earlier, the information that I just covered, it has

[4:03:37] been uh presented to the city council uh in the past. Um, I know that I'm trying

[4:03:43] to make it quick, but there's a lot of information that we have to share and

[4:03:46] because this is a public hearing, this information needs to be presented. But,

[4:03:51] um, so you've seen the city council and the public has seen this information in

[4:03:55] the past. And you know, I'm trying to summarize in a few minutes the

[4:04:00] information that is included in hundreds or maybe thousands of pages of the

[4:04:06] supplemental EIR and all the the appendices, all the studies that have

[4:04:09] been uh completed and you know these studies they h they were completed by

[4:04:16] you know professionals who who have analyzed all of the impacts uh that are

[4:04:20] associated with what's being proposed before you tonight. Um, and you know,

[4:04:25] today I kind of wanted to take a little different approach, even though I've

[4:04:28] been talking for a long time, but I want to take a little different approach to

[4:04:31] hope hopefully provide some clarity and answer uh some questions that property

[4:04:36] owners and the public has had or have they that they have presented over the

[4:04:40] last few meetings to to staff as well as uh uh to the city council. And based on

[4:04:48] the concerns and those questions that have been presented uh by the public,

[4:04:52] you know, we put together a list of uh frequently asked questions, you know,

[4:04:56] and there was there were many questions that were asked. Some of them were were

[4:05:01] um were asked and because there's so much

[4:05:05] information either we as staff didn't have an opportunity to fully we didn't

[4:05:09] have all the information in front of us to answer the question in the public in

[4:05:12] a public hearing setting but we went back made a list of all those questions

[4:05:16] and I'll go through uh some of those here real quick. Um um one question, you

[4:05:22] know, how much money did how much general fund money did the city spend to

[4:05:25] prepare the the plan that is currently adopted and in place? How much money was

[4:05:30] spent back in 2008? Um you know, I mentioned that earlier. You know, that

[4:05:35] was approximately 750,000. Again, that was general fund money that was uh

[4:05:39] prioritized by the city council in 2005, 2007, 2008. And again, this was used to

[4:05:46] to uh facilitate development. And again, typically cities will not spend general

[4:05:52] fund money on or invest general fund money to facilitate development,

[4:05:57] complete environmental studies for a private development project.

[4:06:01] Um, another question, how much um how much money h has been spent over the

[4:06:05] last three years to update the 2008 plan?

[4:06:10] and and um right now we our current budget

[4:06:15] includes uh identifies approximately 1.5 million to update this plan. One thing

[4:06:21] that's different between this process and the process from 2005 to 2008 is

[4:06:26] that the in this case the the warehouse developer that is proposing the project

[4:06:32] before you tonight they will re there's a they signed an agreement with the city

[4:06:36] that the city council approved well they will reimburse the city um approximately

[4:06:41] half a million dollars of that $ 1.5 million that that is being spent for the

[4:06:46] EIR and this study and as future if this plan is approved as future projects come

[4:06:52] forward. Um they will also be conditioned to enter into an agreement

[4:06:57] with the city to pay their portion or their share of of the of this $ 1.5

[4:07:02] million. So so um what's different between now and 2008 is that the the

[4:07:09] general fund is not going to spend as much money for this process as it did

[4:07:13] back in 2007208.

[4:07:18] And again, this was this was based on on the direction from city council at the

[4:07:24] last meeting to move forward with option three.

[4:07:28] Uh I kind of covered this question or this topic earlier, but another question

[4:07:31] is does a current 2008 plan require a cup and environmental review to build a

[4:07:36] commercial or housing project. Um I mentioned I mentioned earlier that the

[4:07:40] answer is yes. A conditional use permit is required along with um an

[4:07:45] environmental review and permitting and that uh as you know would be processed

[4:07:50] through the planning uh commission. And before I go any further, I know there

[4:07:55] are some you know I didn't I didn't find the answers to some of these questions

[4:08:00] in the thousands of pages by myself. I did have Ben Matlo's efforts. So as we

[4:08:04] go through this, Ben will will help me through provide answers to some of these

[4:08:08] questions. Um, another question came up. Has a city

[4:08:13] staff met with the Banger property owners to discuss the update to the

[4:08:16] plan? Uh, you know, the answer is yes. Uh we have had several meetings and

[4:08:22] discussions with not only the property owners but the property owners

[4:08:25] representatives and that includes the Robinson um uh family, the Palmer's

[4:08:30] Pumpkin Patch, Abraham Misa, South Mountain Water Company, and also the

[4:08:34] Barnett family that owns property on the south at the southeast end of the

[4:08:38] project. Um uh question is the update to the plan

[4:08:44] and the proposed warehouse project a new quick fix for the city's financial

[4:08:48] situation? The answer is no. It is not a quick fix.

[4:08:53] And as I mentioned earlier, the freeway corridor specific plan area has always

[4:08:57] been identified as a future hub for commercial and retail and housing

[4:09:01] development. So um this isn't something that was that that uh was meant to be a

[4:09:07] quick fix. This has been uh discussed uh going back to 1992 when the general plan

[4:09:15] when the city's general plan was adopted that identified this area as a

[4:09:19] commercial and and uh retail and housing hub in the city.

[4:09:26] Uh why doesn't the updated plan include a road connection to the new project

[4:09:29] being proposed in Calamsa? Um the updated plan, it does keep the

[4:09:36] same connection to County Line Road as a current uh adopted 2008 plan. And we've

[4:09:41] added uh an exhibit here that shows that connection. Over on the far right, you

[4:09:46] where the uh black arrow is, that is where the the current 2008 plan and also

[4:09:52] the proposed updated plan uh shows a connection to County Line Road. Um, also

[4:09:59] included in this exhibit is the a project that is being proposed in the

[4:10:04] city of Kamea. Um, they've actually um they for this project the city of Cal

[4:10:11] Mesa circulated their environmental document. I believe uh uh today was the

[4:10:15] last day of their 45day public review period. And this exhibit that you see

[4:10:20] here is directly from that document. And in this

[4:10:25] as you can see um the road network in that proposed project it it doesn't it

[4:10:30] does not show a connection to the north um you know to the freeway corridor

[4:10:35] specific plan area. So, um you know, our the city's updated plan doesn't show any

[4:10:43] additional connections um to the south to Cal Mesa. Um again, primarily because

[4:10:49] we we the city have um have not been asked by the city of Cal Mesa who's

[4:10:54] processing that project and as you can see the the map that they are

[4:10:58] circulating does not show any connection. Yeah, if I may add,

[4:11:04] so their project is uh quite a bit bigger than ours as well in terms of

[4:11:08] housing and then a lot more industrial. Um, as part of their traffic analysis,

[4:11:14] they didn't need a junction point through the city to like live oak canyon

[4:11:19] or anything like that. And then our specific plan doesn't need that

[4:11:22] connection point into Jalama either. So there wasn't necessarily a demand from

[4:11:27] our plan. And based on the analysis that Chow Mesa did, there isn't a demand on

[4:11:31] their plan to connect through to Live Oak Canyon or the future Wildwood based

[4:11:36] on how the plan was assessed and the environmental review completed today.

[4:11:44] Thank you, Ben. Um, another question, if the updated plan is not approved, how

[4:11:48] does it affect the city's adopted housing element?

[4:11:54] you know, for years the city's housing element has identified housing in this

[4:11:58] freeway corridor specific plan area and since 2008 um you know as as you know

[4:12:04] that housing has not been developed. It has not come to fruition. So, one of the

[4:12:09] things that will that will impact the city's housing element is that if the

[4:12:14] city is not able to show the state that we have made an effort to facilitate

[4:12:18] housing in this area and by that I mean there's a there's a plan that has been

[4:12:23] adopted that was adopted in 2008 that that identifies housing but nothing has

[4:12:28] happened and the city doesn't make any attempts to change the land use to meet

[4:12:33] the current market. Um, you know, if we can't show any that we've sh made any

[4:12:38] changes, then that will that will essentially

[4:12:43] uh the state can come down on the city and essentially force us to relocate the

[4:12:49] 2447 units that are currently identified in the plan to relocate those to area to

[4:12:55] other areas of the city. And you know that that that is again that is as a

[4:13:01] result of of you you can't leave a if a plan isn't being developed the state

[4:13:06] doesn't want you to leave it the way it is they want you to make an effort to

[4:13:10] make changes to facilitate development. >> And if I may add so the term that the

[4:13:14] state as part of more recent legislation is deemed infeasible. So if you've had a

[4:13:19] housing site and kind of planned for a few housing cycles nothing happens with

[4:13:23] it. The state defaults and says you know what this is not going to happen. And so

[4:13:27] you need to plan elsewhere. The other challenge though is that pursuant to

[4:13:31] state law, we can't downzone the freeway corridor and get rid of the housing

[4:13:35] units either. So it means that the state won't count credit for the 2400 units.

[4:13:40] So we'll have to make it up elsewhere, but we can't get rid of it here. So then

[4:13:43] we end up with a net increase of housing units plan. And so at some point this

[4:13:48] could come to fruition. But now we've double dipped in terms of the total

[4:13:51] units in order to comply with state law.

[4:13:59] Another question uh that has come up, how much additional annual revenue will

[4:14:03] the proposed warehouse project bring to the city?

[4:14:07] This information is included in the in the staff report. And as you can see

[4:14:11] that um the annual revenue as a result of property uh taxes and the uh property

[4:14:16] tax and L vehicle license fee is approximately $789,000.

[4:14:22] And I think it it's important to note that the the property tax revenue begins

[4:14:27] to occur immediately after the buildings are completed and the property is

[4:14:31] assessed by the county assessor, which can occur before the uh a tenant is is

[4:14:38] um occupies a building.

[4:14:42] How much development impact fee revenue will the proposed warehouse project

[4:14:46] bring to the city? Um the city council just recently uh adopted the the new

[4:14:53] development impact fee schedule for the city and uh this number that you see on

[4:14:57] the on the screen is based on the new methodology and as you can see on the uh

[4:15:03] four different components drainage, traffic, public facilities, and fire.

[4:15:07] There's a total of um about four almost 14.4 $4 million that will be a onetime

[4:15:14] revenue uh to the city as a result of development impact fee program.

[4:15:20] Um why can't the land uses at the future

[4:15:24] Wildwood interchange be revised in the updated plan? That's another question

[4:15:28] that that we have received and as city council is aware the Wildwood

[4:15:34] interchange is is in the city's adopted CIP. We are working with SBCTA and

[4:15:40] Calrans on the development of that and as you know that an interchange project

[4:15:45] may take years to develop. Right now we are in in year four of of the process in

[4:15:52] the in the environmental um documentation phase and that that

[4:15:58] will conclude at the end of this year and we'll move into the the engineering

[4:16:01] phase. Um but and then once the engineering phase is completed, CALR

[4:16:05] will begin with the city's help the property acquisition to construct the

[4:16:10] project. And as we've mentioned in the past that that if any changes to the

[4:16:16] land use uh within that proposed Wallwood interchange footprint may re

[4:16:21] result in inverse condemnation and legal issues. um you know once it comes time

[4:16:25] to approach the property owners for the uh right ofway or the property that is

[4:16:30] required for the interchange. And again on on the side by side

[4:16:36] comparison of the current plan and the updated plan um you could see where the

[4:16:41] black circle is that the the land uses are similar. They in both they have not

[4:16:47] changed.

[4:16:52] Uh why is uh Yakava Valley Water District uh wastewater treatment plant

[4:16:56] property and excluded from the updated plan? um you know that the property that

[4:17:02] is owned and operated by the water district is designated for public

[4:17:06] utilities in the current plan and since they processed their own SQL

[4:17:11] environmental review for the development on their prop on their properties um you

[4:17:16] know for that reason the the their property was excluded from the updated

[4:17:21] plan. >> I also want to know because of their

[4:17:25] operation is kind of independent from the specific plan. isn't like it's a

[4:17:29] critical phasing of the rest of the plan development. So it operates completely

[4:17:33] independently and so based upon that it made more sense to keep them just as a

[4:17:38] standard review rather than having specific standards that really didn't

[4:17:42] offer any value to them or the city in the plan.

[4:17:49] And another uh question that we received a lot is why are there two different

[4:17:54] types of open space or two different colors on the map uh you know on the on

[4:17:59] the updated plan

[4:18:04] um you know and this is this is uh important to note I think you know the

[4:18:10] current 2008 plan it it doesn't allow any development in the light green open

[4:18:15] space area and and again the reason is because that area was designated as open

[4:18:22] space and to be undisturbed. This again this was in 2008 and in the current

[4:18:25] plan. This updated plan is does it does uh differentiate between the

[4:18:30] environmental sensitive open space areas and those natural drainage areas and the

[4:18:36] open space that can have limited development. We've uh mentioned before

[4:18:40] that in the updated plan in the light green areas um there is some limited

[4:18:45] development that can occur such as grading um you know Ben can touch on

[4:18:51] some of the other things that can be done in in that area but it does provide

[4:18:55] some additional flexibility for the property owners and developers

[4:18:59] developers to be able to use some of the light green area to facilitate their

[4:19:03] development. >> Yeah. And if anything um you know it

[4:19:07] reflects kind of the current condition. So the existing green says kind of no

[4:19:12] development whatsoever but there's land in that that's currently used for

[4:19:16] farming operations or grazing other stuff where it really is already

[4:19:20] disturbed. And so we were trying to reconcile that of okay sensitive places

[4:19:25] you know that warrant the the mitigation and have all these permit and kind of

[4:19:30] red tape associated with it with other agencies. We're gonna differentiate in

[4:19:34] the other ones that are already kind of being used. We're gonna make sure that

[4:19:38] the current plan reflects those that flexibility given that it doesn't make

[4:19:42] sense to have a plan that's already contrary to what's happening on the

[4:19:45] ground. >> And you can see on the sideby-side

[4:19:49] comparison map that um you know the the the updated plan does show a little less

[4:19:55] combined open space areas than the current adopted plan. And again, that

[4:19:59] was intended to provide the property owners and developers with more

[4:20:04] flexibility based on city council's uh direction.

[4:20:13] Okay. Uh will the updated plan with the proposed warehouse project result in

[4:20:18] more traffic when compared to the existing plan? Um I mentioned earlier

[4:20:22] that the updated plan uh will result in 50 52% less uh traffic at at buildout

[4:20:29] compared to the current adopted plan. And again this is comparing buildout of

[4:20:32] the current plan and the updated plan not not based on um not based on

[4:20:39] different differentiating between the undeveloped land in the future. And the

[4:20:44] the reason for that is that um there was a a change of traffic demand for the

[4:20:50] business park use, the warehouse use, and then also the change of the

[4:20:54] residential densities for more efficient traffic that resulted in less less uh

[4:20:59] projected traffic. Um what will the $38 million that was

[4:21:05] mentioned by the warehouse developer at a previous meeting pay for? Uh that was

[4:21:09] a good question that came up. Um, and that the $38 million was mentioned right

[4:21:14] after the discussion of the water line. And we did clarify with the the

[4:21:18] warehouse developer that the 37 38 million that they were referring to uh

[4:21:24] uh is the their estimated cost for the infrastructure as it relates to water,

[4:21:28] sewer, electric, telecommunications, the road winding of Live Oak um Live Oak

[4:21:34] Canyon Road and also their share of the new bridge of Live to widen Live Canyon

[4:21:39] Road over uh Wallwood Creek. And that also includes the cost of the new road

[4:21:44] that will service the new public road that will service the proposed

[4:21:48] warehouses.

[4:21:51] Uh does the current adopted 2008 plan allow warehouses? I I covered this

[4:21:57] earlier, you know. Um yes, the in the current plan, the areas in red, the

[4:22:03] commercial areas, they they um they do um allow for warehouse use.

[4:22:12] Um why are mitigation measures for traffic such as road widening,

[4:22:16] intersection improvements and new roads deleted from the um SEIR review

[4:22:21] document? Um you know this this question did come up and even though if you look

[4:22:28] at the environmental doc document the those mitigation measures are crossed

[4:22:32] out or deleted. The reason for that is because the the level of service is no

[4:22:37] longer um reviewed under SQA. So those mitigation measures are not included in

[4:22:42] the SQUA document, but they are still conditions of approval for the project

[4:22:47] to be consistent with the general plan. >> And I do want to note as well just for

[4:22:51] the traffic analysis, it did model the traffic during the pumpkin patch season

[4:22:57] as well. So it wasn't just we have less traffic with all that stuff. We also

[4:23:01] heavy loaded the traffic assumptions to make sure that the roadway improvements

[4:23:05] that would be conditions of approval rather than mitigation would be upheld

[4:23:09] as well. also that way it's more efficient for all residents throughout

[4:23:13] the year. >> Why does the updated plan allow

[4:23:17] developers to extend a CUP up to 12 years to complete a project? Um, you

[4:23:22] know, currently the city's de development code allows six years. So,

[4:23:26] it's three years and then plus one additional three-year extension. So the

[4:23:31] six the the 12 the proposed 12 years was meant to provide additional time for

[4:23:37] these larger multi-phase projects to be completed. Uh Ben can provide some

[4:23:41] examples of other projects that required more than the six years that are

[4:23:45] currently identified in the development code.

[4:23:47] » Yeah. So a lot of it is to offer flexibility especially with large

[4:23:51] construction projects where you have a lot of moving pieces to it in terms of

[4:23:55] phasing the construction all that related stuff. But a prime example of

[4:24:00] kind of where having the time limitations can be a difficult thing is

[4:24:04] right now we have the Kaiser Permanente that's uh entitled at the Kypo Point

[4:24:08] project site. Kypo Point is reaching its six years from the initial entitlement

[4:24:13] which means that that entitlement is going to expire meaning that the

[4:24:17] approval for Kaiser Permanente is no longer in place. Now, it's not

[4:24:22] necessarily hard to go through the process and retake it through plan

[4:24:26] commission and all that review, but when you're looking at a tenant that is has a

[4:24:31] site that's almost ready to go versus one that has to go back through the

[4:24:35] entire process, it moves it down their the priorization level quite a bit. And

[4:24:39] so, we did try to as part ordinance number 450 include kind of

[4:24:43] administrative step that can help extend it. But that's where sometimes good

[4:24:46] tenants you want to be able to have it be as streamlined to move forward.

[4:24:50] Otherwise, they may look at easier sites and put you on the the shelf for later

[4:24:54] on. And so, that's was the philosophy behind the the larger timelines within

[4:24:59] the freeway quarter given how big of a plan area it is and and the retail

[4:25:04] development potential that could happen there. Making sure that it's lined up

[4:25:08] for any tenants that once they say they're ready to go, as an example,

[4:25:11] Trader Joe's with Eypo Point had very quick timeline. being able to be

[4:25:16] flexible to that makes all the difference on those tenants showing up

[4:25:19] or not.

[4:25:24] » Some other concerns that were brought up uh previously uh you know were related

[4:25:28] to the air quality and the the diesel trucks and there was a question that

[4:25:33] that was presented whether there were any AQMD reports and or requirements for

[4:25:38] the updated plan. Um, as part of the environmental review, there were uh

[4:25:43] there was a health risk assessments report that prepared for the overall

[4:25:47] updated plan as well as uh specifically for the proposed warehouse project and

[4:25:51] the air quality impacts were found to be below the AQMD thresholds. And um the

[4:25:58] the the warehouse developer is also proposing some additional um air quality

[4:26:04] sustainability components. uh they're proposing to implement some of those

[4:26:08] components as far as their approval and perhaps Ben you can add some more detail

[4:26:12] on that. >> Yeah. So as part of the health risk

[4:26:15] assessment uh one thing to note as well as we again took a more conservative

[4:26:19] approach and so HUMMD allows you to do a shorter trip lengths for smaller trucks

[4:26:25] and rather than and so when you model it you're imagining kind of midsize trucks

[4:26:30] not the semi-trs delivering goods and everything like that and their radius is

[4:26:34] pretty small. We took the more conservative approach and applied the

[4:26:37] longer one as if it was like a long haul kind of uh semi-truck. That way the air

[4:26:42] quality emissions were essentially heavily or more heavily loaded in terms

[4:26:46] of the analysis to make sure we're more conservative. And so even with that the

[4:26:49] health risk assessment was below the thresholds under HUMD.

[4:26:55] Okay. Um back to the questions related to the open space, you know, it um uh

[4:27:01] the next question. If the plan is approved, will a property owner be able

[4:27:05] to develop within a proposed dark green open space conservation area in the

[4:27:08] future? I touched on this a little earlier. You know, the answer is yes.

[4:27:12] The property owner will be able to use uh the information that was prepared for

[4:27:17] this envir this environmental review for the environmental review for the update.

[4:27:21] They they will be able to to use that information uh to complete the

[4:27:25] environmental review and permitting for the development um that they wish to do

[4:27:28] within those uh open space conservation or dark green areas. And uh you know

[4:27:34] they would they would be able to do it and it would be at their expense. You

[4:27:39] know they would have to process um an amendment to the plan uh through the

[4:27:44] city. But this plan does allow for that flexibility to be able to use the

[4:27:48] environmental review that has done just so they can they can tailor the um

[4:27:54] tailor everything for what they would like to do as far as development on

[4:27:57] their property.

[4:28:00] If the updated plan is approved, is it set in stone? Is it permanent? This is

[4:28:04] another question that we have received. You know, uh do the property owners uh

[4:28:09] have the option to revise the land use on their property in the future? Uh the

[4:28:13] answer to that is similar to um you know the previous question. You know if the

[4:28:18] updated plan is approved the property owners will have the option to process

[4:28:21] an application with the city to revise the change in land use on their

[4:28:25] property. Again it'll be at their expense. Um and you know this may

[4:28:30] include additional environmental review and permitting. And here it's important

[4:28:34] to note that if the this plan is approved and a developer, a property

[4:28:39] owner is wishing to develop the property and they're not going to develop,

[4:28:45] they're not pro proposing development within the dark green open space

[4:28:48] conservation areas, they do not need to complete any additional review or

[4:28:52] permitting uh environmental permitting. They would have to get the building

[4:28:56] permits, but not as far as environmental review and permitting, uh they would not

[4:28:59] have be required to do that.

[4:29:06] Last question. Why are we in a hurry to amend uh the plan and do we have time to

[4:29:11] wait and continue to work on the updated plan? Um you know if if uh if we don't

[4:29:19] consider an update to the plan now u obviously there you know we've talked

[4:29:24] about the housing element risks already. You know uh some property owners will

[4:29:28] remain in in limbo. you know, the the Palmer with the warehouse project, the

[4:29:33] pumpkin patch, uh the water district. I mentioned earlier that the the pumpkin

[4:29:38] patch um you know they will benefit from the update because a lot of the a lot of

[4:29:43] the uses that they are currently uh wishing to or hoping to do um that

[4:29:50] you know they they do have a conditional use permit but some of the uses that

[4:29:53] they are currently doing they they would be able to do them with the plan without

[4:29:57] any further they would be able to do them with the updated plan without any

[4:30:02] further review. So, so the update to the plan does benefit the pumpkin patch. Um,

[4:30:06] you know, I mentioned that uh the the water district. Right now, their

[4:30:10] property is included in the adopted plan and removing them or making their

[4:30:14] property not a part, it would make make it a little easier for them to do what

[4:30:18] they need to do to expand their their operation and their facility on their

[4:30:22] end. Um, you know, there is also a potential loss of interest for projects

[4:30:28] uh since there are some uh projects that are being considered based on the um the

[4:30:33] approval of the updated plan. And again, if if uh you know, if any additional any

[4:30:39] major changes or recirculation of the EIR would cause some additional expenses

[4:30:43] to the city's general fund. And as you can see that um you know, the general

[4:30:48] fund has um has spent a lot of money on this process so far.

[4:30:54] » Yeah. And I think in terms of potential loss of interest, um, we have to

[4:30:58] recognize that our trade area, so the people that shop in Ukipa and the other

[4:31:03] areas where retailer trades want to go. Um, they don't look at just city borders

[4:31:09] and everything like that. They're looking at the region. And so there's

[4:31:11] only so many rooftops for those developers to come in. And so when you

[4:31:16] have opportunities in Cal Mesa or Bowmont,

[4:31:21] whichever one is kind of the easiest to move forward with is the one that

[4:31:23] they're going to be kind of looking at. And so it's making sure that we're again

[4:31:27] flexible for for those components as they come to maturity.

[4:31:33] » And the last bullet point there just to touch on the housing element risks. you

[4:31:38] know, if I if uh if the plan if the update to the plan is

[4:31:45] not approved and as I mentioned earlier that you know the current housing

[4:31:49] element identifies the uh units in this area if we don't move forward and update

[4:31:56] the plan then that can obviously you know it'll show the state that we are

[4:31:59] not doing anything to help the residential development in that area and

[4:32:05] and as I mentioned earlier the 2447 units that are currently identified in

[4:32:11] that area would have to be relocated to other areas of the city. But um and the

[4:32:16] reason is because we we the our housing element still shows that we we are

[4:32:21] making plans to build those 2447 units. So that's a a you know having to

[4:32:29] relocate those all those units other areas of the city. um you know we've all

[4:32:34] seen the a map of the city of Ukipa. So anywhere within that boundary is where

[4:32:41] those units would have to be to would have to be placed. So um with that that

[4:32:46] uh con uh concludes the report. The recommendation before you tonight is

[4:32:50] that city council conduct a public hearing regarding the freeway corridor

[4:32:53] specific plan and the revised final supplemental environmental impact report

[4:32:57] as well as case number 21-196 for the Pacific Oaks Commerce Center. And based

[4:33:03] on the direction provided in prior city council meeting discussions um consider

[4:33:08] recommendations 1 through five as listed in in the agenda report. That concludes

[4:33:13] the report and staff is available for questions.

[4:33:17] Thank you, sir. I think uh before we get to uh questions and comments, uh do we

[4:33:22] have a presentation by an applicant or anything?

[4:33:26] » That would be Yes, we do. >> That would be next on the order. We'll

[4:33:30] move to that.

[4:33:47] think I know how to work this. Can you guys hear me? Okay. Um, good evening,

[4:33:52] Council, Mayor Prom, Mayor, Councilman Beaver, wherever you may be over the air

[4:33:57] airwaves. Um, I appreciate, um, it was a great presentation with a lot of

[4:34:03] information for you guys to digest. Um, of course, I wanted to come up and

[4:34:07] present our project specifically. Uh some of it uh was already addressed in

[4:34:12] there, but uh it'll give us a chance to go through it. I'll try and be fast so

[4:34:16] that I don't uh waste your time. Um nope.

[4:34:24] Oh, that was one off. >> Oh, that's

[4:34:30] all right. Um my name is Dan Floriani. I'm the co-founder of Pacific

[4:34:35] Industrial. Um, as you guys know, and most of the staff here knows, we've been

[4:34:39] working on this project for 4 years plus. Um, at this point, um, we, uh,

[4:34:47] early on the stages actually came and spent the time to meet with, uh, many

[4:34:51] stakeholders within city of Ukipa. You have a list here about obviously city

[4:34:55] council, um, city manager, utility providers in the area, the planning

[4:34:59] commissioners, the city staff, um, and, um, more importantly, I would say even

[4:35:05] in some context, met with the property owners, environmental groups, and, um,

[4:35:11] CALR in order to make sure we're making informed decisions before we even put

[4:35:15] lines on a paper to propose anything. Um, as a result of that, there were very

[4:35:20] obvious themes that came over uh the course of that, which is that UKyper

[4:35:24] really cherishes its rural uh vibe and atmosphere here that you guys have here.

[4:35:29] Um, that there was a emphasis if we were to do a development here that we needed

[4:35:34] to protect specific corridors and ridgeways. Um and we understood that and

[4:35:40] uh obviously there was a goal as the city um in order to provide more jobs

[4:35:45] and benefits and revenue opportunities for the city. Um so with that

[4:35:49] information we uh actually spent over a year

[4:35:53] designing a project within the context of what is a 300 plus acre property um

[4:35:59] in order to do something that was unique in the context of what our expertise is.

[4:36:05] Um, so we designed a project and if you're not in our space, this might uh

[4:36:10] be too nuanced, but we designed a pro designed a project that is u uh really

[4:36:15] green leaning. It's actually very unique in the context of most developments in

[4:36:19] Southern California for what we specialize in. Uh we we focused on a

[4:36:24] modern architecture, EV charging stations, solar ready roofs. uh the

[4:36:29] circulation on these properties is actually the least understood in our

[4:36:33] industry and actually has caused a lot of consternation throughout many

[4:36:36] communities which have many of these facilities jammed next to each other. Um

[4:36:41] and I understand that um we are trying to take the exact opposite approach and

[4:36:46] design something that allows for circulation and traffic which pulls

[4:36:50] trucks and cars candidly way off the freeway and way away from residential

[4:36:55] areas in order to allow free circulation. The biggest problem with

[4:36:59] these projects is uh trucks get queued up in same streets and there's too many

[4:37:04] of them in one concentrated area. And this is uh I think an attempt to set a

[4:37:08] new example of how you could do it in a more responsible way but still

[4:37:12] accomplish the goals. Um and I can tell you from users out there in the market

[4:37:16] this would be very attractive uh because this doesn't exist with this many

[4:37:20] amenities. Um so anyway we spent a lot of time and energy focusing on that. Um,

[4:37:26] we obviously spent uh time that the staff has already shown you some of our

[4:37:31] elevations trying to design something that actually mimics a bit of the uh

[4:37:34] rural feel. Um, and so some of the questions we

[4:37:41] often have received over the past four plus years that we've working on this is

[4:37:45] like, why are you doing this? What kind of tenants are going to come in here?

[4:37:48] Because most people only focus on one tenant and it has giant A in front of

[4:37:51] it. And I'm like, that that is not what our goal is. And that is actually very

[4:37:57] uh uh misunderstood concept on how many great companies are out there that need

[4:38:01] spaces like this to occupy. Um so I put some examples up here but I mean people

[4:38:06] don't know that Hillet Packard has a million and a half square feet down the

[4:38:10] street who would otherwise love a project like this. and you have LG

[4:38:14] Electronics, Restoration Hardware, um, Black & Decker to name just a handful

[4:38:20] here to give people some context who aren't again nerding out in this field

[4:38:24] like I do on a daily basis. Um, so I think one of the cooler things

[4:38:31] we did on this project is actually look at the entirety of the space, taking the

[4:38:35] input from the city staff and all the stakeholders that we had met with um,

[4:38:40] and try and come up with something that's a little unique in this context.

[4:38:43] Uh you can see where we're proposing the industrial but in a 300 acre setting. U

[4:38:48] one of the things we're doing that I think is really important for the public

[4:38:51] to know is we are actually opening um we're preserving 95 acres of permanent

[4:38:57] open space. Um which falls right in line with some of the goals of the city

[4:39:03] staff. Uh but I actually think one of the most important parts of that uh is

[4:39:09] we open up this project to actually have the public be able to access it by

[4:39:14] having a a multi-use trail which will come through the facility. Uh it's

[4:39:19] bigger site than you think. Uh I can tell you vast majority of the public uh

[4:39:24] have not ever been on this site because there are gates everywhere. we will take

[4:39:28] down all those gates and we've designed a a pathway through the project that

[4:39:32] does not interact with the proposed buildings that we are planning to

[4:39:36] design. And so it truly does have a corridor that would allow public to be

[4:39:41] able to walk uh or hike from the uh live oak side all the way through um uh

[4:39:47] really scenic corridor down uh to what would actually eventually be met up with

[4:39:52] an additional trail on the other side.

[4:39:58] Um so

[4:40:02] addressing some concerns uh about the community. Uh I say this like the number

[4:40:08] one narrative we've heard here and I've heard every time I've met with any of

[4:40:12] the uh residents and stakeholders in this area is the traffic on Live Oak.

[4:40:16] The traffic on Live Oak. The traffic on Live Oak. We get it. Um what uh what we

[4:40:23] looked at and analyzed and did so handinhand with the staff um is trying

[4:40:29] to understand when the traffic is the absolute worst, which I think we all

[4:40:32] know the pumpkin patch is clearly during the holiday times. Um and so we

[4:40:37] specifically worked with everyone to make sure we're taking counts when the

[4:40:41] project was when the roads there are at their worst. Um and understand what that

[4:40:45] challenge is so that we can try and solve it. Um and uh people just think

[4:40:51] we're trying to do a project over here and not considering this. We take the

[4:40:54] exact opposite approach. There's no way we want to spend this much time and

[4:40:58] energy and go through and build a project that is congested in an area

[4:41:02] that doesn't allow through traffic in it at all. It's the exact opposite of what

[4:41:06] our goals are and I don't think that would be a successful project and it

[4:41:09] would certainly exacerbate the concerns of the residents in the area and I fully

[4:41:13] understand that. So what we decided uh to do is look at it at its worst and

[4:41:18] figure out how we could solve it. Um and so when you uh stare at these traffic

[4:41:23] studies, they admittedly can get very complicated. And so I just mentally

[4:41:27] break this down in a very simple way. Um there's one lane in each direction

[4:41:32] currently as it stands there on Live Oak. Um what we're doing or proposing to

[4:41:37] do if the project is approved is expand that which essentially uh adds a lane on

[4:41:42] each side to Live Oak. um it doubles the capacity of the uh traffic there. Our

[4:41:49] project adds 10% to the total traffic amount. Um and so I know not everyone

[4:41:55] understands how those things work, but I think if you just kind of distill it

[4:41:59] down into those simple factors, it's much easier to digest and also

[4:42:03] understand that this something we care about. It can't not work for our project

[4:42:08] to be successful. And again, I do think that kind of sets a new bar for how most

[4:42:13] people look at these. Um, the staff already addressed a lot of

[4:42:19] the infrastructure work, so I don't want to take too much of your time. I promise

[4:42:23] you I'm not going anywhere. So, if you have uh tons of questions afterwards,

[4:42:27] I'm available to answer any of them. But yes, for anyone who wasn't listening, we

[4:42:32] are spending a significant amount of infrastructure work uh in this area. And

[4:42:37] it was a lot of time and effort and coordination even to get to this point

[4:42:41] to understand how to do this. I think the most important part is to understand

[4:42:46] um we are dragging obviously a water line a very long distance down here. Now

[4:42:50] that in itself does feed our project but what we've done is sized it with the

[4:42:55] Ukip Valley water uh district in order to allow future development in the area.

[4:43:00] And I think that is maybe the most important part of that work um because

[4:43:06] it does allow future expansion and development for alternate uses up and

[4:43:11] down this area which I think is critical and important for uh the long-term

[4:43:15] health of the city on a financial basis. Um and of course we're contributing

[4:43:20] about half a million dollars to for a new fire truck as well as doing every

[4:43:24] everything else here. But um I think it's also important to know we are doing

[4:43:28] so without a single taxpayer dollar. Um this is completely funded alone from the

[4:43:34] project. Um we're not asking for bonds or something. That's kind of some weird

[4:43:39] way of trying to get recouped on that is truly our cost to do that.

[4:43:44] Um you guys already touched on a lot of this. So really quickly obviously

[4:43:49] there's some recurring revenues that happen here. these numbers that are on

[4:43:53] this screen which I won't replicate their work uh but it was not done by us

[4:44:00] uh so this is done by a completely independent group hired actually by the

[4:44:03] city to understand what the economic impacts could potentially be on the city

[4:44:08] um certainly on a one-time basis of $15 million fees that go to the city is not

[4:44:14] insignificant um but there are reoccurring revenues that are generated

[4:44:18] for the city u that I think are important to understand

[4:44:23] obviously that uh also comes with a lot of job opportunities. So there's tons of

[4:44:28] jobs that happen of course in the construction of this project. Um but

[4:44:33] more importantly I think for longevity again is understanding the permanent

[4:44:38] jobs that are um going to be available to to residents of this area. Um because

[4:44:45] one thing we did notice really early on when we were analyzing the site and what

[4:44:50] the opportunities are is uh understanding Ukipa's uh jobs to housing

[4:44:55] ratio which if you study these things which maybe not everyone does but uh

[4:45:00] it's very low here in Ukipa. And what that tells you is a huge amount of

[4:45:07] people who live in this great city actually have to leave the city in order

[4:45:11] to provide for their family. Uh there's a million different ways to try and

[4:45:15] solve that but this is actually a big step towards that. Um I would say just

[4:45:20] to echo um some previous comments but u people uh tend to not understand

[4:45:27] actually the type of jobs that are available in a project like this. Um and

[4:45:31] so you're you really have a tiered level of amount of jobs that can happen here.

[4:45:37] um from security all the way up to drivers to logistics managers who have

[4:45:44] master's degrees and understanding how this works. It is truly a wide spectrum

[4:45:49] of jobs that are offered and in these size buildings you tend to attract

[4:45:53] Fortune 500 companies who have very robust programs on hiring local. In

[4:45:58] fact, one of the only reasons they would want to come is making sure that there

[4:46:01] is uh opportunity to provide jobs from people who are in the area.

[4:46:09] So some of the misconceptions um on the project or questions we get

[4:46:14] asked is can calama traffic go through our project? No. The short answer is no.

[4:46:22] Uh we have emergency vehicle access only. Um it's going to be a a gated uh

[4:46:28] area and so they won't be able to just have anyone come through there. um is is

[4:46:34] are we going to build these buildings? They're going to sit vacant. Again, we

[4:46:37] wouldn't go through all this effort, time, and energy if we thought we were

[4:46:40] going to build a project that was not going to be attractive to companies that

[4:46:44] are uh looking for a project like this. Um so, we can go into those details, but

[4:46:51] um I think you would understand the alignment of interest there and me not

[4:46:55] wanting to go through this effort and have buildings that aren't doing what we

[4:46:58] think they're going to do. Um, so we are very confident in it. Uh, can the

[4:47:03] buildings be open before the infrastructure is complete?

[4:47:08] Uh, that was always a comment. It's like we're somehow going to build these

[4:47:11] buildings and never come in and widen live oak. It's quite the opposite. The

[4:47:16] staff has conditioned our project to have those street and all those

[4:47:20] infrastructure improvements 100% done before we allowed to have anyone occupy

[4:47:25] any of these buildings. Um, and it's a very important part. I understand it,

[4:47:30] but there's no way around that. So, um, how are traffic and air quality

[4:47:37] impacts addressed? Obviously, um, we we've gone through, uh, a lot of

[4:47:43] effort. If anyone's ever been through an EI or read one, we get scrutinized very

[4:47:48] heavily throughout the entire process. It's absolutely out of our control. We

[4:47:53] don't have input on what happens with that. we have to respond to what the

[4:47:57] readouts are and address them and we have done so in many different areas in

[4:48:01] the project. Um and then does a no vote for the freeway corridor specific plan

[4:48:07] prevent development? Uh it doesn't. The staff did a great job on educating

[4:48:11] everyone on that, but there is already plans in place. So it's a different

[4:48:16] version that I think actually represents a little better balance for what the

[4:48:20] city is trying to achieve. Um, and so with that, hopefully I didn't

[4:48:25] take too much time. Uh, again, I'm around to answer any questions. Um, but

[4:48:29] in the essence of time, I uh, and actually further transparency for anyone

[4:48:34] who's watching on live stream or here in person today, uh, what we, uh, asked is

[4:48:40] to get a peer review of the work that was done here. Right? Everyone of us in

[4:48:45] this room have been staring at this project for a really long time. You have

[4:48:49] Place Works who helped manage the entire EIR. You have uh city staff who's been

[4:48:54] working with us. We've stared at it for a very very long time. We asked EPD

[4:48:59] who's a very well-known um entitlement expert uh company here in Southern

[4:49:05] California who's done tons of these outside of this. We asked them to come

[4:49:09] in with no vested side on on uh what's happening here to review the work. So, I

[4:49:16] wanted to introduce uh Megan Truman to come up there just provide a little bit

[4:49:20] of context um for you guys. So, thank you again for the time. I'm going to

[4:49:26] hand this over to you.

[4:49:32] Good evening, Mayor Mayor Prom, members of the city council. My name is Megan

[4:49:36] Truman with EPD Solutions. We were retained to peer review the draft

[4:49:41] environmental impact report as well as final environmental impact report

[4:49:45] prepared by the city's consultant. Um there are just a couple of items we

[4:49:50] wanted to highlight regarding the SQA analysis that was prepared for this

[4:49:54] project. So there were quite a few conservative assumptions that were

[4:49:58] discussed um earlier today and then within the EIR just to reiterate what

[4:50:03] city staff discussed earlier as well as the project applicant traffic counts

[4:50:08] were taken during peak season during the pumpkin patch season to ensure that the

[4:50:12] analysis reflects worstc case scenario um rather than a typical daily average

[4:50:18] use. So we really analyze peak conditions here um to provide for

[4:50:23] additional improvements to really ensure that there is better flow within this

[4:50:28] area once the project is developed. In addition, a very stringent health risk

[4:50:33] assessment was prepared. While the city was not required to do so, the EIR

[4:50:38] utilized a conservative threshold for the health risk assessment and still

[4:50:42] found that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of

[4:50:46] mitigation. uh this ensures a very conservative analysis of potential

[4:50:51] health risk impacts uh which is not necessarily required by SQA. In

[4:50:57] addition, the trailer parking lot parcel was analyzed as a standalone use um

[4:51:03] independent of the proposed buildings which resulted in increased trips that

[4:51:09] were analyzed which also then provides a conservative approach to traffic

[4:51:13] analysis, air quality analysis and noise analysis. And then in addition, by

[4:51:19] applying all of these conservative assumptions, the city's analysis really

[4:51:23] goes above and beyond to ensure transparency of potential worst case

[4:51:27] scenarios.

[4:51:31] In addition, I wanted to highlight some of the sustainability me measures, the

[4:51:35] mitigation measures that were adopted as part of this EIR and are included in the

[4:51:40] mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project as well as

[4:51:44] buildout of the FCSP. Um, these measures go above and beyond typical mitigation

[4:51:50] measures that we see within environmental impact reports for these

[4:51:54] types of projects. uh there was cleaner construction equipment required by

[4:51:58] requiring tier 4 construction equipment. This will minimize emissions during

[4:52:02] construction significantly. In addition, um the project is required to install EV

[4:52:08] parking spaces above and beyond Cal Green requirements. So they're actually

[4:52:12] installing tier 2 requirements and uh they project will be required to

[4:52:17] utilize zero emission off-road equipment. So forklifts, yard trucks,

[4:52:22] hosler or uh yard goats for daily business operations within the

[4:52:26] industrial portions. In addition, buildings will be constructed and

[4:52:30] designed to be all electric not requiring any natural gas consumption.

[4:52:35] Um so electricity will be used for water heating, any mechanical system and HVAC.

[4:52:41] Uh further the ER requires the restriction of non-essential diesel

[4:52:46] truck idling to a maximum of two minutes when uh state and local requirements

[4:52:51] allow for 5 minutes. So it reduces the idling that could occur with trucks.

[4:52:57] In addition, the EI requires a mitigation to provide on-site electric

[4:53:03] truck charging stations sufficient to serve any doiciled electric trucks. So

[4:53:08] when electric trucks are utilized by any um operator on the project site, there's

[4:53:13] also a requirement for that truck charging infrastructure.

[4:53:19] Uh and that concludes the presentation. Thank you so much.

[4:53:24] » Thank you. [Applause]

[4:53:28] » With that, that brings us to public comment.

[4:53:36] We will start with David Palmer followed by Linda Wiom.

[4:53:43] » And just as a reminder folks, if you could kindly state your uh name and

[4:53:47] address and adhere to the threeminut uh time frame. If someone has spoken an

[4:53:52] opinion that's in line with yours, if you can keep it brief so that we can get

[4:53:55] through all the all the comments tonight, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

[4:53:59] Thank you, mayor, and council members for allowing me to share a few thoughts.

[4:54:03] Uh, I am, uh, representing the Palmer family who owns the property that the

[4:54:09] Pacific Oaks project is on, and we've been at that property for a long time.

[4:54:14] My grandfather and father bought that in the early 1950s.

[4:54:20] There was a article in the news bear uh stating that the Chapman family and the

[4:54:27] Palmer family were Orange County and LA developers going to come in and develop.

[4:54:31] It's taken a long time. We've been here and been working diligently at this and

[4:54:37] we appreciate four decades of effort with the city and staff and all the

[4:54:43] effort to help make something happen on these properties. We know it's a hard

[4:54:48] thing to do and we appreciate that. I started early with my father in uh n in

[4:54:55] the early years with the city incorporation and helped persuade the uh

[4:55:00] county to include these properties in the city and the frontage road to help

[4:55:06] increase revenue. That took some effort and I've been on many committees through

[4:55:11] uh decades with the city from the redevelopment agency which is now not

[4:55:16] existing to economic advisory county flood control. We've worked extensively.

[4:55:23] One of the most significant problems we've had in trying numerous times with

[4:55:29] this property through residential developers, half a dozen through three

[4:55:34] different retail commercial developers, we always run in to the challenge of the

[4:55:41] infrastructure. It far exceeds the potential of the properties even to the

[4:55:46] point of making the land valueless. And this project, the Pacific Oats project,

[4:55:52] is the one project that is truly going to make uh an inro on that uh

[4:56:00] development infrastructure issue, not only to serve its project, but to open

[4:56:05] it up. In the early 90s, my father and brother Greg who uh was lead and and

[4:56:12] brewed that pumpkin patch, we tried and extensively to formulate a plan for an

[4:56:18] environmental or a agriculture entertainment facility on where the

[4:56:23] pumpkin patch is and couldn't overcome the infrastructure. This project opens

[4:56:29] that up for the new owners of that with water, sewer, and many infrastructure

[4:56:35] things. We thank you for the huge effort you do. I know it's hard

[4:56:41] and there's a lot of complex issues and we appreciate your time and we

[4:56:45] appreciate the staff for decades of work and on this project for many years and

[4:56:51] uh we think this is good for the area. It is uh the whole plan opens up an

[4:56:58] opportunity for something to happen there which will be good. Thank you. Uh

[4:57:10] Linda Witham followed by Tim Watson.

[4:57:17] Good evening. I had actually planned on this to be in public comment but I

[4:57:22] filled out my speaker I understand. So bear with me. Um, Linda

[4:57:29] within district one. Several meetings ago, legacies were

[4:57:34] mentioned. I was curious to what this council's legacy would be. So I've

[4:57:39] listed a few items to consider. First,

[4:57:44] you fired a longtime well-loved, competent city manager installed.

[4:57:48] Without proper vetting, an inexperienced city manager whose main credentials

[4:57:54] appeared to be his close ties with developers because he was a friend.

[4:58:00] He proceeded to award large city large employee raises and add staff to hide

[4:58:04] his incompetence. You filed a lawsuit against your own

[4:58:09] citizens really with taxpayer dollars. against mayor opposition,

[4:58:16] major opposition. You passed Sorrano Estates, the wine country, and now

[4:58:21] you're looking at warehouses. A 22% tax rate raise was imposed on

[4:58:28] citizens, followed by a 1% tax increase because you said the city is broke. Then

[4:58:34] another employee raise was given. You removed many services and events

[4:58:40] that we the citizens relied on and loved.

[4:58:45] While all this was occurring, we the citizens were maligned, threatened with

[4:58:51] jail, called domestic terrorists, thrown out of council meetings, and personally

[4:58:58] named in council meetings as well as the press. If you didn't participate in

[4:59:03] this, you didn't object. I could continue, but you also took two

[4:59:08] minutes of our public speaking time away.

[4:59:12] You'll be remembered mostly for destroying the peace of our beautiful,

[4:59:15] unique city, for destroying friendships, dividing the city into hateful factions,

[4:59:22] for taking away the reason we all moved here. You know, I wouldn't want this

[4:59:27] legacy. Thank you.

[4:59:36] Tim Watson followed by Abraham Issa.

[4:59:46] Um, thank you, Mayor and Council members. I'd like to speak to you from

[4:59:50] two perspectives. as a homeowner on a wildland edge and as a pediatrician

[4:59:56] caring for 550 Ukipa children and500 children in the surrounding areas.

[5:00:02] First, as a homeowner in the Oakmont area across the street from the Hank Aki

[5:00:08] Preserve, I know exactly what happens when you build in fire zones. My

[5:00:14] homeowner's insurance has been cancelled four times, not because of anything I

[5:00:18] did, but simply because I live near wildland. I've spent tens of thousands

[5:00:23] of dollars fire hardening my home to keep coverage, replacing fireresistant

[5:00:28] roof vents with even more fireresistant roof vent versions. I have closed eaves,

[5:00:34] hardy board on the outside and no exterior wood, fire sprinklers, concrete

[5:00:39] tiles, and I've had to add additional rock perimeters, fireproof retractable

[5:00:45] shades, and on my patios, and even blast shields on my windows, all to have my

[5:00:50] rates tripled. Without fire insurance, you can't get home insurance. And the

[5:00:55] Cal unfair plan won't even cover home replacement. So, this is just to keep a

[5:01:01] policy. Now, imagine telling a new Ukipa family that they bought their dream home

[5:01:06] only to learn it's in a very high fire hazard severity zone where they can't

[5:01:12] get insurance without paying the extortion rates of the Cal unfair

[5:01:16] program. It's not really a dream for them. It's a trap and I think it's

[5:01:20] cruel. Building homes here is going to cause this problem to Ukipa residents.

[5:01:26] Now, changing track. As a physician, I'm very concerned on the behalf of my

[5:01:31] patients of the fire and traffic danger in this area. So, if you've been to the

[5:01:37] pump pumpkin patch on Life Oak Canyon and you know the gridlock, I drive this

[5:01:42] every day. And I really don't believe that this was

[5:01:46] properly analyzed. But if you really look at it, Live Oak Canyon dumps onto

[5:01:52] San Timoteeo Canyon, which is two lanes, and then that's Redlands Boulevard,

[5:01:57] which is two lanes. That's how you get out to the 60 in Marino Valley. And I've

[5:02:02] had two friends die on that road, Dr. Assad and Wesley Hunter. And what

[5:02:09] happened? A slow truck. Exasperated drivers trying to pass the slow truck.

[5:02:15] And then the accident. I've had another doctor friend who was nearly killed on

[5:02:20] the same road. This is what happens when you bring 1,600 extra trucks into the

[5:02:26] area. And that's conservative. That's the assumption with 1 million square

[5:02:30] feet of warehouse space. But we're bringing 2 million, I believe, in this

[5:02:35] area. And I'm concerned about the fire egress risk.

[5:02:41] So what really happens when you have that kind of gridlockike gridlock in the

[5:02:46] event of a wildfire, there's a bottleneck and people can't get out. So

[5:02:50] for those individuals on city council who have firefighting backgrounds, um I

[5:02:56] train paramedics for Ben Clark training center and I respect what you do, but

[5:03:01] I'm baffled at any willingness to improve of anything with the fire egress

[5:03:05] risk like this. You know how burnovers happen and I'd hate to have that happen

[5:03:10] with you Kypa and turn it into another paradise California. Thank you for your

[5:03:14] time. [Applause]

[5:03:19] » Abraham Issa followed by Dr. Hansen Wong.

[5:03:28] » Good afternoon mayor uh council members. My name is Abraham Issa. are resided at

[5:03:33] 32017 Live Canyon Road as part of the project that's being considered in the

[5:03:37] ordinance. Um, I really want to thank you for the opportunity to urge you to

[5:03:42] vote yes to this ordinance and not kick the can down the road anymore. This has

[5:03:47] been a really long-term project that's been thought through with a lot of great

[5:03:51] brains, a lot of great minds, a lot of hard effort on the staff, and like

[5:03:56] yourselves have looked at this project over and over and send it back for

[5:03:59] reconsideration and answers for questions that weren't answered. The

[5:04:03] bottom line is you hold the key tonight to open up an amazing opportunity for

[5:04:08] all the citizens of of Yukipa, not just the property owners here. uh you're

[5:04:13] opening up a a hurdle that was stuck for years as you heard from previous

[5:04:18] property owners. The development is almost impossible and the city's facing,

[5:04:22] let's face it, it's it's a budget issue that we're having. There's only two ways

[5:04:27] to solve a budget issue, right? You got to either cut expenses or raise revenue.

[5:04:32] Cutting expenses, we've already tried that. And I think we've already heard

[5:04:36] complaints that there's not enough police officers, not enough

[5:04:39] firefighters. I don't think the city can operate any more efficient than it is.

[5:04:43] So, we got to look at the other side of the ledger and that is raising revenue.

[5:04:47] Well, you could raise taxes. We did that, right? 1%. What did it get us? Out

[5:04:52] of fairness, it was known to be a band-aid to get us to where we are

[5:04:56] today. So, here we are today with the same problem. We're still going to face

[5:05:00] a budget issue. We're still and the city will continue to face that budget

[5:05:04] because originally it was designed with commercial and industrial revenue to

[5:05:09] operate the entire city efficiently with a quality of life that residents really

[5:05:14] deserve. So it hasn't happened because of the infrastructure. So tonight is the

[5:05:19] right time. This ordinance is the right ordinance. And the biggest part of this

[5:05:24] is they have the best partner you can possibly have. It's the partner that's

[5:05:28] coming up with their own money to listen to the local residents to listen to you,

[5:05:34] listen to the staff to try to create a project that makes sense for everybody

[5:05:38] way beyond the call of what other developers would do. I mean, who would

[5:05:42] move mountains to hide their buildings? I've never heard of any developer who's

[5:05:46] going to do that. That expense to do that generates zero revenue for them.

[5:05:50] They're doing that out of just respect of the residents and respect of the

[5:05:54] environment that we have. You have the best partner. You have the right

[5:05:58] ordinance and you have the right time. I urge you to please vote yes to this.

[5:06:03] Thank you. [Applause]

[5:06:07] Hansen Wong, followed by Louie Lopez.

[5:06:17] » Good evening, city council. Hansen Wong Kaipa.

[5:06:21] So, there's a couple things I have concern about. One is the fact that

[5:06:26] you're combining two things that um have different issues in some sense.

[5:06:33] You're combining the reszoning in option three with the property that the polymer

[5:06:40] zone and the warehouse and um Pacific Oaks has done a lot to mitigate some of

[5:06:47] the concerns of the citizens as well as the comments from other

[5:06:52] people. But uh the zoning reszoning includes a lot of other areas of u

[5:07:01] warehouses that aren't hidden that have no asurances of clean air and uh it just

[5:07:10] added to it with so by having the two together you're using Pacific Oaks as an

[5:07:17] example and saying all the rest will be just fine as well.

[5:07:22] Um the other concern I have is the way that um people look at things. Okay, if

[5:07:31] we meet the minimum requirements, it should be fine. But the lower freeway or

[5:07:38] the freeway corridor area is one of the worst air quality anywhere. Now, we're

[5:07:45] permitted under the state or air quality people to increase it by some amount and

[5:07:51] the city planners have looked at it and it's less than that amount. But if you

[5:07:57] have the worst areas and you're adding to that, that's doesn't speak well for

[5:08:03] the low-income areas, senior areas, whatever other people that are going to

[5:08:07] live in this area that might have lung problems.

[5:08:11] looking at um the funding, you know, I realized that um this particular project

[5:08:18] by Pacific Oaks is bringing impact fees and additional funding to help the

[5:08:23] infrastructure and that will push along the other things that are happening, but

[5:08:29] it it's not just a low amount that's being given. And so that must influence

[5:08:35] the vote somehow in order to have the additional funds in order for it to

[5:08:40] function. I don't see in the um environmental

[5:08:47] review a real robust answer to the wildlife corridor going along that area.

[5:08:54] Uh I the last thing in my last 30 minute seconds is the fact that there used to

[5:08:59] be public land for parks and public lands for a school. And I realized

[5:09:05] there's openings in the school above. But when you don't have a school and you

[5:09:09] don't have parks, people are going to have to drive up the city, you're going

[5:09:13] to increase the traffic and you're going to create problems. And in addition,

[5:09:18] there are no school buses, so they have to drive up and that will inconvenience

[5:09:22] the families. So I hope you think about how you can manage these other problems.

[5:09:28] Thank you.

[5:09:32] » Louis Lopez, followed by Zach Straers.

[5:09:37] » Good evening, uh, honorable mayor, city council members, staff, and community.

[5:09:41] My name is Louis Lopez. I'm here tonight representing the Iron Workers 433.

[5:09:46] Um, and also want to publicly uh thank the applicant for uh the early stages of

[5:09:52] an agreement with the iron workers so that we could participate um in

[5:09:57] delivering the city a skilled and trained with local hire uh ordinances on

[5:10:02] that to the city. Uh trained and skilled. Um the iron workers are an

[5:10:08] accredited apprenticeship program through the state of California. And the

[5:10:11] way I like to um give an example is that if anybody in here sends their their

[5:10:17] kids or if anybody in here went to college and received a four a minimum

[5:10:21] four-year um degree in in whatever trade or field that they go into uh after

[5:10:27] completing school um with that degree I would imagine that you know you should

[5:10:33] be rewarded with a higher paying uh wage and hopefully some benefits. That's the

[5:10:38] way the iron workers work. We put our apprentices uh through a four-year

[5:10:42] apprenticeship program. Again, that's accredited through the state of

[5:10:45] California, which uh signifies that uh they not only graduate as a journeyman,

[5:10:50] but they have a stren trained and skilled um title along with that. So

[5:10:56] when the applicant um uh engages with the local unions uh to perform uh in

[5:11:02] order to deliver the city a well-built uh project because I know in in some

[5:11:08] places uh here in California if there was an earthquake um I know many of us

[5:11:13] don't think about it but we hope that that structure that we're sitting in or

[5:11:16] under uh withstands the forces of you know um an earthquake. So, uh, having a

[5:11:23] a a project that's well built with trained and skilled workmanship is very

[5:11:29] important. Like any of you that would buy a house, you would expect that that

[5:11:33] house can last and and uh provide for your family. Um, another aspect I want

[5:11:38] to um, highlight is that I'm a I'm a Marine Corps veteran with two tours and

[5:11:43] um, it's uh, partnerships that we have through uh, helmets to hard hats that

[5:11:48] actually helps us um, get those uh, men and women coming back from serving our

[5:11:54] country uh, a direct entry with the apprenticeship program just like I did.

[5:12:00] Um, and we find a lot of success in that because with the military experience,

[5:12:06] most of our military folks that come in immediately with their military

[5:12:11] discipline and and leadership skills uh rise to the top. Um,

[5:12:16] and so it gives me just in the last four weeks, I've brought in three um veterans

[5:12:22] that landed locally uh to our area. And I'm very pr I'm I'm I don't want to say

[5:12:28] proud privileged to be able to do that and see families grow and strive. Uh

[5:12:33] thank you and we are in support and ask for your support uh with this project.

[5:12:37] Thank you. [Applause]

[5:12:44] » Hi, good evening. Zach Strawers Care California. Uh I'm not going to take a

[5:12:48] lot of your time obviously. I've only got three minutes of it anyways. But I I

[5:12:52] just want to point out a few things that really separate this project from a lot

[5:12:55] of others uh with regards to scope and um first of all I want to talk about

[5:13:00] infrastructure. So, Care California is a company that really takes a look at the

[5:13:05] potential impact of a project in a community and not just with regards to

[5:13:10] opportunities like Louis Lopez with the iron workers talked about previously,

[5:13:14] but by and large, what potential does a project suggest for transformation in a

[5:13:20] community? Or in other words, if we're going to support it, how real are the

[5:13:26] potential benefits? And one of the first areas I look at personally is

[5:13:29] infrastructure. And this project is absolutely I mean I've as the suit

[5:13:36] suggests I'm not a farmer at a pumpkin patch. I look a lot at projects right.

[5:13:40] So I'm I'm telling you that this project with regards to infrastructure is

[5:13:44] incredible. This is without question infrastructure that wouldn't get built

[5:13:48] without this project. I was moved by the testimony of the uh gentleman from the

[5:13:52] Palmer family. And he's not saying that just to support the developer or to win

[5:13:56] over people or to try to encourage people's opinion to sway. I'm sure local

[5:14:00] residents, as they always do, will have certain concerns and those concerns are

[5:14:03] valid. But this is by and large, personal testimony, one of the best

[5:14:07] infrastructure packages I've ever seen for a project of this architectural

[5:14:10] style. Uh it is easy to say that without this project, this area probably

[5:14:15] wouldn't get developed in terms of infrastructure, maybe for decades, if at

[5:14:18] all, based on what I hear local residents saying. Second of all, is

[5:14:21] jobs. Uh when we look at potential impact, we're not just talking about uh

[5:14:25] immediate with regards to construction or even long-term with regards to

[5:14:28] permanent jobs in the strata permanent jobs that are offered, but with regards

[5:14:32] to regional and generational impact. So once again, whenever you bring in a

[5:14:36] certain architectural style, it brings in a certain tier of tenant. Those

[5:14:41] tenants provide opportunities that have the opportunity to impact a region. And

[5:14:45] these opportunities based on what I see and understand and based on what care

[5:14:49] evaluates in this project are not immediately or readily available. So

[5:14:53] whenever tenants come in and look at an opportunity and an offering like that,

[5:14:56] the quality of the architecture and the style of the design, not to mention all

[5:15:00] of the environmental and all of the perk add-ons that go on with this particular

[5:15:04] project because of the due diligence of the developer. You're talking about a

[5:15:07] huge win, not a big win, a massive win. again pointing out um that I've seen a

[5:15:13] lot of projects get offered that try to meet lead this or lead that. These guys

[5:15:17] have done their homework. These guys have really swung for the fence. It's

[5:15:20] evident that they knew that there was a certain amount to be honest of

[5:15:22] opposition maybe they thought they were going to felt because there are a lot of

[5:15:24] people that don't want anything built no matter what it is, no matter what the

[5:15:27] potential benefit is. These guys did their homework. They made sure that they

[5:15:31] were not standing on things that were puffed up to try to make their offering

[5:15:35] look good. These guys stood on a well-built project for these three

[5:15:39] reasons. Care California ask that you support this project with a yes vote

[5:15:42] tonight. Thank you and God bless you. [Applause]

[5:15:48] Nicole Padron followed by Rain Mendoza.

[5:16:03] Good evening again. My name is Nicole Padron. I live on Brushy Hollow Drive in

[5:16:07] the city of Ukipa. Honorable mayor, council members, and city staff, thank

[5:16:13] you for the opportunity to comment on the freeway corridor specific plan

[5:16:16] update and Pacific Oaks Commerce Center. My husband and I purchased our home in

[5:16:22] Ukipa six years ago, and in the last four years, we've had three boys who

[5:16:27] love playing outside. We moved to Ukipa from Riverside, and

[5:16:32] the safe and rural nature of the city is what drew us in.

[5:16:36] We have serious concerns with the revised final supplemental EIR and the

[5:16:41] extreme change of proposed land uses from lowdensity residential with open

[5:16:47] space and a freeway commercial shopping center to mega warehouses with

[5:16:52] residential areas right next door to warehouses and limited open space. open

[5:16:58] space that is not going to be untouched that it can can apparently be graded to

[5:17:03] allow the developers to maximize their projects.

[5:17:08] According to the EIR, the proposed project cons continues to result in

[5:17:13] significant environmental impacts for air quality, greenhouse gases and noise

[5:17:17] and this is unacceptable. Per counten virus green 4.0 I know the

[5:17:23] community surrounding the freeway corridor specific plan, including the

[5:17:26] community that I live in, which is less than a mile from the proposed business

[5:17:30] park areas, is already heavily burdened by air pollution. The census track that

[5:17:36] I live in, for example, ranks worse than 100% of the rest of the state in ozone,

[5:17:40] worse than 50% of the rest of the state for particulate matter 2.5, 82% worse

[5:17:46] for diesel particulate matter, and 67% worse for traffic. This is concerning to

[5:17:53] me as a mother and as a resident of this community um that according to the

[5:17:58] general plan values the health, safety, and well-being of its residents and

[5:18:03] small town rural character and open space and quality jobs. The proposed

[5:18:09] freeway corridor specific plan update and Pacific Oaks Comish Center fails on

[5:18:13] all of these values. Please don't sacrifice the beauty and character of

[5:18:17] the city and health of its residents for these mega warehouses.

[5:18:23] We can find a better way for our future generations.

[5:18:27] And um please think of our children. Thank you for your leadership and

[5:18:32] consideration.

[5:18:36] Rain Mendoza followed by Rob Ramos.

[5:18:59] Okay. Um, hi, my name is Ray Mendoza. I am from District 4 in Ukipa. So, um,

[5:19:06] this has been an issue for a while and I've been following it as much as I can

[5:19:10] and I have been, um, I think there are pros and cons and I have hopes and

[5:19:16] doubts for this sort of project. So, I think the pros of what I know about this

[5:19:21] is I really like the idea of these buildings being clean energy and the

[5:19:26] energy being used responsibly. I like the idea of more jobs and decent jobs.

[5:19:30] Um, I think we do need more housing in UKIPA. My cons for this, my doubts for

[5:19:35] this um project is that uh the safety and fire

[5:19:41] risk hazards. Also, we need to consider future environmental hazards such as

[5:19:48] flooding and heat waves and earthquakes and um who knows what else. I also do

[5:19:56] not like that this would be encouraging further consumerism. I think we do need

[5:20:03] more services and we do need jobs here. But I don't like these big

[5:20:10] brand corporate corporations, these corporations coming

[5:20:16] into Ukipa. Um, so I do like the clean energy. I think there's a lot of

[5:20:21] forethought and attention and care put into how we can make this the most

[5:20:25] environmentally friendly. But by nature of it being a a corporate project, we

[5:20:32] don't think about the global shipping and the transportation, the particulate

[5:20:36] matter and I think that's something we should

[5:20:40] look at more um value more closely. Um so my doubts are the environmental

[5:20:46] impact being a net positive and how soon it would be a net positive if at all. Um

[5:20:54] public health is related to this. How close are the residential areas to this

[5:20:59] especially kids um in their schools in their homes.

[5:21:04] We have in San Bernardino County, Riverside

[5:21:08] County, we are the top worst counties in the entire nation for air pollution, for

[5:21:14] asthma rates, for lung cancers, all that related bad bad stuff. Okay. Well, um

[5:21:23] lastly, I would like to have a great job here in Ukipa, but are we just going to

[5:21:27] have more commuters or actual residents working in Ukipa as well as living here?

[5:21:33] My hopes is that this would be a great example to

[5:21:37] future projects in clean energy sustainability

[5:21:43] uh development but it is also essentially just

[5:21:48] corporate. So I will leave the decision to you and um to the people who have the

[5:21:54] expertise and the attention but these are my thoughts. Thank you,

[5:22:00] » Rob Ramos, followed by Kevin Mskin.

[5:22:10] » Good evening, mayor, council members. My name is Robert Ramos representing the

[5:22:14] iron workers of local 416. Over 2,300 members, many of them that live here in

[5:22:20] Yakipa. I would like to start off with saying

[5:22:23] this job has innovation and opportunity. Innovation, they're looking ahead.

[5:22:29] They're looking vehicle charging stations, solar, big rig charging

[5:22:33] stations where when they start rolling out more on the assembly line,

[5:22:38] 95 acres of green acres, right? That's not going to be touched separate away

[5:22:44] from the industrial warehousing or commercial use, right? The opportunity

[5:22:49] is that this developer, like my brother Louie Lopez said, came to an agreement

[5:22:53] with the iron workers that we're going to be able to get local hire coming out

[5:22:57] of Ukipa. Earn the money where you're going to

[5:23:01] spend it. And that's here in the city of Yakipa, right? For your apprentichip

[5:23:05] program. We get to use some of our young brothers coming up, showing them the

[5:23:09] crafts, building them, showing them how to build quality craftsmanship in every

[5:23:13] building that's going to go up here in Yakypa. Right. That's the opportunity

[5:23:17] that you guys are going to prevent. Opportunity also is you're going to have

[5:23:21] those jobs that they're going to be careers, long-term careers for the

[5:23:24] residents here. So overall, this project's a win. It's it's a win for the

[5:23:29] whole city of Yakypa. It's it's innovation. You're looking towards the

[5:23:33] future and you're acting on the green green energy.

[5:23:38] Um so I'm here tonight asking for your yes vote tonight. Thank you very much,

[5:23:46] » Kevin Mskin. Followed by Joanne Lassard.

[5:23:51] » Honorable City Council Kevin Miskin, District 1. Appreciate the opportunity

[5:23:55] to be here this evening. First of all, I just want to say uh that I appreciate

[5:24:00] the efforts that have been made by the Palmer family and also by Pacific Oaks

[5:24:04] to create a project that uh one is not very popular, but uh they've done the

[5:24:09] very best I think they can to to try and make it as palpable as possible. Uh

[5:24:15] we've heard some of the concerns that have been expressed this evening. I'd

[5:24:17] like to uh just address one issue that's missing from the plan. uh in particular

[5:24:24] the uh business park. You know, in this last goaround, we went from well in the

[5:24:29] 2008 plan, we went from 549 acres of open space. Then in the 2024 plan, we

[5:24:35] went to 498. And in this current plan, it's been reduced again to 403 acres of

[5:24:41] open space, which is a decrease of about 27%.

[5:24:45] But what I really wanted to address here was the lack of uh public facilities. Uh

[5:24:50] there were in the original plan there were 45 acres that were set aside for

[5:24:54] public facilities. I have a real concern and it goes to uh council member Judy

[5:24:59] Walssey's comment earlier this evening in that uh if you think of the youth and

[5:25:03] the 7,000 approximately 7,000 residents that will be living south of the

[5:25:07] freeway. All of those children to go to school will be riding their bikes, their

[5:25:12] ebikes apparently now they're also riding uh many uh many bikes also. But

[5:25:17] they're going to be going over the freeway where all this traffic is going

[5:25:20] to be coming in, particularly these diesel trucks. But to get to the parks

[5:25:25] or any of the schools, they've got to cross the freeway. When they're going to

[5:25:28] be coming home in the evenings, they've got to go back over the freeways at the

[5:25:32] same time in the early afternoon when when the traffic is going to be

[5:25:35] greatest, at least with the diesel trucks in the early afternoon. I'd like

[5:25:39] the council to reconsider uh the need for public facilities. I think we need

[5:25:43] to put parks south of the freeway in order to address and keep the kids out

[5:25:49] of the traffic crossing the freeways back and forth and to make sure that we

[5:25:52] have uh uh public facilities for those kids on the south side of the freeway.

[5:25:58] Thank you.

[5:26:02] [Applause] Joanne Lassard.

[5:26:11] Honorable council members, um I live in Redlands because and I'm here because

[5:26:17] Redlands is much more impacted uh by this development, by this plan than is

[5:26:24] Ukipa. Um

[5:26:28] there are very few people here this evening but

[5:26:32] when the problems that have been forecast actually happen with uh traffic

[5:26:39] congestion fire problems

[5:26:43] uh the water uh natural waterways and the air pollution when they actually

[5:26:50] happen which they will do um this council is not going to look quite are

[5:26:56] good and many people will be unhappy uh and re remember this decision

[5:27:05] tonight. My other question is whether

[5:27:10] or not any alternatives have been considered that benefit the land owners

[5:27:17] and benefit the city of Ukipa. Uh it might be

[5:27:24] good to have uh a uh town hall meeting and and and

[5:27:31] uh people from e economic development agencies or business enterprises just to

[5:27:38] look if there are any alternatives that would be more satisfactory both to the

[5:27:42] land owners and to the finances of the city of Ukipa.

[5:27:48] So, um, I encourage you to consider these things. Thank you.

[5:27:57] » We have no more comments.

[5:28:03] » Thank you, ma'am. >> Uh, does the applicant want a rebuttal

[5:28:08] to any of the statements that were made by the public?

[5:28:18] Sorry, I should have sat closer. Um, you know, no, we really appreciate

[5:28:21] everyone's comments, even for or against it. I think that's what this forum is

[5:28:26] all about. Um, we respect it. I'm happy to respond to anything you guys wanted

[5:28:31] uh to, but I don't want to take up more of your time. So, I just wanted you to

[5:28:34] know I'm available and I appreciate how difficult these

[5:28:39] decisions are. Um, and so if there's anything else I can answer, um, please

[5:28:43] don't hesitate to ask me. >> Thank you, sir.

[5:28:46] » Thank you. to our city staff. Do we have anybody on our uh environmental team

[5:28:50] that wants to respond to any of the public comments?

[5:28:53] » Yeah, we have Nicole Vermillion with Place Works that can help um kind of

[5:28:57] address anything. I did want to also add um just in response to one of the public

[5:29:02] comments about lack of public facilities or parks. Um in this specific plan, it

[5:29:07] does include standards for allowing public facilities. So, it is something

[5:29:11] that is allowed in all the districts. And then there's also residential

[5:29:15] standards that require parts. Um, and so per, you know, so many houses or what

[5:29:19] types of developments those are required to provide parts to. So it's not absent.

[5:29:23] It it just doesn't have a kind of more regional city kind of owned facility,

[5:29:28] but there's opportunities throughout the plan area to provide those and it is a

[5:29:32] requirement for the developer to pay for that as they build housing.

[5:29:37] » Good evening counselors. My name is Nicole Vermillion. I'm with police works

[5:29:40] and I prepared the environmental impact report that you're that's up for review

[5:29:45] tonight and I heard a lot of comments about air quality and trucks and health

[5:29:51] risks. So, I wanted to respond to those comments first. Um, the proposed project

[5:29:56] would generate a total of 2,165

[5:30:03] truck trips. That's about 183 trucks per day. So when we analyze the impacts of

[5:30:10] that, we analyzed it from uh baseline conditions. So existing conditions. This

[5:30:15] the one thing that I wanted to point out because we did the subsequent EI. So in

[5:30:20] other words, our baseline is normally the approved project. But because the

[5:30:24] approved project was mostly commercial and residential and did not necessarily

[5:30:29] consider the trucks, the health risk um considered all 2,000 plus truck trips.

[5:30:35] It was also conservative because we considered um cumulative health risk.

[5:30:41] And so right now uh we are part of I'm part of the South Coast Air Quality

[5:30:46] Management District working group. The South Coast Air Quality Management

[5:30:50] District reached out to environmental organizations and other key stakeholders

[5:30:56] to consider cumulative impacts uh for the health risk thresholds that consider

[5:31:02] things like background risks like the um Calvin virus screen background risk as

[5:31:08] well as mates. makes this a multiple air toxic exposure study that considers um

[5:31:14] diesel particullet and other air toxic contaminants um and concentrations

[5:31:19] throughout the entire South Coast Air Quality Management District region. What

[5:31:22] that means for you is that we um considered a more stringent health risk

[5:31:28] standard when we evaluated the environmental impacts from the trucks

[5:31:31] that considers not only project impacts but is but the project's contribution to

[5:31:36] cumulative health risk in the region. Um I think I heard some other comments

[5:31:41] about fire hazards. Um the proposed we did not identify any significant

[5:31:46] unavoidable impacts to fire to wildfire risk based on um the current based on

[5:31:53] the comparison of the proposed plan to the propu approved plan as well as

[5:31:59] updated regulations and fire codes um as well as the additional hardening that

[5:32:04] would be done as part of the approved project compared to the proposed

[5:32:07] project. And I think that those were the major comments I have or if there's any

[5:32:12] other questions, please let me know.

[5:32:22] » Any other question? >> If there's no other questions, staff

[5:32:25] would like to request if we could take a break. Um,

[5:32:28] » a short recess. Short recess. >> Let's take a five minute recess.

[5:32:33] » Can you announce the time, sir? >> The time is

[5:32:40] 8:46. >> Thank you. And for the record, uh, the

[5:32:43] public hearing is still open.

[5:46:17] I said

[5:46:21] what's

[5:46:43] You need something.

[5:47:15] Okay, we are back from our little short recess. Time is 9 o'clock.

[5:47:22] And >> if I could just make a note uh for the

[5:47:25] for the record uh the staff report uh incorrectly identifies the resolution

[5:47:30] that the council uh is being asked to approve as 2024-9.

[5:47:34] That's the resolution from last year when the freeway corridor specific plan

[5:47:38] was before the city council. Uh the correct resolution is 2025-54.

[5:47:44] Uh just to be safe, we've printed out copies of that, distributed to the

[5:47:47] council, put it in the back. Uh but it's essentially the same which is approving

[5:47:52] the freeway corridor specific plan and the and the uh subsequent E. Thank you.

[5:47:56] » All right. Copy. Thank you. >> Okay. That uh concludes the public

[5:48:00] hearing. So we'll close the public hearing. It is 901 and we'll move back

[5:48:05] to the dis for council discussion. Councilman Beaver, you still with us?

[5:48:15] » I am. >> Would you like to go first?

[5:48:20] I think it was a well uh put together presentation. Um

[5:48:25] I have uh no other comments nor questions.

[5:48:29] » Okay. Mayor Proton.

[5:48:32] » Well, I I've been digging into this for a long

[5:48:36] time and and uh you know, I uh started writing things down and trying to make

[5:48:42] sense of it and stuff. And so um I'm going to read this little statement.

[5:48:46] Hopefully you guys uh can understand where I'm coming from. The proposed

[5:48:51] freeway quarter specific plan was conceived and developed solely to pro

[5:48:55] provide for the development of the two massive warehouse buildings and nothing

[5:48:58] more. All zoning changes in the quarter plan were made to accommodate the

[5:49:04] warehouses developments. The vast majority of other landowners are

[5:49:08] expected to settle for whatever is left in the zoning wise to facilitate the

[5:49:12] warehouses. All reszoning is for the benefit of the warehouses. All

[5:49:18] improvements are for the development of the warehouses. And all the

[5:49:22] infrastructure improvements are for the benefit of the warehouses.

[5:49:26] We've been repeatedly told by the developer and members of the staff, both

[5:49:30] private and public meetings, that the warehouses in the freeway quarter plan

[5:49:34] provide 38 million in needed infrastructure for the city of Ukipa.

[5:49:41] Despite repeatedly, excuse me, despite repeatedly uh request, I've never seen a

[5:49:46] breakdown of what that infrastructure consists of. Just $38 million worth of

[5:49:52] infrastructure. Does that concern anyone?

[5:49:56] We deal with budgets and review numbers as a council at most every meeting, but

[5:50:01] we have never been provided a breakdown for what that $38 million includes. In

[5:50:07] multiple presentations up until tonight, we've

[5:50:11] been told that the infrastructure was 4.3 uh miles of water line. In response

[5:50:17] to my question regarding the $38 million water line and potential alternatives,

[5:50:23] both the developer and the staff stated in council meetings that if the same

[5:50:29] infrastructure improvements proposed by the developer had to be completed by the

[5:50:34] cities, it would cost two to three times more. Tonight, despite previous claims

[5:50:40] by both staff and the developer that the $38 million infrastructure improvements

[5:50:44] for the water main to benefit future developments, we're now told the $38

[5:50:49] million includes on-site improvements, connection fees, and other expenses

[5:50:54] related to solely for the development of the warehouses. Here's some facts that

[5:50:59] are related to the infrastructure that related to the infrastructure as it

[5:51:04] relates to potential development within the freeway quarter specific plan.

[5:51:10] Number one, the warehouses development would provide no additional waste water

[5:51:16] improvements within the city within the freeway quarter specific plan that would

[5:51:21] benefit the development any additional projects. no street improvements than

[5:51:27] other than the bridge that those improvements immediately in front of the

[5:51:32] warehouses properties would be constructive on live oak canyon road or

[5:51:37] within the freeway quarter specific plan boundaries only benefactor beneic excuse

[5:51:43] me the only benefactor of these improvements are the plant warehouse

[5:51:48] developments prior to live oak canyon entering to the city of Redlands and and

[5:51:53] further down Riverside County. The freeway quarter specific

[5:51:58] plan does not provide any widening on the north side of the Live Oak Canyon

[5:52:03] Road between the frontage road and the proposed new bridge. The pumpkin patch

[5:52:08] has been able to get their traffic problem under control. So now add all

[5:52:13] that truck traffic from the proposed warehouses. What a disaster.

[5:52:18] Number three, Edison infrastructure already exists underground at the

[5:52:23] Robinson's property at Live Oak Canyon Road and the Outer Highway. Any proposed

[5:52:29] Edison infrastructure by the warehouse builder would solely benefit the

[5:52:34] warehouse project. relocation of the any existing overhead lines ex uh Edison

[5:52:40] lines and poles on the north side of Live Oak Road fronting

[5:52:46] the Robinson's Trust property is not contemplated in the freeway course plan

[5:52:52] re excuse me relocation of these Edison structures will be required at a later

[5:52:57] date with an estimated of several million dollars

[5:53:01] number four fiber optic and communication existing on live oak

[5:53:07] canyon road in the same area as where Edison is.

[5:53:12] Any infrastructure improvements to fiber optic communication services is only for

[5:53:17] the benefit of the warehouses, city of Redlands and Riverside County residents

[5:53:22] developments. Number five, 4.3 miles of domestic water

[5:53:28] infrastructure. Western Heights Water District currently

[5:53:32] services all businesses and homes on the freeway frontage road. The Robinson's

[5:53:37] Trust properties located on the corner of Live Oak Canyon Road and the Frontage

[5:53:41] Road could potentially be serviced by Western Heights Water with much less

[5:53:45] expensive infrastructure improvements. The 4.3

[5:53:50] miles of proposed domestic improvements make no prevention for future

[5:53:56] developments provisions, I'm sorry, makes no pro

[5:54:00] provisions for future developments, any connections. She said the 4.3

[5:54:05] infrastructure for any development would be subject to a fair share agreement,

[5:54:10] connection fees, and potentially additional infrastructure fees

[5:54:15] from the Yuka Valley Water District. The Robinson Family Trust holds the

[5:54:21] majority of the land with the pro, excuse me, with the proposed freeway

[5:54:25] quarter uh plan is completely disenfranchised by this plan. staff has

[5:54:32] refused to engage in any meaningful discussions with the Robinson's Trust

[5:54:36] despite directions from Mayor Beaver and council last year to engage in all

[5:54:42] affected landowners to obtain their support for the freeway course plan.

[5:54:48] This proposed freeway quarter plan provides virtually no infrastructure

[5:54:52] improvements to the to facilitate development of the Robinson's Family

[5:54:57] Trust lands. Again, these improvements to the infrastructure were only

[5:55:03] conceived for the benefits of the warehouse project and domestic water

[5:55:07] infrastructure for the f future developments in Calama and Riverside

[5:55:11] County. We as a council

[5:55:15] and the citizens of Yukipa have been repeatedly misled by the warehouse

[5:55:19] developer and the city staff regarding this true value of of proposed

[5:55:24] infrastructure improvements. And the same has been greatly exaggerated in

[5:55:30] effort to obtain approval for both the warehouses project and the freeway

[5:55:34] quarter specific plan. The freeway quarter plan has proposed

[5:55:40] as proposed would empower the staff to make all future decision within the

[5:55:44] freeway quarter plan and for future developments for any projects without

[5:55:48] the oversight of either the comm the planning commission or the city council.

[5:55:54] That's concern. That is pretty concerning to me.

[5:56:01] It is very necessary under our system of governments that the elected officials

[5:56:05] are allowed the opportunity to review proposed projects for our constituents.

[5:56:11] It is very concerning to excuse me to me that we had multiple ordinances and now

[5:56:16] freeway quarter specific plan that seek to limit the oversight of the elected

[5:56:21] officials. This being said, I make a motion that we reject the proposed

[5:56:26] freeway quarters uh plan entirely, leaving the existing

[5:56:31] 2008 freeway quarter plan or corridor plan in place.

[5:56:38] Thank you. [Applause]

[5:56:42] Okay, so we still have some other comments and stuff before we get into

[5:56:46] motions. Um, I think before I go to Councilman Miller, uh, from my seat, um,

[5:56:56] development of those warehouses down there, I think on the

[5:57:00] staff's presentation it said it was 789,000 some change for um, tax revenue.

[5:57:09] That brings in 14.4 million, if I wrote it down correctly, in diff fees. And if

[5:57:15] I'm not mistaken, we had 24

[5:57:20] 25 million in loans to the from the diff defies. Is that correct, Phil?

[5:57:29] » I ish. >> Uh- ish. Yes. Uh that's correct. Uh $20

[5:57:32] million uh inner fund loans for all five categories um as of June 30th, 25.

[5:57:39] » So this 14 would be able to go towards bringing that down. Correct. Um uh

[5:57:45] » is that too simplified of an answer? >> It is. It is the the it would help um

[5:57:50] but the the 20 million is all five categories. Um the the categories of

[5:57:56] funding with this specific project um do not cover the same three categories that

[5:58:02] make up the 20 million. There's a little bit difference, but a couple million

[5:58:05] dollars would help pay that down. And then the overall diff uh program is

[5:58:11] hundreds of million dollars. the rest of it goes into funding the infrastructure

[5:58:15] of that hundred million dollar plus um number that is uh required for the

[5:58:21] infrastructure through the rest of the program.

[5:58:24] » Thank you, sir. >> Yeah.

[5:58:26] » Um and the reason I bring that up is that

[5:58:32] finances are on our radar right now and anything that helps kind of level some

[5:58:38] of those things on our ledger I think helps. Um and then also um

[5:58:46] we don't want I I don't how to simplify this but

[5:58:52] when we look at our financial long road plan down the road we we want

[5:58:57] to be a little diversified. We don't want everything in one basket. And I

[5:59:02] think this is important because we have had a freeway corridor plan in place

[5:59:07] since 2008. what is that 16 17 years and um we've had one warehouse built over on

[5:59:15] County Line Road and that was in the last year year and a half year I think.

[5:59:20] Um and nothing else has happened and we need to do some things to give our kind

[5:59:25] of a a shot in our uh revenue for our city and obviously this

[5:59:30] isn't going to happen overnight. It's going to take some time and but we got

[5:59:35] to work on our finances because if we keep saying no to everything, things are

[5:59:38] going to pass us by and we are going to have a hard time paying um our bills

[5:59:44] down the road and we're going to be at the same crossroad. The the initiative

[5:59:47] that went through last year. Uh whether you agree with it or not, it's a

[5:59:52] temporary fix. It's a band-aid as someone said earlier, um it's not a

[5:59:57] long-term fix. So, we have to figure out something to take care of our finances

[6:00:00] long term. We've been working on this since 2008. Nothing's really transpired.

[6:00:05] And we've got someone that's willing to think outside the box and do something a

[6:00:08] little bit different that allows for some of this to take place. So, um I I

[6:00:14] think it's a good opportunity for what we have right now. We don't have

[6:00:17] anything else. We don't have people knocking down our doors. We've heard

[6:00:19] people talk about you should look at other things. We have been um staff's

[6:00:24] done a phenomenal job, I think. And I've met with a lot of people on this over

[6:00:28] the years. This project and and the warehouse project and whatnot has been

[6:00:32] something that uh I've been in many many meetings over the past four to five

[6:00:37] years. And you know, I think they're they're looking outside the box. They're

[6:00:42] trying to address a lot of concerns. Um you know, Calamea is going to have

[6:00:47] warehouses go in and you're going to see every one of those no matter where you

[6:00:50] are. Uh and the this company is willing to come in and move as it was stated,

[6:00:56] you know, these small mountains, which is a lot of money, a lot of dirt just to

[6:01:00] make it so that it's a a little bit more aesthetically pleasing. So, we keep a

[6:01:04] little bit of that approach, uh that visibility that we want to see from the

[6:01:07] open spaces. There's a lot of other things that we've already talked about

[6:01:10] previously that I think they're addressing. So, I think I I think right

[6:01:13] now, but what we have in front of us, we have an opportunity. Uh and we we should

[6:01:18] take a hold of that opportunity we have right now. Um, we keep saying no.

[6:01:21] Eventually, opportunities go away and we'll be down the road and we're going

[6:01:24] to be wishing we had done something. And, you know, this probably isn't the

[6:01:28] time to to say it, but the we recently had an event here in town and we had an

[6:01:34] overwhelming response from law enforcement and the resources.

[6:01:38] And if we don't address our finances, there

[6:01:43] may come a time where we have to not have all the safety precautions and

[6:01:48] things in the city that we want and we didn't want that to happen last time. So

[6:01:51] that's why the initiative went, you know, the public decided that vote that

[6:01:54] through to keep that from happening. And it's a good thing that it went through.

[6:01:58] Um I don't think cutting public services is

[6:02:03] the way to go. But when you start running out of money, just like your in

[6:02:06] your families, you start up making hard choices. Right now, it's nice cities

[6:02:10] that we're cutting. Eventually, it might get down to the things that we truly

[6:02:14] need, and it's really going to get uncomfortable, and that will really

[6:02:17] change the look of our city and the environment of our city if we have to

[6:02:20] start going that route. Um, that's that's for my seat. Councilman,

[6:02:27] » thank you, mayor. Uh, I appreciate the time. And I kind of just want to start

[6:02:31] out with the finally meet the Palmer family. In my eight months on the

[6:02:36] council, I've either seen your name on a map or in a report. So, thank you for

[6:02:41] coming up as a property owner to finally meet you. I heard good things. So, thank

[6:02:45] you for coming up tonight and to actually put a face to the paper on a

[6:02:50] map. Um, and Dan, I thank you for coming up and giving a presentation of your

[6:02:56] Pacific Oats project. uh thank our citizens for their their input and their

[6:03:01] concerns. We've we've heard this a a few times. Uh but I'll go back to 17 years

[6:03:08] uh this has been talked about. Um I didn't come with a prepared statement.

[6:03:13] Uh Mayor Prom, that's great. You you've dug in and have your opinion. I've just

[6:03:18] heard two and a half hours of facts. You have facts. I would love to go through

[6:03:23] them with you right now. what your where you got your facts, but I just heard

[6:03:26] from experts. I heard from a staff that we have here that have advanced degrees.

[6:03:32] I have an engineer. I have somebody that has an advanced degree that have studied

[6:03:36] this stuff for the last I mean, this thing's been studied for 17 years back

[6:03:42] and forth. Councils before us have sent it back several times to go meet with

[6:03:47] property owners. They have met with certain families that you may have been

[6:03:51] referencing several times. In fact, I sat in a meeting with one of them

[6:03:56] property owners that just was not extremely positive about working with

[6:04:00] the city. And that's okay. Everybody has a right to do what they want. In

[6:04:04] America, you could do what you want with your property. All we're merely looking

[6:04:08] at is an overlay. These pretty color maps we have over here is an overlay of

[6:04:14] what the city has looked at to put down. You can do what you want with your

[6:04:18] property. Okay. So, we have a we have a developer here or somebody that wants to

[6:04:25] develop their property. Uh Pacific Oaks is actually going to bring the

[6:04:29] infrastructure through to start kickstart the project to get us going.

[6:04:35] Water and infrastructure is everything, right? To get the project going. The

[6:04:40] mayor talked about long-term sustainability.

[6:04:45] We were in well John's still in it, but I was in law enforcement for many years

[6:04:49] them in in public safety. Them costs are continually going to go up over the

[6:04:53] years. I guarantee it. Cost for contracts,

[6:04:58] cost for cars, guns, bullets, vest, safety equipment, uh, you know, dispatch

[6:05:04] rate, all that stuff goes up over time. So, you have to have some sustainability

[6:05:09] to pay for the public safety costs that our community values so much. They

[6:05:14] passed a public safety referendum or tax to to make sure we can be sustainable in

[6:05:19] what we're doing for our public safety because we have a very safe town. It's

[6:05:23] hard to say that because when you say that something happens usually, but look

[6:05:26] at our safety report we just had from our sheriff's department. We value

[6:05:30] having a safe town, but that cost in the run in the end. Them costs are very

[6:05:35] expensive for the things we want to provide. Yes, we provided a balanced

[6:05:39] budget this year. We are putting a strategic plan together with a financial

[6:05:43] strategic plan to make sure everything lines up in the future. We're in the

[6:05:47] middle of a we're starting a city manager search. We've got a lot going,

[6:05:52] but everything predicates on this freeway quarter specific plan and moving

[6:05:56] this thing forward. Now, I think Dan has bent over backwards with us, the

[6:06:01] community. He's revised his plan. Um, of course there's going to be folks out

[6:06:07] there that don't want to see a row of warehouses. Like when you fly into

[6:06:10] Ontario airport and what do you see? A row of warehouses, right? That's not

[6:06:15] what this plan is. Let's be honest, people. This is the kickstart for that

[6:06:19] freeway quarter specific plan. And we also have a housing element to deal

[6:06:24] with. There's no doubt. If we don't go forward, where are you going to put

[6:06:29] where are you going to put the houses that the state is requiring us to do

[6:06:33] there? you have to deal with that at some point. Um, and I think if we just

[6:06:39] kind of just think ahead, you know, we may be all gone by then, but if you

[6:06:44] think ahead of what we can actually do for our town, not just think about our

[6:06:48] districts and not just think about the shortterm thing, you know, like opening

[6:06:53] Trader Joe's is great. It's packed every day, but that's short term. What are we

[6:06:57] doing long term for our community? Here's the start. This is what's going

[6:07:01] to kickstart. And look where it's at down there. Yes, I agree with many of

[6:07:05] our citizens and say, "Hey, what about truck traffic and diesel emissions and

[6:07:08] all that?" Yes, there's science on both ways. We've heard from our environmental

[6:07:13] experts tonight. We even had a third party environmental person come in

[6:07:16] that's totally, you know, clean from it to give their report. So, you can't tell

[6:07:22] me it hasn't been vetted six ways from Sunday in 17 years. Personally, I've

[6:07:28] talked to former council members that have sat on this dis and told me what

[6:07:32] they thought about the plan. I sat down with them at coffee and tell me what you

[6:07:36] were thinking when you put the plan together and you you met with the

[6:07:39] community and what you wanted to do and what was that vision? What was the money

[6:07:43] we've spent before? Right, city manager? What have we already invested as a

[6:07:48] council and council's before us? It's already there. We're already down the

[6:07:54] road and tonight we need to finally do something. We can't kick this count down

[6:07:58] the road anymore. Just be honest with each other for once. The common sense

[6:08:03] approach is to approve this plan and let's move forward. One of the things

[6:08:08] that I' I've been hearing for the last several months is and uh for me and I

[6:08:13] think hit on this in our finance committee meeting. If you approve this

[6:08:16] plan, there's an area in there that's colored green. We got a lot of colors up

[6:08:20] there, right? A lot of pretty colors, crayons, right? And what if you you own

[6:08:26] a piece of property and you like that green area to be a little red? Fine. Put

[6:08:30] your plan in. Do your own environmental, not at taxpayer cost. And if you can do

[6:08:36] your plan and maybe turn some of that into something you can develop, great.

[6:08:40] That's America. Do what you want with your property. But we're just putting

[6:08:43] the overlay down. And I think we get confused. The city is just providing

[6:08:49] kind of the playbook of what you can do. You have to come back with your what

[6:08:53] your development's going to be and hopefully you have a good project and it

[6:08:57] gets approved. You're working with the water develop company. We've got a we

[6:09:00] got a board member back there that he usually comes to all the meetings. Don't

[6:09:04] run out of here, Mr. Granland. Uh they're very in tune to what's going on

[6:09:08] with water. I think the mayor prom was talking about water connections, etc. We

[6:09:12] had a nice pres presentation a few weeks ago from Joe Zorba who told us how

[6:09:16] everything connects in our area with water. That's why we had that

[6:09:20] presentation. So, uh, last meeting I was pretty quiet

[6:09:24] and I had a lot of people ask me, "Bob, you're really quiet." Because I talk a

[6:09:27] lot clearly and I said, 'Well, I was just waiting for this meeting. Because I

[6:09:32] knew how important this is. This is an important signature event.

[6:09:37] Somebody tonight talked about legacy, what our legacy is going to be. This is

[6:09:43] our legacy. I think it's going to be positive. I

[6:09:46] could be wrong. I've been wrong about a few things in my life, but this is the

[6:09:51] legacy that if we can provide what we need to do, you heard the iron workers

[6:09:54] talking about jobs and hiring our own people, what kind of housing can we have

[6:09:59] for our own people? Me, Mr. Granland had talked about this over coffee one day.

[6:10:03] Can our kids afford houses in our own town to be able to live here, work here,

[6:10:08] and be able to provide for their family here? What can we do for our own town?

[6:10:12] We've got to think about the 54,000 people that live here. common sense

[6:10:16] approach is we need to start this thing.

[6:10:21] So I may hear from some people, well Bob, are you prodevelopment? No, I'm

[6:10:24] about managed growth. Do do what can work and every project is different. We

[6:10:31] have to take everything as it comes to us. But no more kicking it down the

[6:10:36] road. U and I I'll be honest with you, that's all I got to say about it. I

[6:10:41] think everybody knows where I stand right now. I'll make an alternate motion

[6:10:45] that we approve this plan. Um, I know we have a motion on the floor, but I'm

[6:10:49] making an alternate motion that we approve this plan tonight.

[6:10:56] » You're up, ma'am. >> Well, I've made lots of notes on this

[6:11:01] this evening. I've changed them and rewritten them. And I did appreciate the

[6:11:07] staff presentation on the questions and answers. I think that was a a great job.

[6:11:12] It did even for me answer a lot of things clarified things for me which I

[6:11:17] think is important. Um I want to make a comment to Mr. Venable.

[6:11:25] I do appreciate very much your comments and your concerns and I did listen

[6:11:33] um and I've taken them into consideration.

[6:11:37] However, I've not heard anything from uh other speakers and everything tonight

[6:11:42] that has changed my mind. I still um support my previous vote.

[6:11:54] Okay. So, we have a first motion on the floor and that is to reject the options

[6:11:58] that were presented by staff. Do I have a second?

[6:12:07] hearing none. So I guess that motion fails. We have a second motion on the

[6:12:12] floor to accept the recommendations as staff has presented. Do I have a second

[6:12:16] on that?

[6:12:21] » Um I'll second. Oh Justin second. >> Okay. So first is Mr. Miller. Second is

[6:12:29] Mr. Beaver. And we will need to do a roll call vote. Council member Beaver,

[6:12:35] » yes. >> Council member Miller,

[6:12:37] » yes. >> Council member Wolsey,

[6:12:39] » yes. >> Mayor Promal,

[6:12:41] » no. >> Mayor Thorp,

[6:12:42] » yes. >> Motion carried.

[6:12:45] » Thank you, ma'am. [Applause]

[6:12:49] » Okay. Uh, next is council member comments and reports. So, before I go

[6:12:55] down the line here, um earlier tonight in the consent agenda,

[6:12:59] we talked about awarding a contract to get some paving done on County Line

[6:13:04] Road. Got an email earlier, I want to say it was Thursday. I don't remember

[6:13:10] exactly the day now. um earlier this week about another one of our

[6:13:14] constituents upset about the condition of the roadway um and how long it's

[6:13:18] taken and is upset with frankly our city council and our city

[6:13:25] staff on where we are on that project. Um didn't mention Calamace at all. Um

[6:13:33] I I know we just did an update on this not too long ago and I've reached out to

[6:13:38] this individual to meet with them, have a one-on-one meeting with them. We'll

[6:13:40] see if they'll accept it and but um maybe on a future nearby meeting we

[6:13:46] could get another update on that just to put some information out and maybe put

[6:13:49] something out on social media so people can see it because it's becoming a

[6:13:53] little bit more frequent that people are voicing their it's it's been going on

[6:13:57] for a while but it's becoming a little more more frequent that people are

[6:14:01] frustrated with where we are in this. Um, I understand that there's a lot of

[6:14:06] moving parts and it's a joint venture and and and whatnot, but um, sometimes

[6:14:11] people don't always see the updates that are out there before. So, if we could

[6:14:13] put something out about that, maybe I appreciate that.

[6:14:17] Um, the second thing is is I want to publicly thank the sheriff's department

[6:14:21] and all the resources and all the different people that have been involved

[6:14:26] in this incident that took place this last week. Thank you very much. Please

[6:14:29] pass it on up the the chain for us. You all are awesome. you did a great job. Uh

[6:14:33] I know there's still some things being cleared up. Um but um you all did a

[6:14:38] really good job and just we're we're proud of you and

[6:14:42] anything that we can do, we're here for you. Uh but I just I just think you guys

[6:14:48] got on it. People helped out. There's a lot of people providing resources, our

[6:14:52] search and rescue, a bunch of other people. So um from the bottom of my

[6:14:56] heart, thank you. And if you please pass that on all the way up the chain, I

[6:14:59] appreciate it. Um, thank you. All right. Um,

[6:15:06] to my left. >> On the 14th, I attended the Metro Valley

[6:15:11] Board meeting, which is a uh monthly uh meeting. I also attended the Inland

[6:15:16] Empire Business 10-year anniversary celebration at Yamaha. On the 18th, the

[6:15:22] finance committee meeting on the 19th, the Rotary Club and the Water District

[6:15:27] meeting. On the 20th, I attended a reception for Jay Obernolulti. On the

[6:15:33] 21st, Trader Joe's uh opening. And on the 22nd, I attended the Yakipa Valley

[6:15:39] Wine Alliance preh harvest industry event at the North Cork Vineyard and

[6:15:46] Winery. First time I'd ever been there. It's quite a place.

[6:15:51] That's what I

[6:16:00] » Yeah. I just want to thank our staff. I, you know, they uh they don't get the

[6:16:04] credit for the work they do. I know especially this last project has been a

[6:16:08] labor of love or pain, one of the two for a lot of years. Ben for me,

[6:16:14] Jennifer, everybody. Uh I I know you guys have worked so hard on this and and

[6:16:19] your staffs that work with you. Um you know, you you've you've definitely put

[6:16:23] your college education and experience to work. So, thanks for hanging in there

[6:16:27] with us. Um you know, uh and the council always has good intentions. I know we

[6:16:31] all respect you and everything, but we all have different viewpoints at times,

[6:16:35] but thank you for what you do. Um and interim city manager Jennifer Crawford,

[6:16:40] we're so proud of the work you've done. You've done such a great job coming in

[6:16:43] and and just holding us together, man. And I really do appreciate it. I have

[6:16:48] had the opportunity to work with many city managers over the years. I am

[6:16:52] really appreciative of the work you do and how you get things to us when we

[6:16:55] need them and they're clear. It's very professional work and how you brought

[6:17:00] the staff together. Um, I really appreciate it. And our finance director,

[6:17:04] Phil, he knows how much I appreciate him for keeping us on track. uh and the many

[6:17:09] things that did with Ryan and and Megan and the whole staff. You guys just do a

[6:17:12] great job. And you know, I wish the audience was here to hear this right

[6:17:16] now. You know, they leave after the their items up usually, but you guys

[6:17:20] work really hard. And being a former staff member, I know you don't take the

[6:17:24] credit. You don't care about credit. You do it because you care about our city.

[6:17:29] Uh just think of the little things that happen, the great things we have at WPAC

[6:17:32] that happen. The great things we do in the community. Trader Joe's. I think

[6:17:36] there was a line around the what three times around the store. The things that

[6:17:40] just happen in our town, you know, uh looks like we might get some new

[6:17:44] baseball lights. No, sorry about that. But, you know, it's just it's just good

[6:17:48] stuff. We do the relationship, especially with council member Woolley.

[6:17:52] She goes to everything. She goes to all the waterboard meetings, has a great

[6:17:55] relationship with them, which helps everything we do. So, we have a good

[6:17:59] team, you know, and I think once we get our strategic plan together and we keep

[6:18:03] moving forward, our staff will be part of that. Um, and our community. Um, we a

[6:18:09] lot of a lot of good things are ahead. Uh, we just don't talk about it enough,

[6:18:12] but I think we do we've been through a lot in the last eight months and I think

[6:18:15] we're going to come we're coming out of it. So, um, I just want to share that

[6:18:18] with you guys how grateful I know I am for working with this council and the

[6:18:23] things they're doing, especially working with this staff. You guys are awesome. I

[6:18:26] I I wish I had you when I was working, you know. Uh you guys are great staff

[6:18:30] and we're lucky to have you and thank you for everything you do.

[6:18:34] » Thank you, sir. Mayor Pr. >> Well, um youth advisory committee, we

[6:18:40] have some kids that graduated and and uh that are leaving our our um

[6:18:46] committee and stuff. And so we are looking I think that we'll be able to

[6:18:50] cover them no problem and stuff but if you know any kids and stuff that would

[6:18:54] like to get involved we'd love to have them.

[6:18:58] » That's all I have. >> Thank you sir. Councilman Beaver.

[6:19:04] » Thank you Mr. Mayor. Um I want to echo your sentiments briefly. Uh outstanding

[6:19:09] job as always by our um our our police department, our sheriff's department. Um

[6:19:13] obviously we made national and in fact uh even international headlines

[6:19:19] uh this month uh tragically and for the very wrong reasons. Um press release was

[6:19:25] put out by our mayor. Uh just want to reiterate it. Kidnappings don't happen

[6:19:29] in Ukipa. Our city is safe. The world knows that now thanks to the phenomenal

[6:19:34] investigative prowess of our sheriff's detectives.

[6:19:38] Captain I wish I was there for your first meeting. um we will get a chance

[6:19:42] to meet in person. I I promise. Um with that, I'd like to ask um Councilman

[6:19:46] Miller to join me in asking staff to schedule a public safety committee

[6:19:51] meeting in the very near future so as to uh sit down with our new chief of police

[6:19:56] and kind of out some uh um more notification um requests as we move

[6:20:04] forward for critical incidents and nothing further.

[6:20:10] » All right. So, you guys will set up a a meeting for the ad hoc meeting for the

[6:20:14] public evening. >> Thank you. Um, and going back to the uh

[6:20:20] Trader Joe's thing, there was like four to 600 people in the first hour and I

[6:20:25] went there the other day to or today to pick up something. And I think the clerk

[6:20:30] told me this morning that and the first day of sales was like 150,000 the first

[6:20:36] day. That's pretty good. Now, obviously, we're not going to see all that, but

[6:20:40] that's that's good for a first day of work in our city. So, it's impressive.

[6:20:45] Um, with that, uh, let's see here. Ma'am, acting city manager, do you have

[6:20:53] anything to add or announce?

[6:20:59] » Um, yeah. Last week on Monday, I I um submitted to city council my uh intent

[6:21:06] to retire on December 30th. It came bittersweet, but uh I as of October,

[6:21:12] I'll be here for 26 years. And I appreciate the team that surrounded me

[6:21:17] and over the years, all the employees I've worked with, all the city councils,

[6:21:21] all the community members, just so much that we've gotten done over the years

[6:21:26] and it's just it's family. You spend so many hours here a day and it's you can't

[6:21:32] you can't describe how talented the city of Ukipa team is and so you as city

[6:21:37] council, the community, everybody needs needs to be proud of it and also of our

[6:21:43] of our city council and so December 30th >> exiting

[6:21:47] » will be my last day. But until then, I'll be here every day working hard for

[6:21:52] you. >> Thank you, ma'am.

[6:21:55] Well, with that, our next scheduled city council meeting will be Monday,

[6:21:58] September 8th, 2025, and we stand adjourned at 9:35.

City Council Meeting - 8/25/2025 - City of Yucaipa

Transcript