Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll get the meeting started. To start with, if you want to speak on any item on the agenda there, you need to fill out a speaker slip, which are over there, and give them to our secretaries, Yesa Benson there, to be able to speak up at the podium here. And you have three minutes, and you can't give your time to somebody else, but please respect the time. Thank you. With that, we'll call the order. Yesa, can we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Bradenham?

We'll excuse him. He's on vacation.

Commissioner and Cecil? Here. Commissioner Kee?

Here.

Vice Chair Newcomb?

Here.

And Chair Barron?

I'm here. And let the record show that we have staff as Community Development Director, Kelly Lucia. We have Senior Planner, Selina Sevilla, over there. And Assistant City Attorney, Catherine Reed. and Commission Secretary Jaysa Benson. We also have in here our city manager, Will Cobol, and our city engineer, Mike Thornton. So with that, can we please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? OK. All right. I don't have any comments on non-agenda items. Do we? None? OK. Action minutes for June 8th, 2026, the regular Planning Commission meeting. Anybody want to make a motion? Any changes, corrections?

I make a motion to approve.

I'll second.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. All right. Okay, here's the big one. We will go to our public hearing. I'm going to open the public hearing and staff presentation.

Good evening, Chair, staff, members of the Commission. Thank you so much for being here this evening. Item number two is our public hearing. It helps if the clicker's on. Okay, as our public hearing this evening for a number of applications shown here before you. I'm going to be referring throughout the presentation back to this slide. There are, again, a number of entitlement requests before the commission this evening. And so I want to make sure that we go through each of them carefully. And here, yeah. Okay, so the first that you see on the list is And request for an annexation is annexation 25-1. So to the extent that the commissioner and the public may not be entirely familiar with annexation proceedings, I'm going to spend a little bit of time in the presentation going over what an annexation is and how it applies to these applications. And then we'll move on to the general plan amendment, the pre-zoning, zone text amendment, conditional use permit, and environmental assessment. So again, we are on the first application annexation request. So what is an annexation? An annexation in California is the administrative process by which an incorporated city expands its boundary to absorb adjacent unincorporated county land. Once the process is complete, the newly absorbed area falls under the city's jurisdiction, making those residents subject to the city's taxes, laws, zoning ordinance exchange for city services. So that is what an annexation is. Related to annexations are spheres of influence, So what is a sphere of influence? A sphere of influence is a planning tool used by California's LAFCO or Local Agency Formation Commission to define the probable physical boundaries and ultimate service area of the city or special district. It identifies where an agency is expected to grow and provide services in the future. Okay, so here before you is the existing City of Cala Mesa boundary and sphere of influence. So here, it's maybe difficult to see, but the red boundary line and that kind of dark orange color, that's the existing city of Calamesa boundary. You see the label off to the right of the screen. Here to the left of the screen, you can see Calamesa's existing sphere of influence, which is shown in the western, kind of northwestern portion of the city, shown in light orange. So that's what we have existing today. All right, there was also some mention of a local agency formation commission or LAFCO. So I just want to make sure everybody, the public and commission, understands what LAFCO is. I'll be using that term throughout the presentation this evening. So LAFCOs are state mandated regulatory agencies. They were established by the legislator back in the 60s. They were originally created in response to post-World War II population growth and disorganized development. So this was a strategy to better regulate logical service boundaries. So the modern state law is known as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 that deals with annexations, detachments, and reorganizations. The core legislative goals of the act are to discourage urban sprawl and promote the growth, preserve open space, and ensure the efficient delivery of government and utility services. Okay, so there's some historical context to the annexation that we are going to be talking about this evening. So way back in 1993, Riverside County LAFCO considered an annexation and sphere of influence expansion for approximately 244 acres. LAFCO originally approved this proposal. However, in 1996, the approval was rescinded following a successful legal challenge on the grounds that the Environmental Review to properly analyze more intensive land uses on the territory to be annexed. So the area that had more intense land uses at the time is shown in blue and part of that annexation proposal included a change to include about 500 residential units north of Cherry Valley Boulevard. That proposal also included what is shown in your packet this evening is the southern annexation area and collectively it was about 244 acres that overlaps with what we're discussing this evening. So the intention of this slide is just to show the commission in public that there is some historical context and actually quite a bit of long history related to the proposal that we're talking about this evening. So that was the 1990s. 2007 comes around. I don't have a lot of background on this, but city records also include this proposed sphere of influence and annexation exhibit dated June 13th, 2007. The record's not entirely clear about its official submittal status, but this proposal did not move forward. So this is in our files, but again, I don't have any implication that this was ever analyzed or considered by LAFCO, but wanted to provide it for some historical context that in the 90s, the early 2000s the city of cala mesa was looking at annexing the areas that are shown the exhibits here on the screen okay the current request this is annexation 25-1 this is a land initiated annexation request initiated by i-10 logistics owner llc on behalf of brookfield It comprises a jurisdictional boundary adjustment. The northern annexation area, which is north of Cherry Valley Boulevard, is about 234 acres. The southern annexation area is about 79.4. Existing development is to remain unchanged, and no new development is proposed as part of this proposal. You'll hear me say that multiple times throughout the presentation. I think it's relevant. Existing development to remain, and again, no new development is proposed. So this annexation project boundary is shown there in blue and you'll notice that it roughly overlaps with the previous exhibits from the 90s and the early 2000s where the city was contemplating annexation of these same areas. Okay, this is just kind of a more zoomed in view. I wanted to make sure that everybody was very clear on where we're talking. So in blue is the 234 acres that currently contains Two large industrial buildings north of Cherry Valley Boulevard and then in purple once again southern annexation area It is noteworthy that when the application came in it only included the area that is north of Cherry Valley Boulevard however through the application processing process This area in purple was flagged as an issue by Riverside County, and they said, hey, you can't create an island. So that's against county and state law requirements related to, again, the logical and efficient changes to boundaries. One more time, just to be clear, the initial application was only for blue, but the purple was required to be included so that a quote unquote island of incorporated area was not created. In case anybody is wondering why islands aren't allowed, it's because it creates challenges for providing services. So you can imagine if police, fire, or utilities are needed to provide services to an area that's kind of a hole in the middle of a jurisdictional boundary that can create challenges for service providers. Okay, this slide's a little busy, stick with me. I want everybody to understand the property owners, the property boundaries, who owns what and what's where. So it's color coded. I'll try to go through this quickly. So first we've got I-10 Cherry Valley Logistics owner owns the two APNs shown in blue, again north of Cherry Valley Boulevard. Off to the right of the screen in dark blue is a small parcel that's owned by the Yucaipa Valley Water District. It owns two water tanks. Little parcel in green is owned by a private landowner. And those are the four APNs that comprise the acreages north of Cherry Valley Boulevard. Once we get south of Cherry Valley Boulevard, we're gonna be moving west to east. So the western part, there are two APNs owned by an LLC called Cherry Valley Boulevard LLC. Then in yellow, we've got two additional APNs owned by William Wynne. We've got the, let's see, Buhanda property, which some may be familiar with as the Bonafide Truck Repair Facility in yellow. And in gray, Amy French owns some acreage. In green, we've got East 2nd Street. Purple, we've got John Ahn. And then down at the bottom in red is the Ling property. So we've got a number of property owners, various acreages, and as we'll see further on in the presentation, a variety of zoning and general plan designations. But I wanted the commission and the public to generally have an idea of The split of property ownership and acreages and whatnot Okay, so The existing development that is located within the project boundary is fairly limited and So what we have, as discussed earlier, are two industrial buildings that exist today. To the west, there's approximately 800,000 square foot industrial building, and to the right, or the east, is about a million square foot building that exists today. Down towards the bottom left of your screen, there's a little orange square. There's an existing static face billboard that is located on the property indicated on the screen. And in yellow is the bona fide track equipment and repair facility. So of the entire annexation area, all of the existing development is shown here on the screen. Continue to reiterate that no new development is proposed as part of this annexation proposal. And here are just some street level views to show you what existing development is out there. On the top left of the screen is that 800,000 square foot existing industrial building. To the top right is the existing static billboard. Looks like they may have co-located some telecommunication facilities at the top. That would have happened under permitting through Riverside County. And then to the bottom of the screen, you can see the view from I-10. There is bona fide truck repair in the foreground and in the background, again, is the industrial facility that exists today. Okay, we're back to our discretionary applications list. We are going to move on, that was the annexation component, gonna move on and bundled speak about the general plan amendment, the zone change and zone text amendment applications. All right, the general plan amendment is to assign general plan land use designations to the site should the local agency formation commission or LAFCO approve and of course City Council approve. There would need to be a zoning and general plan designation applied to these properties. So on the screen here to the left, you see the existing Riverside County General Plan. It is small, it's in the packet. Additional information can be shared if needed. But generally speaking, the industrial buildings are zoned industrial. And then south of Cherry Valley Boulevard, there's commercial designations and some very low density residential designations there. So that's the existing County General Plan. To the right of the screen is what's proposed for City of Calamesa general plan and there was a concerted effort to try to assign like for like zoning to the extent possible. So when this application came through, we said we're really just looking to maintain the status quo as possible, as feasible. And so you'll see where there's light industrial on the county general plan map, there's also light industrial shown through a warehouse overlay zone district, which we'll get into in a moment, followed by some low density residential development and commercial zoning again to maintain consistency with what's existing today. So the city of Cala Mesa has a one map general plan land use map, but the county does not. So the county has a two map system, meaning their general plan and their zoning map are different. And so here you'll see their existing zoning map. So whereas they called it light industrial under a general plan, they call it industrial park. You'll see assigned to the industrial buildings residential agriculture south of Cherry Valley Boulevard, and scenic highway commercial, but generally consistent with those general plan designations of industrial, residential, and commercial, right? And so it's an identical proposed zoning map. Again, Cala Mesa's got a one map system. So what you saw on the prior slide for the general plan designations is identical for the zoning designation, light industrial with the warehouse overlay zone district, and then residential and commercial zoning designations. I will say at the north of the industrial buildings, there is a controlled development overlay, which is W2 under the county, and we have that shown as OSR under the city of Cala Mesa, which is very low density residential development to match. All right, so the application also includes a proposal for a zone text amendment, which is the warehouse overlay zone district that was discussed. What this would do is amend the section shown here on the screen to the industrial zone district of the Cala Mesa Municipal Code, just chapter 18.130, and it would create an overlay zone district to conditionally permit warehouse buildings no larger than 1.1 million square feet in size only for properties located within that overlay zone district. So you might ask yourself, well, why should we do that? The reason is that the applicant, let me back up. The city of Cala Mesa has a maximum square footage on our industrial buildings. It's 250,000 square feet. So this application came in to annex these properties into the city of Cala Mesa and Per the existing improvements that exist today, they would be considered legal non-conforming, which is not a desirable status for the applicant. And so what the warehouse overlay zone district would do is fully legalize the existing improvements to say you wouldn't be, you being the applicant, wouldn't bring these buildings into the city as a legal non-conforming use. They would just be fully compliant based on the development standards provided in the overlay zone district. Happy to answer questions on that during the Q&A portion. Okay, back to our application list, conditional use permits. So we've got two conditional use permits listed here, one for building one, one for building two. And there's a number of conditions shown on the screen. They are also available in the packet for the public or anybody who may be interested in reviewing them in detail. Point being that should the Planning Commission recommend and the City Council ultimately approve the conditional use permits that are in the packet, there are these conditions of approval related to future tenants, revisions to the site, and then existing EIR mitigation measures under the county and so forth that would apply. Also a condition related to continuous maintenance of the property and some fire conditions and so forth. Moving right along, we are down to the negative declaration. This is an environmental assessment related to this bundle of applications. And to recap, we have a request for an annexation, a general plan amendment, a pre-zone, zone change, zone text amendment, two conditional use permits. So all of those applications were collectively analyzed under one environmental document. So in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the state CEQA guidelines and environmental assessment was prepared to determine whether the project might have an environmental impact on the environment. So as discussed throughout the presentation, this project comprises only of an administrative adjustment to the boundaries of the city and the continued operation of two existing warehouse buildings, which you'll show highlighted on the screen here, none of which would result in physical impacts to the environment beyond what already occurs under existing conditions. So what the environmental document finds is that this administrative boundary adjustment does not result in any changes to aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biology, hazardous and hazardous materials, and all of the various resource areas that are shown here on the screen that are required to be analyzed under CEQA. A negative declaration was prepared and the final is attached to the staff report for your review and consideration. The notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration was circulated for public review for the required period of time from April 17th to May 18th, 2026. Written comments were received from the following agencies and organizations during the review period. Copies of all public comment letters that the city received are attached to the staff report. So we did receive letters on the environmental document from the City of Beaumont, from Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, from the Yucaipa Valley Water District, from a group called SAFER, try to pronounce their other name, I always botch that, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern California Gas, SoCal Gas Company, and the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Happy to answer any questions that the commission may have regarding comment letters received during the public comment period. Okay, with that, I'll pass it over to our city manager who's going to be discussing the fiscal impact in the operating covenant related to this proposal.

Thank you, Kelly. So along with this application, the applicant has also proposed an operating covenant. So what that does is does two things. It takes a certain portion of the property tax that would come from the county to the city of Calamesa and shares that with them in exchange for some public benefit, additional public benefits. So there's public benefits that are enumerated in this operating covenant that would go to council for ultimate approval. um even with that um the initial uh first year was resulting about a net revenue to the city again this is not new taxes to um the operator of the warehouses today it just shifts where those monies go our standard operate or the the master property tax um agreement with the county of Riverside is a 75-25 split. So the county retains 75% of their portion of the general tax and the city that incorporates receives 25%. In addition, there is a fire portion of that. So that 1%, there's a bunch of different entities that goes to school districts, special districts, county, And so we're just talking about the county's portion of that. Then there's a fire portion of that as well. Since the city of Calamasa would be providing fire service there, the city of Calamasa would receive 100% of that. And so when we're talking about the share that we're talking about looking at being shared with the applicant, that's the portion we're talking about. And again, with these operating covenants, it's important that there's a nexus to public benefit. So that's why those exist and there's disclosures that goes with all those. So the revenue initially would be $590,000 the first year, going up to $730,000 the second year. And ultimately, at the end of that operating covenant period, the city would be getting around $2 million annually. Looking at the cost associated with an annexation application when it goes to LAFCO, they have to do a fiscal analysis for any annexation over 100 acres. So they have prepared that. They're still in draft form, so we're still finalizing that, but it shows that... Um, very conservatively that it would cost the city about $394,000 to provide services there. Now, a lot of that is done on a per capita basis. So for example, um, it takes a look at what we currently pay for sheriff services, and then it just assigns a per capita number and then extrapolates that to that, that additional area. Well, we anticipate based on talking with Riverside County Sheriff about relative to the amount of calls they get to this type of use. There'd be very few additional calls, so that wouldn't necessarily mean that the city, based on this annexation loan, would need to add additional services from the sheriff's department, for example. Same thing with the fire department. And yet that's driving a lot at $394,000, because they have to calculate it in that way. So in realistic terms, that number is probably significantly less. So, you know, obviously this is something that would benefit the city, but again, the county still is not, it doesn't, you know, comes out okay with two because they still retain 75% of their portion, but they don't have the service burden anymore. They don't have to take care of the streets. They don't have to provide the fire and police services, things like that. So that's the fiscal impact of this particular item. So I'll hand it back to Kelly.

Thank you, Will. With that, staff has a number of recommended actions shown here before you on the screen. And we have a number of staff members here available to answer any questions you may have. Of course, I'm available. We also have a city manager, Will Kobo, Katherine Reed, our assistant city attorney, and Mike Thornton from our city engineer's office is available with that. We are available for you should you have any questions. Thank you.

Okay, I think next on the thing is our applicants presentation. Do they have one? They want to speak? Yes, no.

David graves shop off realty investments and we were the developer of this property and we sold it to Brookfield home or Brookfield investments three years ago and with the right to Annex it into the city and I don't bring a presentation Kelly did a wonderful job And but I'm here to answer any questions you may have Great.

Thank you very much So with that, we'll go to our public testimony. Yeso, we have a couple of...

Okay, so I have received three emailed comment letters from Jeff Taylor, Janet Lee, and James Vaughn that I have shared with the Commission, and they will be recorded into the record.

Thank you. Okay, then I will call the first person to come up is Mark Swanson. You have three minutes, please. Thank you.

Hi, good evening, Commission. My name is Mark Swanson, Director of Engineering, Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District. We want to make sure we understand that from the district side, we don't oppose development of what's being proposed. Certainly, the buildings are there on the north side, but The south side, we don't oppose development there. The southern development or the southern parcels that are south of Cherry Valley Boulevard are actually in Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District's sphere of influence. They are not annexed into our district currently, and so there would be a LAFCO annexation required action to do that. So we would do ask that the environmental document accurately describe that. Because as of now, I believe that states Yucaipa Valley. Yes, this area does have a long history of regional planning discussion. I think it does go back to the 90s. And so to further elaborate on a few things, again, the north side, that northern annexation piece, north of Cherry Valley Boulevard, not our business. It can be what it is over there. South side of Cherry Valley, we ask that it really remain with Beaumont Cherry Valley and it be considered that it is in our sphere. We do have potable, non-potable facilities actually that kind of extend through Cherry Valley Boulevard through that area. You know, Yucaipa Valley has recently put stuff in their well to do the north side. Our facilities, I believe we have two wells planned for future use on the south side. And then we have other pipelines that are supposed to extend further across to Cherry Valley Boulevard through the bridge and on the other side to connect over towards our final connection to Fairway Canyon. But the negative declaration does state that the annexation area is within Yucaipa Valley Water District's service area. I mentioned that just a short time ago, but we believe that that should be corrected. I think Yucaipa Valley's letter somewhat states that as well. Additionally, one of the concerns we have is that based on the way that impact report's written is it doesn't account for Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District's Sources of supply in a sense which would be an urban water management plan so we do ask that that be looked at it You know again, this isn't take into account all the development activities We understand that but it's all referencing to you KIPA and we'd like it to understand that it needs to reference really Beaumont Cherry Valley And so the municipal annexation should not be used to determine or predetermine or modify water service and or utility service the city boundaries totally up to you guys and others, whoever in the area want to do that. Um, but from a water perspective, you know, um, it is in our sphere again, as I said, so, um, the Southern, the Southern properties, it is our intent to serve potable non-potable water to those Southern parcels, um, which we do serve portions of, uh, Cala Mesa, um, from the, the desert lawn champions period, uh, sliver along on that part of, of that area. Um, And so this area here would be one that we would continue to want to serve as well. So we do request, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission not recommend the approval of the annexation as currently proposed unless it's either removed or modified so that the southern area is removed or modified from our side of it. And at a minimum, we request the commission. Thank you, sir.

We're out of time on that one. Thank you. Next, we have Shannon. Shannon? Sharon?

Good evening Planning Commission members. My name is Sharon Hamilton and I live in Cherry Valley. I grew up there. I love the area. It's my home. When I saw this yesterday or day before, I thought, oh my goodness, 300 and some odd acres from Cherry Valley. They're not being very good neighbors. I also look at orderly contact, orderly from the mission statement of LAFCO. One of the fundamental principles of LAFCO is to ensure the establishment of an appropriate and logical municipal government structure for the distribution of efficient and appropriate public services. Now that's a mouthful. The commission will encourage and promote communication among public agencies, property owners, and residents of Riverside County. These policies shall be carried out in an efficient and courteous manner. We didn't know anything about that. That's the way we get into our community is through that area. And I feel strongly, and I know the people in our community will also feel strongly about maybe the Cherry Valley Boulevard at least be the line there. Beaumont and Cherry Valley share a water agency. We share our school district, we share our recreation district, and we share Beaumont Cherry Valley water, and we'd like that all to stay the same, and I think that is more orderly. I just would like more communication about this, and also, cherry valley boulevard seems to be a natural line for the division i was surprised that across the freeway on Cherry Valley Boulevard, it turns to Cala Mesa. And I wasn't sure why that was. But now I think I understand a little more. I think it has to do with the money, the taxes you were showing there. And that's not always the whole reason things should happen. We drive down and come into our community and love the rolling hills. So every five years, we do a report to LAFCO to remain rural. And we don't have another one due for two years. And they have granted us a rural area for the next two years, and we do another report. So I'm really surprised by this that nobody notified us. Anyway, I heard the buzzer, so I won't bother you anymore. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Is it John Coleman? 9599 Cherry Valley? Yep, okay. Cameron. Cameron.

I've been a resident of Cherry Valley for about 12 years now, and I really hate to see the division that's going on. As a community, when I first arrived, it was definitely agricultural. I had two horses, I still have four goats, dogs, cats, and the wildlife, which I love. And I want you to know that right now, today, on Next Door Neighbor, people are shocked and wondering in the new establishments of the housing, why do we have cougars coming? I see it on my camera in my front yard at the door. This is because of poor planning. This is a wildlife area. And I loved it. That's why I came here. And I am respecting that, that it's a wildlife corridor. But what I see happening is that, and I want you to know from our perspective, there has been a lot of over 55 people lured here with the establishment of those communities. And all of a sudden, you have these housing units, condensed housing units, young families looking for jobs. So we have a clash of cultures. And there are those of us who love the rural nature, the peace and quiet and healthy environment. And we have young people who want a lot of jobs and cars. And now we're starting with warehouses. My husband's a retired contractor. He said, look at what's happening in the news today. Look what happened in Garden Grove. We left it. We hated the traffic. the rubber factory and the pollution in the air. And now we have another warehouse on fire. My husband, the contractor said, these buildings are too large. Fires are going to take forever to put out. So now you want to plant that here. So we have a clash of cultures. We have the young people, we have the older people. Can you please plan all of us something for everybody? Isn't that the American way? Do as you want to do as long as you don't bother the next person. That's how I was brought up. I don't see that happening at any level here since I moved. And now you're creating more division, clashing rural people, and now you want to turn the zoning to light industrial? We don't want that. We also pay taxes, and like she said, I didn't know about all this that's already decided on. I wasn't asked about it, but if my husband tried to put a business on our property, all it would take is three neighbors not liking it, and he couldn't do it, because we tried. Thank you.

Thank you. Is it Dave Jaegers?

Good evening, Dan Jaggers, Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District General Manager. From the perspective of the water district, our water district, this is in our sphere of influence. We have already had the Reedman property or the Merlin property removed from it as an annexation here in the last few years by the city of Cala Mesa. And how it came out of our service area boundary was Joe Zoba, Yucaipa Valley Water District has enacted a policy requires bundled service sewer water and recycle water We do not and so we don't do the sewer the city of Beaumont does a sewer one thing that wasn't mentioned But I feel it's worth mentioning is the city of Beaumont is interested in these parcels. Also. It's identified in their letter Regardless of that if you were to move this project forward our concern is that your It appears with the statements in the document about identifying Yucaipa Valley Water District as the water purveyor, you've misinformed the public and possibly LAFCO as to who's playing ball in that area, on that field. It's us, we take it seriously. We plan to be active in the LAFCO process like we were with the Reidman property. Regardless of it, if you move it forward, My recommendation is you make Yucaipa Valley Water District decouple their bundle service policy so that they provide sewer only to this facility if you want it in your city's sphere of influence and service area. We will actively take a role in protecting our sphere of influence. We have master plan facilities, as mentioned by my director of engineering, Mr. Swanson. In this area, we have master plan facilities. We have facilities fees associated with the service of these properties, and you're impacting those things if you move it forward as it stands. It could move forward. You have to decouple water, recycle water, and waste water. It's as simple of a solution as that. That policy would have to be revised by Yucaipa Valley Water District for this. They could have the sewer. They actually generate water, and they do that and get recycled water available to your community, because I think that's where a lot of it lands. But also, I'll just mention that our rates and our developer impact fees are low, Yucaipa Valley Water District. Our cost of service is less for the development community. And we work with people to move things forward. And I'd ask you to look at our track record compared to trying to get a project across with Yucaipa Valley Water District to sort of support the minimum request, which is to decouple water service and recycle water service from wastewater service as a minimum. I'd like to have in the future a little more dialogue before we get to a public hearing. We got sent some information. We responded to it. And I'll leave it at that. But I would ask you to consider those items.

All right. Thank you. With that, does the applicant have anything they want to add to that? No rebuttal.

Yeah, no, I mean, we don't, I mean, I think Kelly's pretty much defined all the different areas well. This is, anyway, I'm here to, if you have any specific questions, I can answer those. I don't need to rebut that.

All right, thank you very much. And with that, I will close the public hearing. And then we'll bring it back for commission discussion.

Mr. Chair, if the commissioners have questions for the applicant or any of the consultants, you will need the public hearing to be open.

Okay, I'll reopen it then. Do I need to reopen now?

You will need to reopen it now.

Reopen the public hearing. All right, John.

I support the annexation myself. I think the city can use the Trees land area for economics and understand how some people feel, you know, my backyard type thing. But anyway, that's all I got.

Thank you, John.

Again, I would just like to remind the Commission, just ask questions during this portion, and then you can deliberate once the public hearing is closed. That's what I'm asking if they have any questions.

Is it possible to know what sort of percentage that a developer's gonna receive based off that annexation, I guess, like the tax rate?

Yes, well, so you're wanting to know what the revenue split is for the applicant? Yes. Do you have that information available?

Yeah, I think that there's, if you look at the way it works out, the language talks about 95%, however, There is, this is just for the general property tax. There's also what's called motor vehicle in lieu, which is calculated as a total portion of your total assessed value throughout the city. So I think the split ends up being about 53.47 net of all of that. So when I talk about the 590,000, the 730,000, that's inclusive of the motor vehicle in lieu. So it ends up being about a 53-47 split on that.

That was the only question I had. I have no questions.

No questions. I don't really either, other than the one that I had on... THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, FOR THE EXISTING RESIDENTS THAT LIVE THERE ON THE OSR, NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE THERE. THEY STILL HAVE THEIR ACCESS EVEN THOUGH THAT'S GOING TO BE INCORPORATED INTO CALA MESA. SO THEIR ROADWAYS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT ARE GOING TO STAY EXACTLY THE WAY THEY ARE RIGHT NOW.

NO PHYSICAL CHANGES ARE CONTEMPLATED AS PART OF THIS PROCESS.

All right. Chair Barron, if I may, I do want to address one other issue. I think that there's been some statements in the public about quote-unquote plans for the southern annexation area. And we've heard from residents in Cherry Valley asking for no more building. And to Kelly's point, the portions that are being proposed as light industrial are where the light industrial is already occurring. So there's no additional light industrial happening. And the zoning is like for like. So where there's residential zoning today, We're proposing residential zoning coming into the city so to the extent that you know if there's if there's any other development It would be completely driven by the landowners and whether it's in the county or the city of Calamasa or the city of Beaumont any one of those app landowners can approach whatever jurisdiction they're in to to land an application. And we have the obligation to give them their due process to process that. Now, but that does not guarantee approval. Because if they ask for a zone change, that is a discretionary approval that comes to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council, or in the case of the county, it would go to the Board of Supervisors. And it's something that they would have full discretion over. So they can come forward and say, nope, this is not the right use for this. We say no. But as staff, we, you know, again, county staff, Beaumont staff, Calamasa staff, we would have the obligation to process that. So what we're saying here tonight is basically Whatever exists today is how it's being brought in. Any changes in the future would be subject to future discretionary approvals that would have its own public process. So I just wanted to make that clarification because I think there was some, maybe some misunderstanding that was given in the public about quote unquote plans for this. And that is absolutely not the case here. So I just wanted to make sure that was on the record. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Will. I also, if I may, Chair, wanted to add something additional for the record. So we were talking about like-for-like zoning and the effort by staff to find the most similar, if not same, zoning designations to apply to each property from county zoning and general plan designations to city. So there are two exceptions to that. I want to make sure that's clear in the record. And this is part of the reason why we have color coding here so I can easily identify two of the properties where the like for like zoning option was not available. So the APN shown in green and the APN shown in purple are currently zoned RA1 under the county designation. That allows a one acre lot minimum. So one acre equals one house under the county. So under the City of Calamisa zoning options, zoning classifications, we don't have a one acre lot minimum. The closest available without creating environmental impacts is the residential estate zoning, which is a five acre lot minimum. There are public comments that were provided and are available to you here this evening and part of the record that discuss the property owners wanting to be sure or wanting the city to provide some level of assurance that the residential estate zoning is not the quote unquote final designation for land use policy decisions. And just to kind of piggyback off of what Will was saying. So, and Will and I have done land use workshops and whatnot together. And so you'll recognize this as a familiar concept, but I'll frequently say general plans are living documents, meaning you don't create a general plan, designate the property and then put on a shelf and forevermore, you know, you never consider other options for that property. And so today as part of this package what we're recommending for the sole purpose of not creating environmental impacts related to the property shown in green and purple there on the screen. There's the on and the tailor properties. That is not to say, that is not to say that should the property owners in the future, make a few assumptions, should this annexation go through, Should LAFCO approve and should all of the properties shown on the screen come into the City of Calamesa? Should any number of landowners at a future date, as Will was saying, make an application to the City for a general plan amendment or a zone change application? We consider those on their merits on the basis of the facts at the time. If any particular landowner was interested in a more dense residential zoning designation, we would consider that for its merits. Commercial, industrial, any number of zoning and general plan land use designations would be considered in the future when that application was presented. So again, currently, green and purple are one acre lot minimums under the county. But should this application go through, they'd be looking at a five acre lot minimum.

And also to add to that, any of those applications that would come through, obviously, if they're for more intense usage, that would come with a comprehensive environmental analysis. So anywhere from a mitigated negative declaration all the way up to a full EIR. So that would be as part, the applicant would be obligated to shepherd that process as well. Thank you.

Kelly, question for you. With the southern portion that's in there right there and the water issue that's going on right now between Yucaipa Valley Water and Beaumont Valley Water, Beaumont's had a long history of what they wanted to do with that. They're supplying the water. Now, they serve parts of Cala Mesa already. There's nothing to say that Yucaipa Valley Water has to take that, right? Beaumont could easily service that even if it's annexed into the city. It could be it's in their sphere of influence and they have plans that are on record from quite a few years ago. I've talked to their water guy at our meetings for PASCOM about this and so.

Sure. So based on the existing infrastructure that's in place today, the plan of service that's available on the city website will ultimately go forward with the LAFCO application. The finding was that Yucaipa Valley Water District would be the most logical service provider. The reason being that the sewer and water infrastructure is already in Cherry Valley Boulevard. It was placed just a few years ago in order to service the two industrial buildings on the northern parcels. My understanding is that there would be a more significant lift to install the infrastructure needed to provide those same utilities from Beaumont Cherry Valley for water, and then if that were to go that way, City of Beaumont sewer, which my understanding is there's no City of Beaumont sewer infrastructure in this general area today.

So I just want to clarify, you're talking about Beaumont Cherry Valley water district specifically, correct? Correct. Yeah, so there is existing infrastructure there, but to Kelly's point, they only provide water, breakable water, recycled water. In Beaumont, the City of Beaumont provides sewer, and they do not have the sewer infrastructure. facilities there currently. So even if that were to annex in the City of Beaumont, those landowners may have, I don't know how it would ultimately play out, but they would maybe have to pay for, to get sewer to their properties, right? As far as the decision of the water purveyor versus sewer and you know and Mr. Jaggers talked about the the bundling policy that we Kipa Valley Water District has. To me that's going to be something that's going to have to be litigated at the LAFCO level. LAFCO could ultimately make that determination that's exactly what they want to have happen. So that would be that would be probably as part of that process.

Yeah okay.

Mr. Chair, just from a CEQA perspective of looking at the entire record, the existence of a public controversy over the environment effects of a project does not require the preparation of an ERR because your question is tangentially related to how does this environmentally affect the project because that is where this discussion takes place in the negative declaration. of who is going to supply what water services. And when we prepare the final negative declaration for the city council, that could potentially be more squared away by the consultant.

Okay, great. We still have an opportunity to make revisions to the final negative declaration. There is a version in your packet this evening, but to the extent that it's appropriate to make further revisions based on appropriate public comment, there's still that opportunity available.

Yep.

And I did also, there was a question about the taxation covenant. I just want to emphasize that is not being considered tonight before the planning commission and will be an agreement approved by the city council.

Right, thank you. Yeah, that's not a planning document. That's why it's not included with the planning commission. So it's more appropriate for that to be considered directly by the city council.

City council, great, thank you. Okay. With that, since there's nothing else on that, we can go to the commission vote.

Mr. Chair, you'll need to close the public hearing to begin the deliberation process.

Okay. Can I get a motion? Or you know what? Why don't we do these things one at a time? There's five residents. Is that okay? Can we do these one at a time or do you want to do them all at once?

Yes, you can absolutely do it one at a time if that's your preference, but you can also do them all at once. It's your meeting, your choice, whatever you decide.

I'll do all at once. Thank you. The recommendation is that the Planning Commission adopt PC Resolution 202613, recommending that the City of Calamesa approve environmental assessment number EA25-8, adopting the negative declaration. Number two, PC... RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY OF CALAMESA APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER GPA-25-2. NUMBER THREE, PC RESOLUTION 2025-15 RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER GPA-25-2. NUMBER THREE, PC RESOLUTION 2025-15 RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER GPA-25-2. NUMBER THREE, PC RESOLUTION 2025-15 RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER GPA-25-2. NUMBER THREE, PC RESOLUTION 2025-15 RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN PRE-ZONING APPLICATION NUMBERS ZC25-2 AND ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT ZTA25-4. NUMBER 4, THE PC RESOLUTION 202616 RECOMMENDING AT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP25-4 AND LAST NUMBER 5, PC RESOLUTION 2026, NUMBER 17, RECOMMENDING THE CITY OF CALAMESA APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CUP 25-5. CAN I GET A SECOND?

I SECOND.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

ALL IN FAVOR?

All right. With that, we will go to our commissioner's comments and reports. John?

I really have nothing.

Nothing? Okay. Louis?

I just wanted to thank the staff for the packet and the information they provided. It helped a lot with this process, so thank you, guys.

Great.

As always, thank you, staff, and thank you, commission. I have nothing further.

And neither do I other than to say thank you again and Yaysa for helping out there. With that, we will go to our planning director, reports and comments.

Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of brief announcements. We expect to have a fairly busy planning commission agenda over the next few months. So thank you for being available and please do continue to let us know about any vacations or any absences you may have. We do have a meeting, another public hearing for July the 13th. The public hearing notice is out for that one. It is the Mesa Verde specific plan amendment. We also to provide additional public notice that our 4th Street or Mountain View Park is set to be fully open and operational sometime mid-July, so we're really excited about that. That concludes my report. Thank you.

Okay. With that being said, thank you very much. With that, we will call adjournment to the meeting, to the regular Planning Commission meeting, Monday, July 13, 2026, at 6 p.m. in this room. Thank you all very much.