Planning and Housing Commission - Regular Meeting

and they're able to uh show them what we do here locally. So, I would take the pledge and I would encourage every other company to do so because again there's a lot of resources available with the city and the city is a great resource and has been a great resource for Latitude 36. So, take the pledge today or contact us to learn more. Good morning everyone. We're here at City Park. We have our street clean of 2024. We had about 50 volunteers come clean up the city as well as paint the skate park. It came out really great. It's good to help our community. I encourage everyone to volunteer with us in the future. Our next clean up is going to be for Arbor Day at city hall from 9 to 11 a.m. We'll see you there. Most people look at Carbon Health and are like, "What is Carbon Health?" Carbon Health is the home of good health. We are here as an urgent care primarily. We have three providers that work in this clinic. We try to make sure that our teams are pretty fluid so that way everybody can do everything. School physicals, work physicals, pre-employment physicals, workers comp. If the employer needs a drug screen ahead of time, we do that as well. Vision, hearing, weightlifting, whatever physical needs. And then Carbon Health gives us Heat. Heat. [Music]

[Music] Welcome to tonight's um Planning and Housing Commission meeting. Commissioner Vernon will lead us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I would like to call this meeting to order. Individuals wishing to address the planning and housing commission are required to complete a speaker card and deliver to the secretary prior to the item being heard by the commission. Please observe a threeminut time limit for the communication once called upon to speak. Please state your name and the city of residence for the record. Moving to meeting minutes. The approval of minutes for the planning and housing commission meeting on May 28th, 2025. Miss Capia, are there any speaker cards for the public for the meeting minutes? No. Chair Longwell, do we have a motion? I move to approve. I second it. There is a motion to approve by Commissioner Alexander and a second by Commissioner Vernon.

Motion passes. Um, communication from the public. This portion of the agenda is intended for general public comment on items within the commission's jurisdiction that are not listed elsewhere on the agenda. Please note that state law prohibits the Planning and Housing Commission from discussing or taking action on these items. Please observe a threeminut time limit for comments. Miss Capia, did we receive any speakers notes from the public? No, chair. Thank you. We have no items on the consent agenda this evening. So, we will move to public hearings. We have TTM 37895 which is continued. It's the tenative tract map application to subdivide 61.6 6 acres into 103 single family residential lots in an R112 zone located on the east and west sides of Laurel Canyon Way south of Sherborn Avenue and north of Shadow Valley Drive. Applicant Ahmad Bolus from Mary Gurgus LLC. Um Sandra Van I'm probably terrible on that one. uh planning manager will present this item. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening, chair, members of the planning housing commission. Uh tonight's item is being presented by myself and Mr. Peter Carlson, and he's from Carlson Strategic Land Solution. Mr. Carlson represents the applicant. As said, uh, this is an item that was continued from a pre previous public

hearing that occurred about a year ago. This is a request to reentitle a residential subdivision that was approved about 11 years ago, but had expired. The project site is located um at the city's eastern limits. It borders Riverside County to the south and the east and the southwest and it is surrounded by residential and vacant property to the north and northwest. The applicant developer is Murray Gurgis LLC. So it has been quite some time since we presented this project to you. Uh what I'm going to be doing the next several slides is to provide you a recap of the project history and the project features and then we'll have Mr. Carlson come up and he can provide you an overview of the most recent neighborhood outreach that was conducted for this project. So background um as indicated this project was previously approved back in August 2014 and it was for a subdivision of 103 lots. The original developer and applicant at that time was Nova Homes. During the approval, Nova Homes blast and graded the site and they worked with the adjacent Beller HOA to convert their sewage ponds into a storm water basin to serve the project. Unfortunately, Nova Homes did not record the map within it in its initial two years of approval and so the map expired. The current applicant acquired the project and resubmitted the project to the city in July 2022 to have the project reentitled. In May 2022, the applicant conducted a community informational meeting which was held here at the historic community room for the neighboring residents.

And then subsequently, the project was discussed at the December 11th, 2023 planning housing commission meeting. There were several concerns that were heard at that night and so the project was continued to February 12th, 2024. And at that meeting, the project was uh basically continued indefinitely to allow the applicant to continue to work on addressing several unresolved issues. So the project concerns that we heard from the prior two hearings are summarized in this slide right here. So number one, the concern was that their prior grading and blasting activities that were conducted under the original developer in Nova Homes had caused a lot of issues for the for the neighboring residents, particularly in the Bellair residential community. And a lot of the residents came out and expressed their concerns that Nova Homes had not rectified those issues. The second issue that we heard at the prior hearings was that Nova Homes left a lot of trash and debris on their project and the project site needed to be cleaned up. The third was that um the residents were concerned about Old Tamco Road which provides direct access to the project. The old Tesco Road is a substandard street that was annexed into the city several years ago. So it does not meet current city standards. It is narrow and has limited visibility. The fourth concern we heard was that the project would add traffic to the surrounding streets, particularly State Street, which is within the county's jurisdiction. So, the project today that we're

presenting before you is a reentitlement of 61.6 acres and 203 lots. And this will be for the future development of 103 homes which will be built by a separate builder. The project site is zoned R112 and that is a single family residential zoning which requires a min minimum lot size of 12,000 square ft. The general plan designation of the site is a state residential and low density residential. The project's density is 1.67 67 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the general plans designations. And the lot sizes that are being proposed tonight range from approximately 12,000 square ft to 33,383 ft. So, the overall configuration, the layout, and the lot sizes are very similar to what was previously approved back in 2014. So, this project is designed as a gated community. It has two points of access. The first axis is located off of Laurel Canyon Way and it it is at the top uh left corner right there. The second point of access is located on Shadow Valley Drive which is within the county's jurisdiction. So in that yellow arrow you see right there that is a separate proposal which the applicant is proposing to construct um within the county of Riverside. So that is a separate project we which he has processed with the county and that project is currently on hold. The second axis, oh, the second axis on Shadow Valley Drive will be gated. And these two entrances will be restricted to just the future

residents that reside within within the project within the city of Corona as well as the future project within the county of Riverside. Prior to project opening, the applicant is required to construct Shadow Valley Drive to conform to county standards. And this secondary access is also a requirement per the fire department. So public improvements with this project the applicant is required to complete several things. First, he is required to construct Laurel Can the portion of Laurel County Way that abuts his project to meet current city standards, which would include curb and gutter, roadway, paving, sidewalk, and landscape parkway. The applicant is also required to restripe a segment of Old Tesco Road from the 15th freeway to about where the project starts. and there will be no parking on the north side of Old Tesco Road. The applicant is also required to pay a fair share cost towards a traffic signal at the intersection of Rimpaul Avenue and Old Tesco Road. And this is required prior to map recordreditdation. And as said previously, the applicant is required to construct Shadow Valley Drive per county standards prior to project opening. And finally, um the applicant is required to construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Ontario and State Street. And this is required prior to map recordation. Prior to this hearing, the city sent out public notices per city for city procedures.

Staff did receive several correspondences over the weekend. These were correspondences came after staff had already finalized the staff report and copies of those correspondences were provided to you this evening. So, I'm just going to go over these correspondences and um the concerns that were expressed in these letters that we received. So, we received letters from three neighboring industrial and mining businesses that are located in the vicinity of the project site. It came from Vulcan, Robertson's, and FST Standing Gravel. They all have operations nearby and in their letters they expressed concerns about their operations. They have their operations. They're concerned about noise, particularly blasting and other types of activities associated with operations that could be impactful to these future residents. And so they have requested that their project be conditioned to construct an 8ft high sound wall along the project's north perimeter and east perimeter. Additionally, they requested that the applicant provide a disclosure notice to the future home buyers within the project letting them know that the home buyers are located within vicinity of these operations and would and they could be subject to noise from their operations. So, in response to these concerns, staff is adding four conditions of approval to the project, and we prepared a memo for you tonight, which was also passed out to you, and we believe that those conditions of approval should adequately address their concerns. Staff also received correspondences from residents that live in the neighboring

area and these are from Julie Trap, Sharon and MJ Jwit and Carol Stockline. And all three residents express opposition to the project. And with that, I'd like to bring up Mr. Peter Carlson to talk about the outreach that he conducted for this project. Thank you very much. Uh good evening, commissioners. My name is Peter Carlson. I'm with Carlson Strategic Land Solutions. Apologize for the face. I just uh had sinus surgery at the end of last week, so still in very much in in recovery mode. Um but appreciate the opportunity to be here um before you this evening and want to walk through a little bit of our work. Um I was asked to join uh in May of of 24. So my experience and history on this project is pretty limited. Um I've gone through and and read through all the past um documents. Um and what it was was pretty evident is that there was just a uh a big gap in communication between um between residents and and the the applicant team. Um I brought u Maris de Pasqual on board. Uh Maris uh ran the ran point on on all the outreach. Um, we had 61 different contacts with people in terms of meetings, emails, texts, phone calls. Um, and and we took all of the lists that we had from the prior workshop and prior public hearings and did our best to reach out to everybody that was on those lists and we passed contact information around everybody and said, you know, if your neighbor wants

to talk, friend, please contact us. So, um we made uh as as you know our kind of e extensive effort to um reach out to as many people as we possibly could. Um we spent quite a bit of time um with Mr. Salazar uh who is located right adjacent to the property and and and kind of at the epicenter there. Um uh Mr. Salazar was very gracious with his time. uh toured us around uh the property a couple times and um and we really focused uh a lot of our discussions with him on current site conditions and um and and how the property was left and what needed to be done you know quickly to bring the site up to um you know start start making some amends here in terms of how the site was left um two letters I wrote two letters to Mr. Salazar. The first letter um outlined kind of what we heard from our meetings with him in terms of of kind of outstanding issues. Um Chris responded and said, "No, add a couple more." And so then the second letter incorporated, um his edits into the letter. And so um I think the next slide has um Oh, which is the button? Okay, perfect. Thanks. So this gives kind of a a a quick summary of some of the um outstanding issues that we identified um in terms of our discussion with Mr. Salazar. Um he brought up a great point that the the the ponds the HOA ponds which were previously you know used for sewage treatment um and there there was an agreement where um the Bair community was connected to sewer. So that was no longer those ponds were no longer being

used for treatment um but they were going to be used for water quality. um they were a liability and there were a liability to the HOA and um and and I think that was a a a very very fair point and fencing was needed to try to secure these ponds. It says complete, but let's put a big asterisk next to it because there has been a lot of fencing that's been installed. Um, but there are a couple gaps and there's still a couple gaps on either end that are awaiting additional material and there are some gates that are on order. Um, I continue to ask the um the applicant team in terms of when that will be installed and I am told very soon. Um, I don't want to misrepresent that it's done and complete and there's no more work. Um but the the the lion share of the length um of the north and the the south edges of of fencing along those ponds um has been installed. Um there's a drainage channel that runs behind uh the Salazar residence. Um during construction um his fence was um was removed um and had not been replaced. That has since been replaced. Um, so that is complete and and and has been done and I'll I'll let him speak to that if um if there's any issues. Um, there's a couple other there's a fence that's that's also along Laurel Canyon that was um that's along the HOA property. Um, that has been also replaced. It was in disrepair. It was kind of falling down. There are still some gates along Laurel Canyon that need to be replaced. They're part of the gate order um that is still forthcoming. Um the other uh couple items in terms of removal of boulders and then reestablishing access on the east side of the ponds um as we as we drove around in in in Mr. Salazar's razor, he he

could get over uh you know some some stockpiled dirt and boulders um rather easily. But his point was a pickup truck, a maintenance truck to get in there and and um and maintain the ponds could not. And so that's a also a very reasonable request in terms of reestablishing that access. Between that and um removing the boulders are going to require equipment to be brought in to do so. Um in the letters we put some time frames associated with the removal of the of of that stockpiled material as well as the boulders um pending you know approval of the project. We want to make sure that the the project is moving forward and that there um is a is a path towards beginning construction again so that when equipment is mobilized, it can be immobilized for multiple purposes. And that goes um that that goes along the lines of cleaning up the the boulders and the debris along um Laurel Canyon. I completely get it. it's it's been left in um in a in kind of a state of disrepair and and the neighbors drive by every day and I I totally understand the desire to get that cleaned up. You know, the goal here is um that this map can be approved. We are happy to have these added as conditions of approval. Um and so that there's there's teeth in this agreement, but the time frames that were written in the letter um you know do hold as a commitment from the applicant team. Excuse me. Oh, I've got the clicker here. Okay, this um these I think were were shown in your packets. I'm not expecting anybody to read this on the screen since um since these were exhibits that were in the letter to Mr. Salazar outlining kind of all of these different areas in terms of the different fencing um the the debris and boulder removal, the reestablishing access around the ponds. um wanted to make sure that we were all

very clear on the same page in terms of um of the improvements that we were discussing and make sure we were um you know communicating properly and and meeting expectations. Um here's just some pictures of of some of the fencing that's been installed. Um this is along Laurel Canyon um way. This is uh along the the homeowners association property adjacent to the Salazar residence. Um this is along um from kind of perpendicular to Laurel Canyon Way along the southern portion of the um HOA ponds. Uh this is uh you can see actually that so on the right hand side of the screen is are some power poles. There's a fence line that runs uh you know kind of right near and parallel to those power lines. This fence stops. It needs to get continued on. So, it closes that gap to that existing fence that runs parallel to the power pole. So, as I was saying, complete, there's been a large segment that's been done. Um, but there's an an additional extension that needs to be made. Uh here's the north fence looking back towards uh the Bair um community and and and as you can see on the left there there's a a gap in the fence and again there's just to the left of the screen is is are those power lines and an existing fence along those power lines. So that's an the the gap that needs to be completed on the and you would have to zoom in on this, but the the uh access gates are are you know kind of uh on the right hand side of that photo on the middle of the photo. One of the gates is installed. There's one that's still um remaining to be installed. the the goal is to get those installed so the access can be controlled um along that maintenance access road and and um that is in the works. Um and I wish I could be standing here reporting that it was completed.

Um here's uh fencing that was um installed along the Salazar residence. Um when we met with with residents, we also heard about the condition of Old Tasco Road. Um I believe that um in some of the correspondence that was recently sub just um submitted uh Julie Trap provided a couple videos of of this exact area and this condition is looking north. Um the other looking south there's some encroachments that occur um existing encroachments from from um existing residents that occur into uh the road right of way. Um I I put some rough dimensions. These are non-engineered dimensions. These are off Google Earth just to give an idea of by the the project entrance. Uh that that existing pavement is 37 ft. That's going to get widened um to city standards. But you can see where it it narrows down to the 27 foot range um you know plus or minus uh at its closest point. And I and I understand the concerns on site distance. Um there's a condition of approval. There's a a a graphic that shows the striping uh the bots dots. Um the the no parking signage. Um we're perfectly comfortable with those conditions and we we think that um in working with city staff that would address that concern um of sight distance on that road. Um there was there was also discussion on on traffic in general. Um there were a a several traffic studies that were completed. Um there was a change in the traffic study to assume um 80%. So the initial traffic study had assumed about 60%

um of the trips um were going to distribute toward um State Street. uh the traffic study was revised to assume 80% and um and and almost as a as a lit a stress test so to speak in terms of okay if if 80% of the trips went that direction um would that cause further impacts. Um the analysis showed that a traffic signal is necessary at at state in Ontario. I know the city has plans to do it if it it but the the requirement is on this project to get that installed um before map recordation and if the city gets to it first which I don't know if that's going to be the case then there's reimbursement for um installation of the signal. So the the traffic signal is is paramount to making sure that um any trips that are headed uh to to State Street um are are accommodated at that intersection. Um lastly, this is um this is just you know kind of the the the taking you know many many steps back going up to 30,000 ft and and you know this when I started one of my questions you know to the applicant um was what what's your intention are is your intention to make changes to the prior map that was approved and that you have you know almost you know completed grading or is your intention to do something different? Um the city has a very large you know uh regional housing needs assessment allocation and you know this property is is shown in the housing element as as you know item number two. The maximum number of dwelling units is 223. And so what I was trying to understand from the applicant is is that

the intention of coming in with a different project under state law with a whole lot more dwelling units. And the answer was no. The answer was the tenative map stays as the tenative map is. And so there were um two modifications to the to the tenative map. One was to change the park out along Laurel Canyon Way to more of a a passive open space area. And then the second change had to do with where the gate is located. Um whether it's out on state or if it's back at the at the city line. And so otherwise um the the applicant would you know desires to proceed forward with the tenative map that was previously approved. Um and as I said fully rough graded the um the desire is for um planning commission approval of that tenative map and then um there's a whole lot of work that has to be done and those that that site has to be cleaned up. Precise grading needs to occur. All those development pads need to be reertified from a geotechnical standpoint. Um, so it's it's there's there's a whole lot of of, you know, kind of uh RNR, right? Some some restoration work that has to be has to be done um on that property to bring it up to current standards. So that's um that's the extent of of my portion of the presentation. I'm going to give it back to staff. Thank you. Thank you. So, that was a lot of information. Um, we tried to cover everything that we could, but if we missed any details that you might have remembered from the prior public hearings, we're available to answer any questions. And with that, we are

recommending approval of this resmitted tenative track map. In addition, we are also asking that the planning housing commission adopt an addendum which was repaired um to the original mitigating negative declaration that was originally approved with the original map. And that ends my presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions. We also have Mr. Kevin Sang from Riverside County Transportation Department if you have any questions related to county traffic. Thank you. Thank you so much. Um do any commissioners have questions for staff? you want to start? Sure. I have a couple. Um, first uh question is the inter relation of the Riverside County second project um that is on hold pending, you know, future plans. How does that impact the conditions of approval? uh the signaling that would take place on Old Tesco and State Street. Does it have any impact on delaying that work? It does not. Regardless of whether he builds that project, uh he still has to construct Shadow Valley, which is in the county, in order for him in order for the first project to uh for to work, right? He still has to construct the signal at stay in Ontario. And does the Shadow Valley Road continue through that unapproved project in a fenced mode? So, is there flow on Shadow Valley all the way through on the unex exercise project? Shadow Valley goes through that project in the county and it will continue that way. All right. Yes. Um, the other question is the sewer upgrades that were done with the original approval in 2014. So that work, that sewer upgrade was completed and is in place today for the residents

that live there. Is that correct? Tying into the city sewer. So I'm going to let our development services staff staff address that. The sewer improvements have been installed for Bair, but for the actual development of Monteo, those have not been installed yet. So, the residents of Bair benefited of that installation of that sewer uh despite the fact that the development didn't move forward into the title into the tenative track map. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah. Okay. And the the comment about from Mr. Carlson about the street um being uh different widths and dimensions based upon different development from homeowners by the year. is will that as part of the condition of approval with the lane mitigation, will that street go back to a set uh width or will the different width I think it was down to 27 ft or 26 ft. Will that remain or will this street have to be returned to that city width? The project is conditioned to um widen the street along Laurel Canyon, but um Old Tameco will remain as is. It is an existing um street that was annexed from the county and that is not conditioned to be improved at this time. I see. Okay. And then my last technical question is I noticed in the in the new condition of approval that the wall height is at 7 feet and all of the written conversation requested an 8

foot. So just curious what what the reason for us or for the condition being at seven when 8t's used of course. So 7 feet is actually the maximum wall height under our municipal code. Um if the future home builder wants to build it up to 8 feet um he'll need to ask for variance to increase the height of that wall. So we can only condition to seven for now and the fencing will actually come back before you with the precise plan for review. So we would re look at it at that time. Okay. Uh, I think that's all my questions for now. Thank you for the presentation. I wanted to know if you could go over the safety measures on Old Teamscale at the Blind Crest. Is there um a way to go over what measures are going to be put into place? Yes. In the existing um section of Ultimco, they will be adding uh centerline striping along with uh restricting on street parking. If you drive it today, you may encounter a vehicle parked on the street. We'll be restricting that. Restricting it on the city side, not on the county side. That whole street is on the city today. Oh, both sides. Okay. Um, is there a way to put more put more oomph into that as far as safety? Uh, regarding um striping as you're going up, signage saying blind crest, um, pedestrians, slow traffic, narrow, I mean, all those things of which it is.

Um, I was wondering if there could be maximum signage and uh whether it's LED. I actually think it'd be a great idea since driving at night myself to put those reflectors on the roadway, which you do a lot of times when the streets are curvy or when there's other conditions. Um, I think it would um be from where it starts on its from Laurel Canyon as it makes its curve and it comes up that way uh to where the entrance to the applicant's uh project is and then all the way up and over to on the other side when you're coming underneath the freeway. The only lighting is above on the concrete overhead. And from that point on to put the reflectors, I think it's just an extra uh uh you know, here's the end of this uh this is where the private property picks up. This is the rideway or not. And then I think it needs to be more than just the center striking including those reflectors. We can definitely add that and also look at the appropriate signage. That would be great. I do have a question. Um this I was thinking about um speed humps. Could would that be something that the developer We can't we can't do that. She It's speed humps are not something the city currently installs to mitigate any speeding. Is it something if the developer were to request that they could absorb the cost as well or it's just not allowed a speed hump in this particular area? Right. That's not something we would consider today. Well, I think fire department doesn't do that well. If I if I can interject on

that, it's not a city standard and it is it has to do with emergency personnel, but yeah, that's why you don't see speed bumps on any of our public streets. It's not a city standard that's been adopted. And I um Rosie, thank you for uh considering those things. I just want the, you know, the residents to feel safe uh as they're coming through and uh the not only the existing residents but those I mean this uh applicant is going to be bringing quite a bit more traffic through and to add that on top of the narrow street. Uh, and I wasn't suggesting the city add, you know, I was asking for the applicant to pay for this since his project is their project is bringing it forward. Um, and I had a question with the I don't know what exhibit you had on your um, Sandra on your um, slide, but this is exhibit seven where it shows the county portion of the uh, in yellow. I don't know what that is. I think um there I think you passed it. Now go forward, please. One more. Two more. One more. There you go. Thank you. Okay. So, I know it talks about uh a gated community. Uh, but what struck me through and I reviewed our past videos is that the 56 homeowners from U Bair or Turo and Laurel Canyon, you know, they were annexed into the city, but we have a pos and they only have one way out. So, as I spoke to the residents, that was one of their concerns is they're trapped. So, I'm looking at the gates and I'm wondering if the initial gate

right there at Laurel Canyon and Monttobo Drive could be moved onto the Santa Mora Way and then that way the that and that would be available to the homeowners, the new homeowners or put another gate down by the Shadow Valley Drive where it ends the city property and goes into the county. Put another gate there and what are the um possibility of giving all those uh residents access to Shadow Valley Drive as an exit and that way in a way we're able to give them a secondary exit that would uh you know it's after the fact. I understand that it's it's formerly county. I know we have restrictions, but this would give them a chance to exit towards state versus all being stuck on old teasc. What are your thoughts on that? So, I have two thoughts on that because this these streets are designed to be private streets um to serve just the residents within the project. They're not public streets to serve outside residents. The other thing is um we would have to reanalyze it because the traffic studies were done just based on a cumulative analysis of the project within the city and the county phase 2 project. It but you see the positive for the residents, right? They've been so impacted by the negative of this original um development and they've been I I just think it's a a matter of goodwill. I think it's uh a safety matter in case of emergency. I think it allows them, they wouldn't have access to the whole track even if the county were to open up their part. It would just give them that one little exit out there

towards State Street. That would be my my question. uh and I'd be willing to uh condition it because well because of a lot of reasons but for now that would be uh one of the major concerns that the residents talked about is they're stuck with one way out. I appreciate your feedback. Do you have any additional questions? Yeah, I'd like to ask a question or two. Um, this for public works. Um, are there any plans um that are I I guess um in process for for the Bair neighborhood to get any improvements from the city. Um cuz I from what I understand there have been really no improvements um you know more at least uh you know for the last you know new dozen or more years maybe even back to annexation. The city has a paving project that we're going to award in July that includes the streets in the Bair community. And and what would the extent of that work be? It would be to improve the existing pavement that's in um relatively um not so good condition right now. So just sort of like a um repair, recoting, resurfacing of of the of the pavement. Correct. No no street lights or um you know sidewalks or anything like that? No. Okay. Thank you. I had another question regarding the Shadow Valley Drive. Um there are no lights out that

way towards county and if that road was to be constructed and exit at state um I know you said to um it would be brought up to county standards but what are the thoughts about putting those reflectors center line and reflectors on that road all the way to state You mean in the in the county portion? Correct. From where it leaves the city. Let me ask my peer at the at the applicants at the applicant's cost. Let me ask my peer. I'm Kevin Singh, a division manager with the county riverside transportation department. Um your question about installing RPMs pavement markers to increase visibility on shadow valley uh would be acceptable as a measure to increase visibility on the county side considering there won't be any street lights. I mean right there won't be any street lights. Correct. Right. And then we don't know how long it'll be before the applicant follows through, if ever, on the county application for those 38 homes anyway. That's right. The that project has been on hold with the county. Okay. And would you say that that street that's being constructed through your county area uh and county standards would be able to uh withstand if if it were to be opened up to the 586 homeowners Bair Turo and Laurel Canyon would that withstand is it that road uh would it have the capacity withstand uh those many homes additional traffic

if they utilize a local street standard would be able to support the additional homes and traffic associated with that. Okay. The reason why I bring it up is the homeowner said originally before the Bair on the county side was gated, they used to have access through there and then for one reason or another it stopped working or it stopped relationship fell through or whatever. I'm just trying to see if we can offer them a second way out in case emergency and and just for the flow of traffic so they're not stuck going out old teascal under the freeway. I understand your concern. Um I guess it would come down to what the city's able to condition or change as as far as what's been studied so far. Well, here's my here's my thought is that here we've identified old teascal. It's got a blind crest. It's uh there have been accidents there. A child was hit. There was a lawsuit due to the conditions whether that's the driver's fault or the just the original condition of the streets, the narrow not matching the city standard. And here this project is going to influx all these other cars. It says 103, but these are larger homes, a larger number of bedrooms. Probably four vehicles. Three to four vehicles would be more like than one or two of them. And if we were to give them an alternate way out, Shadow Valley Drive, instead of pushing them to this bottleneck that's unsafe and increasing it, I just think this is a good way to offset that safety. Um, I think it' be a measure, good measure. So, I appreciate your answer. Thank you for coming, by the way. Appreciate that very much. Could I um just to follow up on that a question? So, uh, State Shadow Valley Drive being built in the Riverside portion. That's a new road that would need to be

permitted, designed and permitted through the county. Correct. Correct. And it and it's being built as a standard county road. Is that the equivalent of what would be a city of Corona road or is it a different standard than than a city road there? I haven't taken a look at the city standards, but I imagine the local street standards comparable. Um, the city can condition the applicant to construct that road with county standards. We can supply one if that's needed. Do we do we know if that's the intent now of that shadow valley to be a city standard road that's on Riverside County property? No, it's supposed to be a county standard, but they are um pretty equivalent uh in the amount of traffic they're supposed to carry. All right. And if it's being built to a city standard or nearly that, would it not be appropriate to put extend the street lights through the Riverside County section since it's already being permitted as a new road? Yeah, thank you. I I was wondering so if I understand it up the the portion of Shadow Valley Drive that comes through the city of Corona section in where the residents new residents potentially could be have street lights. The second they hit the Riverside County line, it's a dark street. This new street being built is a dark street all the way up to the signal all the way to up the state. Is that correct? You were asking if it was built. No, it's going to be built. So, the Riverside, the portion that's within Riverside County, not City of Corona. A new roads being built almost to Corona

Street standards. Does it have street lights in it? Will it have street lights in it? Let me check. Yeah, I think that's what I'm unclear on too because there was mention that that would be a road without street lights. Um, so is is that the county standard that that a road like that does not need street lights? I could describe it this way. If this development were in the county and they had off-site improvements extending a road that's beyond their frontage, typically it's not required to have street lights for that extended road offsite. the street light requirement is within the project or along its frontage. So if if that second part of the project eventually were approved by the county, street lights would be required. But until such a time, they they would not be required. Is that what you're saying? That would be typical for county process. Okay. Mhm. Because uh when I drove Ontario to state and I passed Poppy and I passed Smurburn, all all those streets other than the residential lights, there were no street lights. So that would be the concern as it comes out and winds its way to where it pops out on state. So here they're going to come out from the city, hit the county, no lights, street would be similar to the county streets in the area and then it'll come out onto state. They're going to have to turn left on state and wind down till they hit Ontario where the signal will be. But the distance from the unimproved county portion where the applicant has highlighted the 38 homes out to state and then state all the way down is

is unlit. Other than the residential lights, it's very dark. That's existing condition. Correct. So, uh, that's why I was asking about at least the portion that we could control as it hits state and they'd turn left to catch, you know, whether it's to get on the freeway for traffic or just be on their way. Thank you for your answer. I appreciate the section that you're talking about is what's in red on the right side. It's in red, but if you turn left onto state and then you take that south, it eventually hits Ontario. Right. But what you're suggesting is that the red is what gets red the lights because you're not going to condition it. It doesn't have to be lights necessarily, but it should have those reflectors. It should have lines. It should have middle and end. So So it's safer. That's that was my suggestion. Can I ask a a followup here as well? Um so going back to old Tescoll road um you know um commissioner the Alexander vice chair asked about you know some extra safety measures possibly being there at the top of the of the hill. Um, and then I I guess you has there ever been any consideration of street lights on on um Old Tesco Road or into into the uh Bair neighborhood. Um cuz cuz Yeah, I mean that's kind of one of the things I'm remembering is this area has been annexed for I think over two decades now and has not gotten any improvements. Um and I know that uh director said that there will be some um pavement improvements coming but would is there any chance of street lights uh just at the you know the initial beginning of

that neighborhood at Old Tesco where we've kind of identified some major safety problems. The city actually has a a street light program um that's usually initiated by the neighborhoods and uh we actually have a survey that's sent out so that we can appropriately make sure that the it's it's um approved by the neighborhood and also we can budget in future years. So there's actually a program for that if the HOA or the Ber neighborhood reaches out to the city. Well, on top of that um um Mr. Woody, maybe cuz I had thought about that. Maybe it's just a matter of having the applicant um add bowlard lights, commercial level lights where it would uh highlight the area, but then when I was driving home, those reflectors, if they're close enough, that creates like a runway um and that would be quite a bit of safety. uh because only a few of those residents have nighttime lights on their property to light up the area. So, uh if the lights, for example, the lighting program um brought up is years down the road and this were to be built, maybe in the meantime, those bullards could be in the rightway on both sides and that would be one additional layer of security. Yeah, I don't know what the answer is, but I I mean I think we all recognize that there are some issues there. So, can I have staff put the TTM exhibit? You we have a situation here where you have old teascale road and some of it is in the county and some of it is going to be in the city. Well, some is in the city with this development. So, I do want to preface this. When we inherit properties from the county, our intent is never to go in and change an established neighborhood, especially when you're trying to seek additional

rightway because, as you notice, these properties are built right up to the street. You have their front yards, there's pavement, there's concrete. Normally, people that have been annexed from the county still want to maintain the atmosphere that they had in the county. They are not into having sidewalks. They are not into having street lights. All of that comes at a cost and it changes the dynamic of the neighborhood. So we are not here to plan what has already been entitled in the county of Riverside. We are here to strictly focus on what is within the city of Corona. So if the community in Laurel Canyon and Bair ever wants to approach the city about doing some other type of infrastructure improvement, then they need to come to us as an a group. But it's not the sole responsibility of this builder to do that. Now where you have old teascale Canyon in the city, we will definitely do that per our city standard. So if there are street lights on one side, then we will do that and we will do everything within the development. But I want to caution this commission that going beyond and trying to fix something that was entitled in the county and county standards is not what we're doing tonight. We're simply focusing on this. And I do agree with the reflectors and the striping. Those were options that staff felt were less invasive to kind of help out. And the speed limit on these streets are not going to change as well. And we can implement additional signage telling people that this is going to be the road limit or the speed limit within this community. So I just want to bring that to your attention. We have a lot of properties we've inherited from the county and we don't go in there and change that infrastructure. I think utilities are great like going to sewer. Absolutely. that doesn't change the dynamic of the neighborhood, but when you want to start going in there and widening streets, it's a whole different ball game. Okay. Thank you so much. So, I guess I wanted to go back to um um

Director Kampoo about the about the possibility of street lights and you said you explained the city program where you know you reach out to neighborhoods and and um you know uh kind of do it that way. But has has any sort of outreach been made to the Bair neighborhood um regarding street lights or those type of improvements? No, but that they would have to approach us. And again um going back to what um was just explained. Um it does require right of way and the hardest part about installing street lights is that most of the time people don't want it right in front of their house and as you can see here there that that's the reason why we want to make sure that the neighborhoods or the people that are affected by those street lights come together as a group to agree upon that. Yeah. I mean, I imagine that street lights would be beneficial for um the safety of everybody, but the people right there would be less inclined to want them, even though the people farther into the community would would would want them uh unequivocably. Okay, thank you. Perfect. U Miss Gabby, have any additional speakers cards come in? No, chair. Okay. So, I'm going to open the public hearing now. If you wish to speak, please come to the podium. I am going to start with John Trap and Julie Trap where John has yielded his time to Julie. Um and just so that we're kind of moving through it. Um after them it'll be Vincent Chanel um and Chris Salazar where Vincent has yielded to Chris uh committee if I can. Uh my neighbor Alyssa has to leave. She has a boy

scout. Can Can she go first? She's on the list. Okay. Thank you. Hello. Good evening. My name is Elisa Bella and I am a member of u my Bell Air and Laurel Canyon neighborhood. Before I begin with my concerns, I would like to express my gratitude to each of you for serving our city and its citizens. I'm thankful for the time that you commit to consider the proposals and make decisions based on what is best for our community and its members. I live in a lovely neighborhood with wonderful neighbors who watch out for each other and support each other. We pick up lost animals and return them to their owners, pick up trash that is left by people who are not in our neighborhood at the entrance of our community. And we have created a neighborhood watch community. Tonight, I come here very concerned regarding the traffic and safety of this very neighborhood that I live in and that my neighbors call home. Currently, our neighborhood consists of 50 homes. The develop this development began with a project and with the intention to build 50 homes. This was years ago before I moved into the community, which was 13 years ago. We have now this plan now triples the amount of homes in our community by building another 103 homes. In addition, these plans were made to build the plans that were initially made that I was on part of uh in communication of were to build either a community center or a park across from the development of these new homes off of Laurel Canyon. We all know that we need housing in our city and our state, but this developer is trying to move forward with these plans without a second safe and feasible entrance or an exit. The existing access access points are already inadequate and pose significant safety risks to our

community. Adding more homes without addressing this issue will only worsen an already dangerous situation. The proposed second entrance and exit would connect to State Street, a county road. I question whether nearby county residents have been informed of this proposal. According to the developers updated traffic study, 80% of the increased traffic would use State Street. This proposal presents several serious issues. One, State Street is extremely narrow and not designed to handle this volume of traffic. Two, the left exit lane from the from the 15 South to State Street is very congested and causes long delays. As a result, many drivers will likely divert through Old Tesco Road, pushing even more traffic into surrounding neighborhoods. Three, legally only the residents within 500 ft of the proposed changes need to be notified from the county, but every single one of these county residents on or off of State Street would be impacted by these additional cars. The developer appears to be bypassing full transparency by notifying only the city about the current project while intending to shift the traffic burden onto the county in a future phase without notifying county residents. This lack of disclosure undermines public trust and proper planning. Additionally, State Street is a county road which is very narrow and old school is too narrow to accommodate all of these additional cars. The staff member that said that that um both sides of Old Tesco are in the city is misinformed as the north side is in the city of Corona and the south side is in Riverside County. Um number seven, we were told that we would have access to the Shadow Canyon Valley Drive road by Avano about eight years ago when I was in a meeting with our HOA board and the developer at the

time. Uh he's no longer with the company. Um eight. I question which roads these construction vehicles are going to use to complete this project. As we've already stated and established that Ultamecoll is very narrow and is not adequate even for our 50 homes, let alone the construction vehicles. My last concern for this is that the development is having trouble with the county to approve 38 homes. And here they're trying to push 103 homes into our community with less than adequate um access. Okay. On behalf of my neighbors, friends, my kids, and the other kids in my neighborhood, I strongly urge the council to require a safe second wellplanned entrance and exit as a condition for approving any additional homes. I additionally ask you to carefully review any proposals made by this developer for our community's safety, quality of life, and infrastructure. We depend on you and we trust you to make the right decision. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Next up is Julie. We are going to hold you to the six minutes and everyone coming forward. Uh, dear esteemed committee members, thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate your questions here tonight. Um, I come before you as a concerned citizen of Corona, a neighbor to this proposed project. Uh, this project, this development, at least under this developer, has been, uh, 10 years in the making. No one wants to see beautiful homes next door more than me. The dump that we've been living next door for years is disgraceful. Um, but there are some really big reasons this project is not complete, and it starts with this, the developer. First working under the name Nova Homes, he has made some really poor business decision. Many developers bought and sold this land

before Imad came around. Immad took a gamble and I am no gambler, but the odds have not been in his favor. Let's remember though primarily it's because of his own carelessness. I read the report you were given tonight. It fails to show the fact the developer chose to work outside of his permit and he his project got shut down. He trespassed onto county land. He was sued. He took a 2acre easement granted by our HOA and plowed over all seven acres. He removed our fence. It still hasn't been put up. Uh he blasted I forget it was about 30 times when he told us it was supposed to be about four. Um he bought land divided by city and county. He chose to build city first with only an access road that's narrower than allowed. Now, let's talk about the city's responsible responsibilities in this mess. The city annexed the land from the county. It was originally zoned for 54 1/2 acre lots and then it was reszoned and changed to 103 homes with 12,000 square foot lots. Old Tesco is a small literal um county road annexed into the city. It services 50 homes. The road is half owned by city. We have always been told half owned by county. In my calls last week, no one corrected when I said that as well. It will now service 200% the amount of homes it was meant for. According to the city and the engineers at the city I spoke with this last week, they really wish they could widen it. They really wish they could make it safer, but they can't. Those are all dreams. Um, once while walking the street with a current council member, I commented on how unsafe the street was, and she agreed it's not safe. And so my question is, at what point do we lower our standards as a city and allow a developer to make good on one really bad decision after another? Uh, commissioners, you have what I call like

an Aaron Brochovich kind of moment here. You can expose the truth. You can stand up to bad development. You do what is safe for our community and do what is right for our city. Do not lower the standards on the road with it. Does not meet the standard. It is not safe. Do not put drivers and pedestrians. Pedestrians, I'm one of them. Every single day, there will be children from that development going to Centennial. It puts them at risk because of a developer who did not do his homework. Uh why not make him build the C on the county side first? Why not have adequate roads and the signals complete? Um then allow city development. He bought land with 30 foot access road or less. It's actually 27. He bought land that bottlenecks to an access road with no sidewalks for residents or students. My question is at what point does the city lower its standards for a developer can move so the developer can move in? Who approves this safe the safety um over the cost benefit and this is my husband's portion um so graciously allowed me to read for him. Um so the city is making the developer pay for the entire signal at Ontario and state. Um, I do believe that's changed. The original thing I got said that they will pay their fair share. Um, so, so now the fact that they're saying 80% of the traffic will go out that way. As a person who lives here, I will tell you that's a bold-faced lie. That's not going to happen. Um, it won't happen. Schools and shops are easier to get to going out old school. That's a fact. For the first seven years I lived there, I had access out the other way. Who wants to go out on Ontario? It's a mess. Um, Old Tesco, that street remains the our only way out. The one that goes under a major interstate over uh large water channels. It's a small country road originally made to service 50 homes. So,

my con uh conversation, I just want to be transparent so that as a um resident, my conversation with a developer uh their new representative, okay, back in October on uh Halloween, we finally agreed to meet. It's not in your report. It went something like this. Hi, it's nice to meet you. I was recently hired by a mod um to get this land developed. I'm summarizing. Um I don't know though. It seems like quite a mess. I don't know if we'll be working for him along because me, well, Peter and I were partners. We work for winning companies, companies that get city approval. Uh, we do this all the time. It's just this one. It's a mess. So, we'll see. I let her know my biggest concern. I walked away from that meeting. Show good faith. Build a fence. She goes, I have right here on my notes, capital, build a fence. My last phone call last week, by the way, our sign went up Friday night. So, Monday morning was the first chance I can call the city. And I was told because it's a short city work week, all admiss submissions had to be in by Monday. So there was a little confusion about videos and and entrances, people won't be here. Uh my phone call went like this with Maurice last week. Um allow me to summarize again. Oh, hi Judy. My name's Julie. Peter and I are trying we're trying to give you teeth in this project. We just need it approved so that you can get conditions. That's how it works. We get it approved and then we're obligated to complete all these conditions to which I stated kind of like that signed that you never followed through on. We have a signed from Nova Homes. Oh yeah, I forgot that we have that. Um, this is a better way to do it. This really helps you. Yeah, this is um their conditions versus just a bunch of homeowners complaining. Yeah, you're at your time.

Um, next is Chris Salazar and um Vincent who is yielding to Mr. Salazar and then if Joe Morgan and Jim Gore could be ready. All right. Hi, commission. I'm Chris Salazar and first off, I'd like to thank the commissioners that actually took the time to come out and look over our uh streets, uh our community, our HOA property. Um my main uh concerns here, Julie did a great job uh outlining some of the stuff that uh um is is in regards to safety, which are also concerns of mine. Um but I'm going to address kind of the uh let's call it a mod. He's changed the company multiple times, filed bankruptcy. This is a land developer that uh has never held to not one single thing. They even they even uh lied to you guys right now and said that the fences were complete. Both Karen and uh Matt both came out uh to our properties and know that's a bold-faced lie. They lied to you guys as they've been lying to us for 15 years. The fences are not complete. the uh rubble is not picked up. We came here a year ago and I believe it was you Karen that said that you were not going to let these people go through and do this project if they don't show some good faith with the community and take care of some of these problems. They still have yet to take care of any of the problems. We're in the same exact position. Yes, they put up a couple. I'm in the construction business. They did the absolute bare minimum. Actually, even less than the bare minimum. They didn't even tie in. And I apologize for not having I'm usually more prepared with pictures and stuff. I was in New York until Tuesday of this week. Uh I'm sorry, of last week, and Julie let me know. I didn't have time to get my

videos, photos, anything to present to you guys. Um but nonetheless, the fences aren't even tied in. They didn't do return uh stretches back on my property that separate Mr. Genos and my property, which is part of the thing that they said they did right now. Right now, he said he did that. They did not do that. You know, they put up a fence, double stacked a fence. It was in the photos. If you could pull those up, I'd like to show it because I don't think anybody picked that up. They double stacked a fence blocking in our irrigation system on our on our uh property. They made more work for us. Again, this is not the first time. This is not the second time. This is not the fifth time. They have continuously degraded our HOA property. They still have, you know, tons little literal tons of boulders that is told to Julie that, oh, let us get this approved and that's how this works. So, you're telling me if this doesn't get approved, they are able to destroy our property, walk away from a project, and leave us with tens of thousands of dollars in cleanup because if they don't get approved, guess what? They'll do what they did last time. they'll file bankruptcy and walk away from the project under a new alias like they did the last time. You know, I think it's uh it's it's really unscrupable business for them to conduct business. If I were to run my construction company in the city of Corona, the way that these guys are running in front of you guys in the city of Corona, I would be fined. I I've I've I've actually had jobs where permits have been uh you know, called out on me and I've had to fix things. you guys seem to let these guys get called out on all kinds of stuff and they never have to fix anything, you know. Um I asked uh I think it was Peter here when these contractors that came in to do the fencing because I was concerned with liability that these guys working on our property. They use unlicensed contractors number one. Now if I work unlicensed in the city of Corona, I get in trouble for it, right? I have to maintain a city business

license. I have to main workers compensation. I have to maintain a bond and all these things that these guys aren't doing. And they said from Ahmad, I have it here. Again, I would have prepared it to you. Don't worry, we're responsible for these workers because they used unlicensed contractors. I would like to see their permit for the fence that they put up. If I build a permit through my construction company, I have to pull a permit at the city of Corona. I have to come right down here this hallway, go spend an hour and a half or two hours of my day to pull a permit. to get jobs done in this city. What what is the reason that these guys don't have to have the same standard whether it's safety standard, whether it's building standard, whether it's contract standard, they're they are held to no standard, but we are expected to let them continue on in bad faith. Every single time that they come before this committee, they have not one time showed up here in good faith. Still to this night, they lied to you bold-facedly and said that the fences are complete. They are not even 30% complete. They put up two stretches where you can see it from the road. So when you guys showed up, you guys saw some fences. I don't think they realized that you guys were going to actually take the time to see what was going. Matt, I appreciate he walked with me around the property today. They It's It's a scam. They're running a scam here on you guys. and you guys are just taking it. And I think it's absolute nonsense that you let somebody like this conduct business in my I grew up here. I went to Centennial. I worked for administrators. Eugene Montes is one of my customers. We service his property. We service his businesses. And I hold myself to a standard as a as a member of this community. I went to Elserto when it was an elementary school. If any of you guys probably don't even know what that is, but that's

how long I've been in Corona. I was born and raised here and I run a business here. My kids went to school here. My kids are in college now. You know, I'm a member of the community. And to see you let some guy from whoever who knows where these guys came from and demolish my neighborhood, I take it personal at this point. And for them to blow smoke up of all everybody around here. Um, and you guys think that they're going to do something in good faith. You guys are wrong. I've lived it for 15 years since this project started. They are not going to hold up to anything. And they lied to us again right here today that they're they've completed a fence that is incomplete. They left spools of fencing still laying on my construction. You cut a tap, make sure it's level, and you look downraight. They did none of this. Unlicensed contractors, unpitted fence, uninsured, everything, which is consistent with how these guys do business. 100% consistent. So to think that they're going to change their modus operandi all of a sudden is uh Thank you, Mr. Salazar. Next, Joe Morgan, followed by Jim Gore. everybody. Um, uh, so it's it's wild to hear Mr. Carlson say there was just a gap in communication. The gap is in credibility. The gap is in, uh, in in just ethics. It's a gap in ethics. Um, it it's it's also kind of interesting to hear say, well, we can't we can't just

retrofit a neighborhood and we can't we can't do upgrades on a neighborhood when this whole project is changing the character of the neighborhood. This whole project is impacting the whole neighborhood. So, you know, you can you want to work with the neighbors about it, but to say, well, we can't we can't go back and look at things. where you're going back and taking away parking from the neighborhood because of increasing safety because of the increasing car load. So, it it's a two-way street. So, I mean, they're being impacted. It's costing them. It's not really benefiting them. And to Mr. Sequelin's point about the the sewer, the sewer was a means to an end for this developer. They needed the space to access it. Plus, they had to provide sewer for their project. So, it wasn't they weren't doing the neighborhood a favor. They had to have that space where the pond was in order to do the demolition and the blasting and the earth moving and everything. So there was, you know, this wasn't just an act of goodwill on their part. This is something that benefited them, you know, and so the c the HOA had a sewer plant that worked. They didn't have to have this. They they had something was already there. So it's nice that they are on sewer now, but that was just that's a side that was a side deal that worked for the for the developer. Um, the other interesting thing was that I was sat in this room and heard how the light at Ontario and State was 100% paid for from Rexico from Latitude. I don't know if any of you remember that. So, they they were paying for that light. So, they had to pay for that as part of the Latitude project. So, now it's going to be paid for again by this project when it should already was already paid for. Now, I understand there's a project to widen Ontario at some point, but it seems like we're playing uh semantic payments around this whole thing. Um, I'm going to say the same thing about this project that I said the last time. They should come with a complete project with the, you know, it's nice county

transportation guys here to really say nothing, but until you have an entire project that you really know what's going to be there and what isn't, why would you approve it? Why would you approve this project when it's only half done? You don't do it. You don't approve half bill projects within the city. Why would you approve a halfbuilt project when it's half in the city and half not the people in the county should be noticed they should be here because it is affecting them, you know. So this this developer is playing the same game that he's played right from the beginning. Change the name, but don't change play the same game. Uh they should come here with a complete plan. Come here with a county approval with a county approved plan. And then you know what you're really dealing with. you know what the street's going to look like. You know if there's going to be street lights. So ask have the whole plan or don't have any of the plan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Um Jim Gore taking the time to hear me. My name is Jim Gore with Vulcan Materials Company. We're one of the mining operations relatively close to to this particular project. A number of our our companies have sent in letters of concern. We're looking forward to working with the applicant to address those concerns. And thank you for taking the time to to listen to us. Thank you so much. Um Sally Ruiz, followed by Shahab Care and Dale Worththington. Good evening, planning commissioners, and I thank you for listening to me, and I really thank you for taking the time to take the safety of our community into account. I have lived in the Bair community from the beginning, which is

35 years. I, like Chris Salazar, was born and raised in Corona, California. My kids also attended Centennial. They came home to that house. they were raised and now they're adults. Uh my concern is safety. Uh in the past when we have had construction going on, we have these big trucks. Uh they spill water and dirt. Our streets are a mess. Our cars get all dinged up and they potholes. Uh I live at the bottom of Bair. So on my way up to get onto Old Teams, there's a little hill there and just and that's one of my main concerns for safety is people come flying over that hill and as you're pulling out there is not enough time to really stop because in fact two weeks ago I was almost hit. also um adding 103 homes when and it's been stated I'm not going to repeat there's not enough room my again safety if there is a disaster how are we all going to get out if these homes are built planning commission's done you are done with us if there is a disaster I do not want the planning commission or the builders to look back and say we should have done more because at that point lives would have been lost. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Ruiz. Um, Shahab Kair

and then if Dale Worthington can be ready there. Uh, my name is Shahab Kerry. I live on B Street. Um, everything else, all my concerns have been pretty much addressed by everyone else here. So, I'm not going to stress over the things. Um, I'm only going to focus on something that I think is a biggest concern of all the residents there is old Tesco. The same thing we everybody's talking about the passage under the freeway. Um, I mean that's that's like a that's not even good enough for us right now. And having these 103 homes built over there, these are like over a million dollar home. I'm pretty sure each resident is going to have like three, four cars. then they're going to have their, you know, uh, housekeepers and all the other caretakers coming in. So, imagine the traffic going through that under under the freeway. And, um, the lady just said that the, you know, the the curve that goes up, that's it's a dangerous curve uphill. And not to mention another thing is that the three stop sign before we get to any major shopping area or to the to the Centennial School or anywhere that a resident wants to go, there are three stop signs there before any major signal. So all the traffic of our current resident plus all these 103 homes and there multiple vehicles and there and there service workers that are coming over there everybody's going it's going to be like a bumper to bumper during the rush hours people trying to go to work coming back from work go kids going to school it's it's going to be a chaotic situation so that's that is the biggest concern I have and I think that you guys should seriously concern about think about it consider it thank I represent the many who live off of State Street. Like Mr. Salazar, I've been a contractor in the city for 40 years. Cannot tell you how many times I've been

held to certain standards by staff that are being thrown out the window on this project. It's just absolutely dumbfounding. this project has even gotten this far. Several years ago, at one of these meetings, I presented a solution that solves all this. But before I go there, this entire development is being presented as if we go out to State Street. Okay? So, you're counting on the county counting on the county to approve going out to State Street, the entire neighborhood of State Street and everything off it. They already have an attorney. They're ready to fight this. This project is not going on at State Street. There are no sidewalks. There are no street lights. Like the Bair community, this would county. It cannot withstand. And you keep saying 103. How many houses are in the county site? How many more? Okay. So, another 38. So, let's let's put a real number on that. I'd like to see the traffic study of 138 homes going out on the State Street with no street lights, no sidewalks. You go out on hypothetically, you go down State Street, you've got those Logos, you've got crossings, all the restaurants, that's the access to get on the the new fasttrack lanes. I'm not concerned about tra Sorry, I'm not concerned about traffic going on Bel Air. They're all going down State Street because that's to get on the freeway. The amount of people in South Corona that already come down Foothill backwards to get be able to get on the fast track. But the solution to all this without relying on the county, without putting

this undue wear and tear on and safety issues on State Street is simple. The developer already took the sewer line out to Shearborn. Take the street out to Shearborn. Shearborn's a developed street. It's a commercial grade street. You got Magnolia right there. You got freeway on offramp right there. It's a simple solution. That should be the primary access. Lastly, several meetings ago, several years ago, we were told all the State Street residences were told there would be a gate at the county line that was emergency vehicles only. And that gate would be remain closed and only open in the case of emergencies. Okay. When this exhibits are shown tonight, apparently that's all going out the window. Everyone in the city is counting on that county access. Go out Shearborn. That solves all the problems. Thank you so much. And your name was Dale, correct? Okay. Um, Sena Joshy and Chris Mckenry. My name is Sonica Jooshi and I live on Bair and I have been a resident there for the last 17 years. I wasn't initially planning to speak to you tonight, but after listening to uh the developer side of the presentation, I felt like it was absolutely necessary to share my my position on this with regards to um them keeping their words. Uh he made a point to say that uh they

have made extensive contact since last year's meeting here. I have not heard a single thing. I haven't received an email. I haven't received any um mailed contact about anything. In fact, the reason I knew that this was back was because of Julie Trap. So, I think that it's um speaks a lot to this organization and what they're doing here. Like the others have said, uh my concern is safety. I have three young kids who do like to go to on a walk in the neighborhood. They sell Girl Scout cookies. Um and and then of course the traffic just in that area. For me to leave to take them to dance class, to take them to any of their activities, I have to add an extra 30 minutes because of the traffic on Ontario. I have to go up to either Rimpow or to Fullerton to make a left to get down or go all the way up to Foothill to come around. Um, and I just don't know how these extra 139 or 41 homes when you include everything alto together are going to are going to make anything better. And uh, these traffic studies when when have they been done? I I haven't seen anyone on old Tamescll. I I I drive that street every day. I I again I I haven't had any communication with regards to this and it is a big concern for us. Um thank you again for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. Um last Chris Mckenry and I do have one more chair. going to yield my time, but it seems

like I couldn't. So, I would just like to voice my opposition to the project based on the safety and I don't think enough traffic study was done during peak hours. I don't know, like my wife said, my wife was behind me. Uh there's tons of traffic going down the street and the ramp up it's like a ramp of like Dukes and Hazards. So we're going to have more and more cars jumping and it's very unsafe for our kids. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you so much. And then the last card. Yes. Sarah Mustafa. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you for um your time and attention um to this matter today. Um I'm a new resident to this neighborhood. We've been we're currently residents of Laurel Canyon um just under a year. I'm also a mother of a small child whom I'd like to see be able to safely walk the streets at some point in the near future. We have not been in the neighborhood as long as everyone, but I want to echo the sentiments that everyone has raised today regarding the lack of safety and various issues with this project. My biggest issue with where we are today is the lack of a second egress. We are indeed stuck and this is something that cannot be gambled with. While we cannot go back in time to change um you know how the neighborhood was initially built, you can condition the project in a safer manner. And I'd echo all the safety measures recommended by the commission to date and in particular the recommendation by Commissioner Karen Alexander to condition this project to absolutely allow current residents at least a second exit through the property. Um that is my time for today.

Thank you for your consideration. Thank you so much. Any additional? No, chair. All right. Thank you so much. Um, with that, the public hearing is now closed. Are there questions or comments from my colleagues? Um, I'm just wondering if any of my colleagues feel need to talk to the applicant at all. I would like to hear from the applicant based upon a strong statement that was opened about Mr. Salazar and his participation in all this. I'd like to hear how that can be addressed and countered because he doesn't sound like the same Mr. Salazar. Right. I had the same question. I'm confused as all get up. So I think I also have follow-up questions from the public comment to staff about validation of some of the comments. I don't know what order we want to go in. Let's start with staff. Okay. Um just just so I could understand from uh just the feedback we received and not in any order. I'm just quickly writing things down. But um the comment about Shadow Valley Drive, whether it was gated or not, is it definitely in this application a fact that that road will be built and approved by the county and usable by the by this development? Shadow Valley is proposed to be gated. Staff has had multiple discussions with county transportation on this. County transportation has not objected to using Shadow Valley. It just has to be constructed per their standard.

Is that is that true? So, this project has had a lot of history with gate, no gate. Um, I think there's a struggle between no desire for additional traffic on streets that are used by residents daily depending on what side you are and county and city have gone back and forth on what can be done here. I think what's before you today is a proposal to do gates on Shadow Valley Drive at the southern end, a gate at the northern end of the project that's in the city. Um other scenarios would have been to go with no gates, but then you have issues with residents concerned with traffic speeds on streets such as State Street. Um so what you have today is is gates at the southern end to answer your question. uh in the county. Um it is property that's owned by the the same person who's proposing this this map. There is public rideway today. The configuration of the street is different than what's shown on the map. So the existing rightway that's there would need to be vacated and they need to rededicate rightway for the street as it's shown in their design. And that that would be okay uh because the city can condition for that. They are in control of that area and they can they can vacate that through the county and and then propose new dation of rideway to accommodate the street with the gates the streets internal within the gates are all considered private. Um thank you. So is I almost take that as the road is not a guaranteed

approval. Then the vacation process would require uh a public hearing potential for with the county on Shadow Valley Drive. Okay. So yeah, so it's not there is a possibility that it would not be approved for public use of this development, right? Because of that action that's required. Okay. Thank you on that. Um there was a comment and maybe for staff if you to characterize the application with the county. So this development's application with the county we were told was on hold. Could Miss Man potentially could you explain what's happening with that application with the county is so we are informed by the applicants team that the application in the county is currently on hold. He's not pursuing that project until until this project gets approved essentially and that's all that we know. Okay. Uh, and the the comment, I know we always struggle with public noticing in the 500t radius and such. Um, how how did or would the residents of State Street in Riverside County, how would they have been made aware of this application since they're outside of the 500t radius? or would would they have been notified? If they're outside of the five different foot radius, they would not be notified. Yeah. So unless they heard about this through drove through the neighborhood and saw the noticing in the other in the city portion or heard about it, they wouldn't necessarily know that this

um Shadow Valley Drive road being developed would would turn into their neighborhood. Correct. Right. Okay. Uh that's my questions for now. Can I ask a follow-up question, I guess, regarding the noticing um because the way that the both Bair Street and uh Laurel Canyon are, you know, they're they're they're very long. They're culde-sacs. Um do you know it it seems just from, you know, the the layout of it and the dimensions? My my guess is probably residents, you know, toward the end of those culde-sacs probably were not in the 500 ft radius to be noticed. Um, but but do you have any information on how many homes on those streets uh received a notice? We'd have to check our radius map to see which properties actually fell within the finder for radius and we can get that information back to you once we've looked at it. Um to be clear with State Street not being and and I understand Miss Kleta, we can't condition the county to do anything as it relates to this development. We have the responsibility here today to recall dangerous situations, exits in the most bizarre places with hazards and people dying. We have that responsibility here and it's not settling well with me at all. I I do agree that the state has not the county of Riverside has not satisfactorily answered any questions

for have to have an open-ended time frame. Then that's not good. We have to compel the county to work with the city of Corona or else this is dead. And thank you very much to both contractors, Mr. Salazar and the other gentlemen. You um I have a background in construction and you brought home some things. We cannot get away with this. We cannot do this as small business owners. Why are we allowing this to happen? I had a couple of questions regarding the timing. Um because my thought is after speaking to the residents the last time around is all the heavy equipment was brought in on Laurel Canyon um from the property and then they were uh the damage to the streets. They were promised this then that and the heavy equipment. Um would the construction of this project could it be conditioned or um uh during the process does Shadow Valley Road the time timing of that if that was constructed first and then they would work off of that as their staging area uh is it possible not to use any of the streets of the Bair community? The reason why I'm asking is because here we're asking this community to take on another burden uh by an entity that has burned them in the past um and with testimony today and with my own eyes. Uh, I mean, if they were to get things done for this meeting,

uh, they would have had all of that, uh, instead of bringing in the gentleman, Mr. Carlson, um, to be their PR front and to put this forward, uh, I wouldn't have I wouldn't have had the volumes of pictures that I have of the substandard work of the fencing if they wanted to. In our last conversations, we wanted them to make them whole and the the shoddy work that was done on a fencing on something as simple as a fencing. There were their concerns were simple. It was um came in uh your footprint is still there and we want that to be brought back uh so that the homeowners association isn't liable. So it would be complete and so there'd be security and security to this date it to me it's inexcusable that the gates are unordered. Uh walking through there I walked right through the gate right through the path. Uh I saw uh in our example exhibit three that was put together in the timing of this to be completed prior to the planning commission. I mean I mean if you were if you didn't have total disdain for the residents that gate would have been put in. Install a new gate at the access. How hard is that? Um, I walked right in. The gates were there. Brand new gates, brand new fencing that goes to nowhere. I mean, they were their HOA area, this new um area should have been completely sealed off. And the fashion that they were in the evidence behind Mr.

Salazar's property that I saw, it used to have razor on it for security all the way around that pond. and uh you know putting it was comical if it wasn't so sad. Uh the gate that was there to block uh was the original gate. Uh piles of dirt were put in place and 20 ft down there was tire marks just going right through. uh further up the street where the project gate was had a flimsy little wire attachment with no a lock that went to nowhere. I mean, this is the project from hell that just residents talk about coyotes that come into their property because the gate isn't uh there. These are these are families with kids. They have uh transetss coming through their property they've had to shoe off and the the effort that was put forward for Mr. Salazar's you didn't even go up the slope to connect to his existing um property line uh separating him from Vince's property. So it was just a shamble attempt and uh and I doubt that if you got a permit uh the city would have approved that. It was just um uh it was very discouraging. Um so I do have pictures. I could put them up, but my colleagues will trust me. Matt knows uh really for us to go into business and move forward with this. Uh for those of my colleagues that weren't at our last meeting and I told the chair I just wanted to deny the whole thing, uh she asked me to hold off. So, uh, having

faith is what the question was, of which I have none. Um, so even though I appreciate the, uh, safety measures on, uh, old teascal, without a guarantee that Shadow Valley could be given as a second exit to the 56 homes and the hesitation there, um, I'm just not feeling it. So that's my Do you have any questions for staff? After all that. Uh yeah, I'm just venting right now. I didn't want to stop you mid. Um my question for staff is if my colleagues should decide to move forward and I don't know why that would happen. uh to give the applicant one more chance to put this put a showcase surrounding security around the HOA's property which was decimated by this applicant I don't care what you call them prior name or not in how how do you how I I would feel good about conditioning it that in fact I was coming in tonight to uh offer to uh and continue it one more time because this is not a best effort forward. Um I just don't know that the trust is there and I don't know how we can condition it at this point. So I have two questions. Um the sheerorn access that they talked about I thought we talked about that at our last meeting but that was not a viable option. Can you confirm that? Yes, that is correct. That was information that we had looked at and presented to you at the last meeting. There's a lot of complications with

taking that access through the Sherborn properties because um within that area, there is also property owned by Riverside County. So, to get through that area, you'd have to also obviously acquire access to Riverside County's property. Um there's also an existing easement um within that area to the Robertson's readymix concrete plant. Um the access easement it crosses the BNSF railroad which also runs along that along the Robertson's property along Sherborn parallel to Sherborn and there is a limit um on vehicle crossings to 300 trips per day at that location. And so that capacity is already used by Robertson's ready mix for their site. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I recalled that correctly just to answer his question of why why don't you do it a different direction. And then is there any concern that we would have from Reena if we were to lower the density to have less impact? I assume yes, but I I don't know the answer. So, it it's not necessarily the RENA that everyone likes to shout about. It has to do with the Housing Accountability Act, which is adopted into state law. And when you have a piece of property that's been zoned or general planned for a certain density, and they are meeting that density, but the city decides to come in and says, "Well, it's too dense, even though you're meeting the parameters of the law." That's where it gets into a hairy situation for us. Um, there's already been a lot of lawsuits that have been taken place in other cities because jurisdictions have not approved uh residential development based on their zoning and general plan. So, it gets a little complicated, but it is not resting upon the arena. It's really goes

back to the housing accountability act under state law. Okay. Perfect. Okay. I have I have another question on that. Is that the reason that there are so many shortcuts that have been brought here today by the city for and lack of accountability for this developer because we have that responsibility? No, no, please do not read it like that. Um, we are holding them. What has happened with the blasting over the years and the repairs that they need to take onto the property is not at the fault of city staff. This is something that the developer needs to make right and that has been discussed and and he and he should make it right. Are we to cut corners? Absolutely not. All of our residential developments still have to adhere to our standard. It's a matter of making an arbitrary decision as to why it shouldn't be developed based on the way that it's zoned in general planned. So don't ever take it like we're just cutting corners because we are not doing that. We don't present you projects that way. So, there's a lot going on here, but it's really coming down to the HHA, and that's all that we're I'm here to tell you about. It's not that we're gonna fail in Reena or anything like that. Uh, I had a question for Miss Vanyion. If if the is there any advantage for this this part of the project, if we were to continue it and wait for the applicant to process through county, what's the advantage? Is there any I guess the only advantage would be to allow the applicant to continue to resolve these unresolved issues with the with the Beller residents, but I don't know what else more we can do regarding Old Tesco or Shadow Valley or State Street. Could I add a comment on that in the

opening comment? Any other questions? I just want to make sure we stick with like wrap up the questions so we can have the conversation. Does anyone have any more questions for staff? Questions. If the project as it the status that it's in right now, for example, the slopes and the condition, the fire hazard it's in right now. If the project were to move forward, would what would it take to get those back to um what what is need I I know that's more of a precise plan uh but for example uh what else would need to happen and there was a comment uh one of the earlier meetings about sewer is not uh set up up there for the 103 homes and if they had such a hard time with the other infrastructure would that be more blasting. Peter, I believe there's I don't believe additional blasting is necessary, but I'm going to have to have the applicant confirm that. I don't know if Peter knows. I mean, if it's as solid granite as it's been described, I think there may be some minimal blasting that's necessary to for the sewer lines put the lines in. Right. It we don't anticipate to be like the first time around where where they had to really cut into the slopes. Yes. I mean, my understanding is that the intra sewer has not been installed. I'm not aware of additional blasting. Um that would obviously require permits through the city um if additional blasting were necessary for installation of sewer. While we have you here, does anyone have questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. I did want to get back to

Commissioner Woody's question regarding the noticing. Um approximately 70 notices went out to property owners and occupants and their radius the fine radius did not reach all the way to the ends of those two cotto sacks. Okay. Thank you for uh looking into that for me. I appreciate it. Um could I So are we open to summarizing our thoughts? Is is everyone done with questions? Do you have a question? Because we'll wait for it. Oh, okay. Um no no questions. Okay. So, we'll go to discussion. Do you want to start us? Sure. Um, so I think it's important that we always walk into an applicant meeting like this with a very open mind and and take in feedback from from the staff, from the applicant, from the public. Uh, so I I I never make a decision up until I've really absorbed it. And I made note of the fact that this was first heard on December 11th of 23. We continued it on around February 12th of 24 and here we are now what is that uh 15 months later and frankly to hear that when part of the continuence was specifically to address neighbor concerns, neighborhood concerns and not all of them are always going to be able to be addressed but to have a discussion about fencing and Mr. Salazar and the other gentlemen that spoke about it and that was a lightweight construction fence that was put in in probably two days time. Um I would have thought that the applicant on February 13th of 2024 would have immediately started to remedy these concerns. That would be my first point. Not just so it looks great for an application meeting like tonight, you know, a month before the meeting. let's

get the fences in, which I think that's what's happened. Number two, I think of greatest concern is the access. So, everyone's always talking about traffic. We all have traffic. I have traffic. I live on Green River Road. I hate Foothill Corridor and being installed because I now takes me an hour to get on the freeway. But everyone has traffic. But we do have safety issues. And when I look at Old Tesco Road at a choke point of 27 ft at its narrowest point and to think that nothing's going to happen with that and then to layer on the fact which I had believed that Shadow Valley Drive was a real road that was going to be installed. Potentially that's not the case. There is no affirmation that that road is part of this application. It's a separate permit and approval process that's subject to Riverside County's purview and hearing on if that road can even be installed. So potentially this project has one point of access old Tomesco road that's 27 ft wide with no curbs, no lights, no sidewalks, none of that. And to me, I think Commissioner Alexander, you you talked about the can we condition this pending upon the Riverside County part of the project. I don't think that's our responsibility. Our responsibility is to weigh the project as it stands before us today. And I personally don't feel we should continue it for a third time when the first two times, frankly, staff has done a lot a lot. But I don't think and and quite honestly this is the first meeting where the public they had their facts down. That's why I asked the questions on some of the comments was is it true that

these items existed that the road was not approved and well that statement was correct. Um, I don't think we should continue it because I don't think the applicant has showed that they truly want to solve these issues. And it may be a function of this is a very difficult site with limited access. Um, when I think back about other projects that we've we've asked to go back to the applicant in the city to re-evaluate things that can be fixed, whether it's the width of a drive-thru or all the numerous things that we've challenged to come back before the commission to remedy and to make better both for the residents and the and the community and the applicant. Um, I don't think that they've really showed that they can do that. And so I I I've walked into this with a very different state of mind that I don't see this being a viable application. Commissioner Woody, do you want to go next? No, go ahead. Yeah, I think our discussion we've focused on uh I mean I I I remember us touching on almost all these same issues the last time around. Um you know as as Commissioner Squelin just said it's it's a a difficult site uh with many challenges. I think uh we recognized those many challenges last time around. first of all being that half of the project is potentially in the county um if if they build the whole thing. And uh we didn't really delve into that tonight, but you know, would would the second half be built, you know, to to the same standards, to the same look uh

to as the as the city side? um or would there potentially be, you know, um you know, kind of a a divide where at one point the roads look different? Um and so, you know, that's one issue. And then, of course, the uncertainty of of uh of the Shadow Valley Drive. I I think last time originally the the access gate was going to cut off was going to be at the end of the city. um uh at the city county line and then uh and and one of our concerns was well then you're having sort of a deadend road you're creating from from you know from off of State Street where somebody would have to drive up a dark road then run into a gate and have to turn around. Um, you know, and then we're hearing, yeah, there there is potentially the the aspect where the, you know, the Shadow Valley Drive is not a done deal. And obviously, if if it didn't make it through the county review, um, I mean, the fire department here requires it for this project, which would then put the put the project in, you know, uh, un unbuildable. Um, you know, so that that was an issue. Um, the traffic issues. I I I think the uh I mean I reviewed the traffic study from a few years ago. I I reviewed the traffic the original traffic study from 2000 uh from the 2014 approval. I think both of them probably the have some questionable aspects to it like the idea of that 103 homes are only going to create a certain number of of um of of these trips. The the number seems really low. I don't

know how they come about that. I assume they have a standard um you know method they use but um it it just doesn't seem to pass muster with me. I mean the two studies conducted you know almost a decade apart were almost exactly the same you know and yet corona and its traffic is much different in in that time. So I understand that um you know that area is mostly built but um you know the the yeah I so so it it I found find that really questionable and um you know and then you of course that that doesn't even take into account old Tesco uh road uh the narrowness the danger associated with that crest Um and and yeah, I mean honestly I if I would be more comfortable with this project if Old Tesco was the emergency exit and you know um Shadow Valley and State Street was the primary access. Of course that's that's not a great design either, especially for the county residents down there. But I think it just goes to show that this project has some major flaws to it. Um, and you know, I I don't think you know that that hasn't been addressed. There's been no change really to that. Um and then of course you know one of the main things we talked about um was was yeah the the resident's concerns the history where the uh developer did not um you know act in a in a um

fair scrupulous manner left trash caused damages and didn't do anything about it. And you know, we pretty we gave pretty clear instruction. Um, you know, try to try to fix it. You know, show some good make some good faith efforts to fix it. Um, you know, we got the we got the the report from um Mr. Carlson that kind of detailed the 61 points of contact. um many of which were were kind of um you know a very not much to them. They were emails sent up that didn't get follow-ups. I think they they only tried to contact the people who submitted speaker cards at the previous hearing. So uh you know for example um Miss Jooshi who spoke said she didn't she was unaware of it. Um, and uh, and that's because, you know, nobody went door to door to knock on the 50 doors that were there. I mean, that could have been done in in a day. Knock on the door, leave a note saying, "Call me. Uh, we want to talk to you about this." So, everybody in that neighborhood could have easily been notified and contacted by uh, the applicant, by the firm. Um, but but they weren't. And really there was just a few um you know discussions mostly with Miss Trap and uh Mr. Salazar. I think there were a few phone calls with a couple other residents. Um you know but but yeah Miss as far as Mr. Salazar goes and his um you know the the fencing you know he's the HOA president now too. So, you know, he he had kind of a dual role where his personal fence was damaged and never got repaired and then the HOA fencing uh needed needed some um repairs and

replacements. Um and you know, being there on site and seeing the kind of work that was done, it it was really just unacceptable. Um you know, no no nobody would pay for work like that. Um, so, uh, you know, the the applicants getting ripped off for for whatever they paid for that work to be done. It's not finished. Um, I think it shows a lack of good faith that the fences weren't there. Um, the gates at least, uh, the fences weren't finished. The gates weren't done. um they're on order supposedly, but you know, uh I think that's um a matter of question if they're actually on order or if um they're just um delaying, hoping to get the result they want and then go ahead and order at that point. Um just like the other um supposed fixes they offered to do were all going to the other ones were going to come after city council approval. and the only one that was supposed to be done by now was not done. So what what was the rush to get this back in front of this commission without doing what they were supposed to do? You know, if I think the sensible path would have been, well, we need one more month to let our our gates come in and be installed. So, we're going to get that done before we go back to the commission so we don't look like fools. But that didn't that's not the path they chose. So um it's really kind of a self-inflicted wound. Um bad decisions which seems to be the constant um with this development. Um, so you know, when I was hearing my colleagues talk about conditions earlier, particularly vice chair, I I just after hearing everything we were hearing, I was struggling to see

how we can condition something that's so flawed that the applicant doesn't take seriously, you know. So, uh, that's kind of where I'm at. I I don't see how this gets fixed by conditions. I don't see how it gets fixed um by giving them more time because they'll just squander it like they've done for the last decade. So, Commissioner Verton, uh, short and sweet. I conducted, uh, my own personal traffic study when it was brought to us 15 months ago, sitting at Ontario and state because I was consulting a client who has that vacant lot there and he's proposing to come before the commission one day in life, I guess, to build something. Uh there's going to be two at minimum three cars for per household at minimum if not more because they're on nearly you know quarter of an acre. So there's going to be some cars there. Um what but the cars the traffic study and I saw the report but it looked like it was conducted in 2023. I'm not sure if it said to date 2025, but just Elserto that that road the off-ramp Magnolia is from the express lane. It's wild. It's not necessary to do this again. Uh I would advise before ever bringing this back. If I'm on this commission, Miss Trap and Mr. Salazar needs to be your consultants who really know their area, not to bring someone that's a, you know, a for hire person. bring someone that really knows and show respect for the people that you're about to go into their community. It's a no for me with no conditions. Thank you, chair. When we had our last meeting, it was just the three of us and I said no. I

wanted to deny it and to give another chance and I think that was plundered. Um, I think one of the first things reading, um, first off, I want to say thanks to the staff. Um, I mean, after the meeting, I really thought, okay, maybe I'm rushing this, maybe the chairs, uh, uh, you know, we're, you know, we're supposed to be vetting this out. And I really think staff did a admiral job, uh, coming up with safety for old teascal. I mean, it's, it is what it is, right? So, um, that I really got me thinking. In fact, I spent like two and a half hours out there driving it in the daytime, the night, the trying to take that all in. What would that look like? And that's because uh, you know, the, you know, I said from the very beginning, this thing with county and city is just I'm not a fan. I never have been, not this project alone, but other ones. And I mean, one developer um was uh reacted to the push back from the city of uh working with county and city as the project crossed over that boundary line and the developer gave ac uh uh which we were all very u benefited from. Um, but here's here's why I really wanted to give this another shot is because two reasons. One, uh, the neighbors, they their testimony is powerful. uh they were uh you know they they've been through a lot and I just thought man uh looking at the timetable of when their fences were going to come in and the rocks are going to be moved and you know get their neighborhood back

to where it was before they were trampled over uh by this project and I wanted to make them whole. But when I read that this applicant was wanting these neighbors who had been trampled over to sign a statement that they wouldn't have testimony opportunities to the commission or to council that that kind of flashed me back to the one female involved with this applicant who stated at a previous meeting, why would we go out and solicit neighbors is looking for things that are wrong. Why would we want to do that? Take on more than we need to basically. And I and I look at the fence job and the lack of um goodwill and being a very simple project of good faith to show the community that hey, we're a different kind of applicant. And then to see uh firsthand uh the uh third grade attempt uh to give this community back their land. Uh it was really disappointing. Uh but I'm not one to say I told you so. But chair, uh I'm going to be a no. So I came in with a perspective of how do we make it work? Um I fully expected Mr. Salazar to be on the other side based on the content that we were given to review. And so to see him speak out with such I'll say passion against it was surprising based on what we had read in advance of getting this. Um I still think it's the right thing that we did

to give the opportunity. I think it just proved the point. So nothing else for me. Um, is there a motion? I have one more point I want to add, one more comment. And so, you know, the way the the way the findings were written, you know, kind of reference the fact that, you know, it would get we there would be a um, you know, um, I guess SQA um, um, what waiver or something because the previous uh, mitigated net uh, negative uh, um, declaration was approved. And so, you know, this can sort of piggyback off of it because the project didn't didn't change significantly. But I think in the in the 10 plus years since the original M andD was uh approved, you know, you know, the the actual events that happened have proved that that mitig uh was was incorrect and that there were significant effects that were not accounted for. Um and uh you know hindsight's always 2020 but we you know we should not um sort of uh um you know revalidate something that has been proven to be incorrect. Well, the the other thing I will add into this is I remember uh council talking about a project that was being considered by our neighbors to the north and one of the one of the things was the traffic that was going to leave their city and overwhelm our city streets. And when we look at this project, it's it's kind of doing the same thing. And I mean, how are we good neighbors when we bring a project like this and when there's so many uh points of contention for safety you which we

can't ignore. I mean did the best job staff did a great job of trying to uh uh mitigate that. I just don't think we reach it. Uh not with the volume of the cars as Miss Vernon brought up that I agree with. So I I think the overall is the safety. Um, even though I thought we could use the project to get the residents um, their second access uh, to exit. Um, and even though I mean I did talk to one of the neighbors and they said just get it done. We're tired of looking at it. Just get it done. And uh, I don't know that you just look the other way with all of this testimony. Yeah. If I could add one comment. I'm we've all weighed in on our opinion, which I think we know where this will go. I guess one concern that now will exist should should denial occur, is the condition of this site and all of the issues that are related to it from the residents um will not be fixed. So with this, there'll be no traffic signal improvements, there'll be no address this site for the community. I think the traffic signal comes just maybe later from the city. So for that I feel because it's in the CI. Um do we have a motion for TTM 37895? Yeah. Uh I will make a motion uh that the I make a motion that the planning and housing commission um deny recommending uh the adoption of the addendum to the adopted mitigated

negative declaration mitigated monitoring plan and um uh do not approve trenitive track map 37895 based on the findings uh and the condition of approval is presented to us and I'll second that. Motion was made by Commissioner Woody and seconded by Commissioner Alexander. Please vote. So the way that this is different Well, if I understand, we're we have to ask the staff to come back with a recommendation of denial, I believe. Correct. Or do we just say this? This is not a resolution where we have to change the resolution. So, um, well, we I think based on the way it was read into the record, even though it says this, the record will indicate that the motion was for a denial. So, you're voting on the deny. Although it says approval, we're voting on yes to deny. Is that That's not voting no. We're voting yes to deny even though it says approval. That's right. I was going to say no. Yeah, that's right. Yes to deny. Yes to deny. Okay. So, it has not passed. Um, written communication. Has the Planning and Housing Commission Secretary received any written communication commission? If we could finish the voting on this item. One moment. I had some technical. Sorry. I thought we did. That's okay. Oh, I It came up for me. Mine came up. Yeah. So, your recommendation on this is

no when you punching your buttons. No, that's the opposite of what was said. Okay. We were told to say if we are denying this application to vote yes and we all voted yes. And we all voted yes. Melinda, do we what do you want in the record? We have the verbal motion and then we have what's written on the screen. I can revise it to just say denied and we'll finalize the verbiage. You do it on the slide now. Yeah. Okay. Can you repost it then? Sorry about that. No, we're sorry. Just want to be accurate. Thank you. So now we're voting and that seems clear now. And I'll still we'll still revise it to match the verbiage the commission has agreed upon. So if we agree that it should be denied, we are voting yes. Okay.

It did say, but it's still yours is still coming up. Your screen must be locked then. Mine cleared. Do you want to do it verbally, Miss Kabia? Okay. But it won't it won't close the loop over here. Yeah. Yeah. Let me let me place a new item for voting. One moment. chair. While we're waiting, I just wanted to thank everyone for coming down, staff, for all your hard work. Go. Can we just do a manual vote then?

Yeah. Yes. Thank you. I'll take a verbal vote. I I I I to deny I It's not saving. Miss Kapia, I'll wait for you to tell me we're good to move on. The result is approved unanimously. Okay. So, for clarity, it's approved to deny. Correct. Thank you so much. Um, moving to written communications. Has the Planning and Housing Commission Secretary received any written communication from persons providing information or seeking action by the Planning and Housing Commission? No. Chair Longwell. Thank you. Um, administrative reports. Um, Mrs. Kleta, any reports? No reports. Um, moving to commissioners reports. Do any members of the planning commission have any matters to discuss? I have one. Um, it came up. So, Commissioner Alexander, you made a statement uh and this is not directed at you, but directed at your statement um that uh the applicant asked residents to sign a document that they would agree not to testify in tonight's commission meeting. I'm summarizing a statement. You said something to that effect. Is that I thought I read that in the staff report as a document that was signed said they wouldn't they would they were agreeing potentially to not oppose it.

It didn't say they couldn't speak at all. Okay. They would not is that it would not speak against the project. It was in the letters from Peter to I think Chris Salazar. Okay. One of the attachments. Correct. All right. Is that is that an allowable practice? I'm sorry. That's not something that staff condones. So that was No, I'm I'm not saying on the staff. I I'm just That's what that sounds like those were outside conversations different from what we do never we don't deny the due process or the public. I wasn't applying that. But if if it was a statement that was made which was then reiterated which then made it public record and I'm like hearing that I'm my question is how can that be how how is that allowable and as such is this something that uh the city should investigate against an applicant that's before us? It just it seems coercive in nature and maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but he the same way I saw it. That's the same way I saw it is that um and Mr. Salazar repeated it to me that he told them right out no one's going to sign that uh from the HOA. No one's going to sign this. So So when I read it, I was shocked. Yeah. So, I guess if if my question um I guess the staff is if if that is is or is not an allowable practice, is that something that can be least investigated by someone? And if such would, you know, I don't I guess the goal would be we should never be allowing that. And I'm not saying that the staff allowed it or knew about

it, but if it was truly something that was occurred and I know I I I don't think it's anything for us to investigate. I mean, I think the the public did the right thing and they just said, "No, we're not going to sign it. It we can't control the conversation that happens with with the private parties." So, um, no, but I will I will comment that when I read that, my first reaction was we have really good developers. We've come across really good developers who've gone out of their way for their public outreach and the those that they went out of their way and had communication with and and made compromises on the project and made accommodations uh based on their concerns. those folks become the advocates that come to our meetings that speak in favor of and it it was uh such contrast difference than what we've seen sometimes that's being attempted to be sequestered that's to me it was shocking I think to your point that's exactly why I expected based on what we saw Mr. Salazar was coming in in favor um but I think for the record it's clear that the city does not condone those actions. No, I understand that and I wasn't implying that. for sure. Just um I think you were just making sure it was clear on the record, so I wanted to double check. Um I have no further comments. Thank you so much. Um we will adjourn. The next meeting for Planning and Housing Commission is scheduled for Monday, July 7th, and this meeting is adjourned.