Showing posts with label historic downtown specific plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label historic downtown specific plan. Show all posts

Thursday, June 11, 2026

• 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. 

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








Sunday, May 10, 2026

• City Council Meeting Preview

I don't usually do previews on city council meetings beyond my customary bullet points that list the items.

There are only two items on the regular agenda: 



3.2 Streetlight Program Feasibility Analysis and Phase 1 Streetlight Project


These are fairly routine, straightforward items. What I find most interesting is in the Consent Calendar. 

The Consent Calendar is billed as: 

CONSENT CALENDAR

All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council, the Public, or Staff request to have specific items removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and/or action.


I'm sorry, but a couple of the items in the April 2026 Consent Calendar agenda seem a bit outside of my definition of "routine". 


Specifically item 1.19 

Professional Service Agreement with Albert A. Webb & Associates (WEBB) for planning and environmental services for creation of the Old Town Specific Plan

If you go read the agenda item, it comes with a lovely 70 page PDF that is easy to get lost in... except for the tip I recently got about using AI to break down exhaustively long documents (Thanks RC). 

Of that, well more than half the file is fluff that doesn't pertain to Wildomar, and the images they submit of other areas may be nice and all, but they didn't do anything for me. 
The image was blurry, so I upgraded the font in the legend so it was more legible. Gotta love how they notched out Gina's house. lol

Staff recommends: Approve a supplemental appropriation for Fund 110 (Cannabis DA) in the amount of $459,225... (if that money is going to be earmarked, it's going to be going to parks)

I don't begrudge people high-dollar payouts, they put a lot of time into learning their craft, but I do not see value to the city even at 1/10th that price (okay, maybe 1/5th)
I had this table made from the information on page 23 of their presentation.

According to my AI pal, Claude, there were challenges that WEBB identified in their proposal.

Key Challenges They Identify

  • Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone — most of the project area sits in an earthquake fault zone, which limits where buildings can go
  • Palomar Road — the main corridor has large overhead power transmission lines and is planned as a wide arterial road, which conflicts with the goal of a walkable, human-scaled Old Town feel

Hmmm... "will require expensive fault studies"I wonder if they consider their proposed work to be "expensive," too? 

I'm not going to go further into this, it's Mother's Day, and there's a lot to do, but I thought you'd like to know about this...

...oh, and another 51 houses in a place that will be known as Mission Hills - Como.
I'm not sure where the hills are and I'm not sure where the mission is, but it's almost as cool as the street name in Windsong called Empire Penguin.

The proposed development includes a 51-lot single-family residential subdivision, including 6 very low income, 6 moderate income, and 3 unrestricted ADUs, utilizing the affordable ADUs for a density bonus.

This hasn't come to the Planning Commission yet, and according to the information in the presentation (viewable at the link below), such a meeting date hasn't been determined yet. 



Here's what is in the staff report: 

BACKGROUND: On December 19, 2025, the Planning Division received a formal application package (PLN 25- 0085) from Oliver Investments to establish the “Mission Hills Wildomar” project. The proposed project includes a 51-lot single-family residential subdivision, and development of park and open space facilities, walls and fences, and necessary infrastructure. The project will include 15 ADUs, including 6 very low income ADUs, 6 moderate income ADUs, and 3 unrestricted ADUs, utilizing the affordable ADUs for a density bonus. The Proposed Project requires environmental documentation and analysis under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed subdivision and development review entitlements. 



When are these out of town firms going to figure out to use actual photos of the place they're looking to work in? At least this one doesn't come with a "fiscal impact" to the city budget. 

FISCAL IMPACT: The cost associated with preparation of the environmental documentation is the sole responsibility of the Applicant, thus, there is no fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund. 



Don't be mistaken. I'm a staunch property owner's rights type of person. That goes for being able to use your property as you see fit, within the community codes and ordinances, and the same applies to landowners wanting to build on their property.  

And if you're dismayed at more development, keep in mind that the State of California has passed countless dozens of laws since the short time I've been on the Wildomar City Council that have stripped away local control. 

An election for Governor is happening this year. Will you be looking for more of the same, or are you ready to see a change in Sacramento?