• City Council Meeting June 2026

A lot of action from the June 2026 meeting, but at the top of it all was a public comment from young Olivia Gregory, who shared her school project, which included her goal of becoming a paleontologist when she grows up. 

Seven year old Olivia Gregory addresses the council. 

TOP NEWS FROM THE MEETING

---

• Brown Act Update
• 20 Acre Park Opening Delay
• Council Approves $459,000 For Study (4-1)

Meeting Recap

I'm just going to highlight three items though there were many important items on the agenda.

Brown Act Update, and how it affects you. 

In short, you will now be able to give public comments from your own home (or wherever you happen to be). The city will undertake a public outreach to get the word out. 

Link to three page staff report

20 Acre Park Update

If you aren't sure, the city purchased property from the fine ladies at the Anne Sullivan Preschool. The intent was to open the 20 acres as a natural/passive park, it's a beautiful place.

This happened in 2023 and though I'm glad the land was secured away from developers, I'm discouraged that this park is already a year late in opening and it'll still be another year, at least. 

The city has contractual obligations to open the park to the public. Originally, that was in 2025, and now it's looking more like 2027 (fingers crossed).

The item in question was just to extend parts of the contract, but I anticipate the item coming back to city council next month so we can speak more about it.

Link to three page staff report, which includes a link to the 13 slide presentation

That's Allotta Notta For Nearly Half A Mil or Yay For The Historic Downtown Study

Is that a prejudiced headline? Of course it is. I was the lone dissenting vote when it came to approving a $459,225 study that I believe is a complete waste of money.

As I stated during the council discussion, it's very likely that even with this "specific plan" the corner across from Montague Brothers Coffee will still be vacant after your kindergartner graduates high school.

No developer has shown serious interest to date.

Here were my points

1.  I like the concept.
2.  It's way too much money.
3.  Where are the landowners of the most impacted areas? Are they here tonight? If not, why not? What type of outreach to them was done? Did they respond? If they didn't respond, how many times was contact attempted before we gave up? Did we post the notice on their properties? Did we post the item anywhere near the general area, like other items coming to a city meeting? 
4. There's currently a specific plan being developed for The Bluffs. My understanding is that it's being pushed by the landowners, and isn't being paid for by the city. I approve that model when it comes to specific plans. They pay, we don't.

  —Joseph Morabito, June 10, 2026

I'm glad that it took us over 40 minutes before the vote to approve happened, but I just can't understand the mindset that approves this amount of money for something that doesn't even have a 50-50 chance of coming to fruition.

This is how clear the map was in the proposal from the winning bidder (Albert A. Webb & Associates (WEBB)), but it'll give you an idea of where the "downtown overlay" is.

Let's break down my points.

1) I like the concept of having a specific plan for that area, but that should have been an overlay in the recently adopted General Plan update. Which cost the city $1.5M. 

That was for the entire city, this is going to cost 1/3 of that price and for what boils down to a few open fields. It was touted that back in 2013 there was a "Visioning Project" that discussed this very concept.

Pointing to the fact that there is nothing built there... if the 2013 city council had found hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop a "specific plan" then it would have been a waste of effort if, at the end of it, they were hoping for a development there.

It was later offered that the 2013 "Visioning Project" gave design guidelines to the area, which brought in the new faux split rail fencing at the post office area. 

I didn't want to be argumentative with staff. I like the people who make up our staff, but I restrained myself from replying, "We know that the struggling city of Wildomar 2013 wouldn't have spent any real amounts of city money on such a thing, and even if they had spent a comparable amount as the $450k, no one would hang a star on the design guidelines over an actual regional destination retail area."

2) It's a ridiculously large amount of money.

3) This was the biggest rub for me. If you watch the video, I get pretty animated about how the city didn't reach out to any of the landowners in question to get their views. 

"If you're planning on 'community engagement' on my property without telling me ahead of time, you're going to have a problem."

How is that not universally understood and a dealbreaker (or at least a deal postponer) for everyone? 

4) At the south end of town, there is about 160 acres of prime freeway frontage land that is going through a specific plan of its own. 

As I pointed out, the key differences are that the land owners are pushing for it and paying for it. I'm in favor of that type of specific plan, not what we passed last night, where we're paying for something that the landowners aren't even aware of yet.

Where is the funding coming from?

Currently, the city has amassed more than $4M from Cannabis retailers, and it was highly touted that "no general fund money will be going to this specific plan study."

Frequently, projects get funded by grants, and the city will mention how the money isn't coming from the General Fund, sometimes euphemistically called OPM (Other People's Money).

But I reminded those in the chamber that the cannabis money is Wildomar money —money that could be spent on something far more tangible than a study destined to win a meaningless award, gather dust on a shelf, and leave the undeveloped areas unchanged long past their consume-by dates.

I guess I'm a tad more pessimistic than my colleagues.

I suggest watching the video if this is of interest to you. Who knows, since the vote went 4-1 with me the only naysayer, it could be me who is completely out of touch with the community's needs. 

Here is a link to the entire city council meeting YouTube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5kujmqACvo