Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, looks like we're getting ready here. [snorts] Um, good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the planning commission of the city of Marina Valley. I now call this meeting to order on Wait, I thought today was the 7th. Oh, the 8th. Look at that. the 8th of January 8th, 2026 at exactly 6:02 p.m. Can we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Zites here. Commissioner Terrell here. Commissioner Taylor here. Commissioner Stefen here. Vice Chairperson Baker here. Chairperson DJ Janeette

present. All right. I invite Commissioner Baker to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Stand. Hand over heart. Begin. I pledge algiance 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.

Oh, sorry. Thank you. All right. We're now going to move into the approval of the agenda. May I have a motion and a second for the approval of the agenda? I move that we accept the agenda as submitted. I'll second [snorts] Commissioner Terrell, do you need any assistance?

Submit it. [snorts and clears throat]

All right. The motion carries. All right. Before we hear public comments this evening, I ask and encourage everyone participating to keep their comments respectful toward others. I embrace and support the First Amendment right to free speech and any person wishing to speak either on the agenda items or or non-aggendaized items should fill out a request to speak uh form available at the door right as you walk in there [snorts] and submit the form to the secretary prior to the end of the public comment period. During the public comment period, each member of the public will have a maximum of three minutes to speak. The public must direct their comments to the chairperson of the commission. Um, now we'll move on to the public comments on items not on the agenda. Are there any speakers?

Yes, we have one speaker, Seth Cox.

Thank you. Evening council commissioner, sorry, wrong night commission staff. Um, Seth Cox, District 3, longtime Marino Valley resident, also a fellow commissioner on the traffic commission, but I'm not talking for them. But some of my questions are, first of all, from a personal standpoint, I want to thank all of you for a rough year 2025 doing the work. Okay, continuing on. We we may all agree or not agree, but you have a very important job for the city. So, now comes my quiz and my challenge of the night. I'm going to read a a sentence and then some words and I want you I want to you don't have to answer. Not probably not supposed to, but if you know where it comes from, okay? Create a positive environment for the development of Marino Valley's future. Does anybody know what that is? Where it comes from? Some of you have because you've heard me read it for the last two nights. That happens to be the goals of the city council and as representatives of city councils, we should know that as commissioners and support that. I'll read it again. Create a positive environment for the development of Marina Valley's future. Then I'll list the words here. Economic development, public safety, library, infrastructure. This is a long one. Beautification, community engagement, and quality of life. And the last one, youth programs. You all know what those are, right? Those are the priorities of the city council. And I will ask all of us since you're up there to look back over 2025 or as long as you've been on the

commission and have you included all of those in your decisions? And if you have not, please start. I would ask going forward when you have something in front of you. Like tonight, it's got 16 attachments to it. It's going to take a long while to get through all those. Um, think of what these goals are, what it's supporting. Is it supporting any of those six items? And if it's not supporting any of them, it's probably not good for the city. If it's only supporting one, it might have a little bit of for the city. But if it's not supporting, you know, do the math. If you can get up to three or four of those that it's supporting, then it's probably good for the city. I understand that you have, you know, you have to follow legal stuff or whatever. You don't can't always do quote the right thing u because they meet all the requirements, but you have a you have a hard job. Um, please continue on and happy 2026.

Thank you, sir. Do we have any other speakers? No other speakers.

Okay. [clears throat] The next item on the agenda is the approval of the consent calendar. All items listed in the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non-controversial and may be enacted by a motion unless a member of the commission request that the item be removed for separate action. Items withdrawn for the from for report or discussion will be heard before action on on the consent calendar. Questions or comments from the public on the consent calendar matter must pertain to the subject under consideration. At this time, would any commissioner like to pull an item from the consent calendar for a separate vote or discussion? Okay. Do we have any public comments for items on the consent calendar?

No speakers. Okay. Do I have a motion and second to approve the consent calendar? I'll move that we approve the consent calendar as presented. Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Have a vote. All right, the motion does carry. Uh we don't have any. So the next item would be non-public hearing items and we don't have any items. Therefore [clears throat] the next item on the agenda is public hearing items. We have item number one which is a general plan uh amendment pen 240023 change of zone which is pen 240024 [snorts] conditional use permit pen 240022 for a plan unit development and tenative track map number 37858 which is pen 4 0021 um located in district 3. Do we have a staff report?

Yes. Uh thank you. Good evening chair. We have associate planner Grace Espino presenting.

Good evening chairman and members of the planning commission. Grace Espino Saledto, associate planner. The project before you this evening is a general plan amendment, a change of zone, conditional use permit and a tenative track map to facilitate a 37 lot plan unit development. The 4.81 acre project site is currently vacant and is located at the northeast corner of Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle. The project site is within the residential 5 general plan and zoning designation. The general plan amendment along with the change of zone is requested to change the current land use designation to residential 10 and the zoning designation to residential single family 10 district. The proposed general plan amendment and change of zone are consistent with the surrounding development and density. The project site is bounded by single family residential developments within the R5 and RS10 districts to the north and west, vacant land within the R10 district to the east, and single family residences within the Marino Valley Ranch specific plan, medium lowdensity residential district to the south. Based on the neighborhood characteristics, the proposed amendments are both compatible and in kind with the surrounding densities and development patterns. The granting of the proposed general plan amendment and change of zone will allow the project to obtain the desired density of 7 nine units per net acre. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow a planned unit development and a tenative trackmap to subdivide the project into 37 single family residential lots and lettered lots consisting of two bio retention drainage basins, a 3-ft wide

drainage ditch, a landscape easement, and an open space recreation lot. The newly created lots will range in size from 347 to 516 square ft. Vehicular access to the development will be provided by access two access points on Brashaw Circle. Each residence will be provided a private driveway accessed by internal roads. Each residential lot has been designed to include a twocar garage and a driveway that accommodates a minimum of two parking spaces. Additionally, the project also proposes 25 on street guest parking spaces. Bradshaw Circle will be improved with new paving, curves, gutters, and street lighting. The off- streetet improvements will provide improved access to the project site and surrounding properties. The proposed project includes dedication of the Bradshaw Circle rightway to the city of Marino Valley. The proposed two-story residences have been designed in the Spanish, French, and traditional architectural styles and will be offered in three distinct floor plans with varying building designs and roof lines. Exterior designs will include stucco finishings, detailed roof elements, and decorative windows and doors. The proposed landscape consists of a variety of typical street trees along all public streets and drought tolerant shade trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Common recreation areas provided in a central location to the residential development. Amenities provided include a playground, basketball court, and covered seating areas with barbecue grills and benches and enhanced landscape walkways. An initial study was prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. in compliance with the

California Environmental Quality Act with findings that a mitigated negative declaration serves as the appropriate secret documentation within the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The public comment period for the notice of intent of the M andd began on October 17, 2025 and ended on November 17, 2025, which satisfies which I'm sorry, which satisfies the requirement of the 30-day review period. Public comments received in response to the notice of intent were included in the staff report. The public hearing was appropriately noticed in the newspaper on site and to all properties within 600 ft at least 20 days before the public hearing. To date, staff has received two phone calls and five public comment letters, three of which were received after the publication of the agenda and provided to the commission in a memorandum at the dis. At this time, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution 2025-9 through 2025-22, recommending that the city recommending that the city council approve the environmental uh document and uh mitigate a negative declaration. This concludes staff presentation. staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you. Are there any commissioner questions for staff? I see some I'll start out. Um zoning now is R5, correct? That is correct. Okay. And that's under the 2006 general plan. That is the current zoning.

Okay. Um with our GPU that we are working now, what is that proposed to be with our new general plan update which has not approved? I understand that. But um I'm just wondering what it was what it is going to be if that goes through under the mobile 2040 uh general plan update. It is R5. R5. Okay. Um, is this going to be an HOA or gated community? Yes, the project does propose um with the PED it is required to have an HOA.

Okay. And it will be gated.

Somebody else wants to do something. I'm not going to get my thought.

Any other questions? Um, Mr. Chair, I have a several questions. [clears throat] Um, how do the 37 proposed units fits into our arena allocations? I'll take that. So, Sean Kellaher, um, assistant city manager development. Um, the way that this would ultimately fit into our arena is, um, it really will have no impact on our arena. Arena was established under the housing element. what it will do. One of the things within our arena is that it is a goal in which to achieve the number of units within our arena over the period of time of 8 years from when it is first initiated to when it when the arena period ends. If these are built, ultimately these would fit into either our moderate or our high unit uh high high AMI um stand areas. So it would not help us in terms of you know low very low um type housing but it would help us show that we produced which we do report every year and you'll see that report later on um in roughly March April of this year you would see production if it is constructed before the end of this reena cycle that we are currently in. Okay. So, all right. So, it fits in the category you said middle and it it it is likely that this that these homes would fall traditionally either into moderate or above moderate in terms of their price point just because of the fact that they are single family homes. Um therefore, they're going to count

towards those categories. So if they are completed before the end of the housing element time frame then they would be counted as constructed units um as part of our general plan annual report that we do um which we submit to HCD. So I do a followup. I do have a question. Is there a builder already for the 35 properties? I am not sure about that. Um but the applicant is here so maybe we can ask the applicant that

my followup is so when a when a person pulls a permit for a housing development that counts towards the arena numbers right now because if they got the entitlement but once they um pull the permits then does that consider it counts towards It's actually not until they get issued the certificate of occupancy. So it's even later than that. It's the certificate of occupancy, not the building permit. So okay, it's once it's occupied that we then get to check the box that says it's done. Oh, so the state consider it until we get the occupancy

until somebody moves in effectively. It's not done. I mean certificate of occupancy is equivalent to moving in. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Yeah, I just have two quick. Sorry, I lost them in my notes and I apologize for that. Um, the property that is as the map went through the larger lots that are to looking at our map, it would be to the right, lower half. What is the zoning on those? It didn't say in our little map. Adjacent to the property. You said lower half.

Wait, if you bring up Go back to the zoning M. [snorts]

Are you referring to South of Cactus? No. uh inside Bradshaw Circle there. There's the there's the zoning map. So, immediately east of the proposed project is R10. No, the other side. Oh, to the other side R5. And then below that, is that also R5 where the houses are already built? Uh to the south of Cactus, that is within the village. I'm sorry, within the um No, not south. South south of Bradshaw Circle. Okay. That's also R5. That's also R5. And what is the um animal keeping at that point? Are they a large allowed large animals in there or not?

Large animal keeping is not allowed in the RFI zone. Okay. Are there I have the only concern I have is these people have have lived there for quite some time and they looks like they do have like horse corrals and stuff of that nature. I would like some kind of insurance that once this gets built in that this housing track doesn't petition or whatever they can do to make them remove their animals because they're already there and I'm sure they've been there for quite some time or grandfathered in

and and that's correct. It would be a legal it would be a legal nonconforming use at the worst. So, it legally conform it it was legally established but no longer conforms to the zoning which means they would retain their rights.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure that and we had it on public record. Um that's all I got for staff. Thank you. Are there any other questions for staff? Uh let me see. Did I hear that correctly? That that is [snorts] it. Just that to the east, the southern half there of Bradshaw will go to the city. Just that little gray strip there.

I'll go ahead and defer that question uh regarding um any improvements or for the city um to our public works department. Good evening, planning commissioners. Larry Gonzalez, principal engineer, land development. So, um, once this project is constructed and the streets are constructed, the entirety of Bradshaw Circle will end up being accepted um, as a public street.

I see. Which which means is is that uh, would that go with maintenance uh, for the city, stuff like that? That's correct. Typically what happens is um the streets are accepted um uh as public streets and then following there's typically a separate action where the streets are then accepted for public maintenance. Correct. I see. And the only two uh interests in regress were on Bradshaw

to the um to the proposed development. Yes, there's there are two private entrances into the proposed community. They're essentially driveways into the into the proposed community. One is uh one is located on the east side of Bradshaw Circle. Um I guess it would be the easterly leg there of Bradshaw Circle and the second entrance into the community is um just along the northerly part of that easterly knuckle. I see. So, one you just drive straight in. Exactly. Right. And the other one you'd have to make that right. Correct.

I see. Cuz there's nothing on the west end of this. Correct. It that's an empty lot. I know the answer. I drove by there. [laughter] But that those R10s to the right. This kind of looks like it's a orange color. Those that's empty lot. Correct. Correct. Right. I [snorts] see. And that's proposed R10 as well. Correct. To the west of the site is R5.

Okay. Now, I'm looking at above on the north. I see an established neighborhood there. I don't know what's that. Arbor Glenn. Arbor Glenn Drive. Right. That's R5. And then right to the west of that, that's R10. And I don't really see much of a difference between the two. Yeah. Are we looking at a little more density there? So you go above Arbor Glenn, it says R5.

Then you go to the west of that and you see R10. And those two neighborhoods look exactly the same. They're they're very close as far as the density when that project came in the it came in as a planned unit development and so the lots are a little bit smaller than R5 but they um generally were built very close to the R5 standards. Okay. So then Okay. Thank you for I appreciate. [snorts] Any other questions for staff? One more.

Uh prior to this proposed development, what uh public infrastructure has already existed on the adjacent to the site such as sewer, water, storm drains or roadways or utilities. What uh infrastructure already existed? Were there in it in that vacant land? Is there infrastructure there or nearby it that could support u the proposed zone change for the higher density? So with the new development, um there will be additional storm drain um coming from the development to an existing storm drain in uh in Cactus Avenue. Um and for the other existing developments um to the north, there are uh existing utilities there as well. That answer your question? Yeah. Yes. Because I was basically asking well there's because I know vacant land some some don't have the infrastructure there but they have something nearby it whereas a developer would come in and put the infrastructure in to support his or her um project. Correct. So, so that's why I'm asking if there's one because I read in the report that they supposed to put a pipeline um a water line, I'm sorry, water line and a sewer line connected to like you were saying.

That's right. So, that's why I was u asking um so here's here's a question. I know there there was in in the staff report it in that other study they talked about public improvement uh program or something PIA or agreement or something public improvement agreement correct okay so when is that actually do we don't get to see it before like at this meeting if we wanted to see it could we see and what would that consist list of in that in that um agreement.

So the public improvement agreement is an agreement that um includes uh faithful performance bond. Um it essentially is an agreement that ensures that those that the developer uh is bonding to construct those public improvement agreements. So, so if for example the developer went belly up or the economy went south, we would be holding bonds in order to be able to complete the the public infrastructure. So, it won't be on the taxpayer do. It will be the money set aside. So, we'll use that developer's money to finish what he or she did not That is correct.

Complete. So that's a kind of reassurance cuz I seen in some of these in like in the conditional approval reports uh in that agreement that I seen some things about security words like security. So that's to protect if they don't do the infrastructure like they said or they go belly up or so we'll come in but it won't be on our tax dollars. It will be on on their money that they set aside for the security right the security deposit or the bonds. Right. Okay, thank you.

Just one last question. Sorry. Um, how many letters were sent out on this? Do we know? I don't have the exact number, but we mailed uh letters to residences within 600 ft radius feet of the property. And in addition to that, we also mailed uh notices to um interested parties um agencies and uh all those ones. Um just one more clarification. Uh I heard in the staff report and that in this decision for the planning commission is recommendation to the city council. Correct.

That this is not a final decision of uh city coun I mean u that is correct. Unless yeah there's a little twist to this. Okay. If the recommendation is going to be a denial of either the general plan amendment or a zoning ordinance, then your decision is final unless appealed to the city council. If it was just the conditional use permit, which is not the case here, then you would have absolute final decision-making authority. So, if the recommendation is going to be to deny, even though it's called a recommendation in here, it's considered to be final unless appealed to the council. general plan amendment and the zone change. Thank you.

I I'm sorry. I apologize. I may have provided some confusing remarks to staff right before the meeting. [snorts] Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Go for it.

This is directed about the construction site. The uh there are conditions referring to the state construction site tax permit for contracts over 5 million. For the record, is participation required or is it an optional election depending on eligibility that is a provision within the um tax code. So by us placing that condition into this project, it is a requirement. However, it is contract specific. So it's not the project as a whole. It's each contract that they end up doing. And what that does is it allows for the money specific to that project, those tax dollars to come directly to the city rather than to go into a pot with the county and then be [clears throat] distributed equally amongst all of the jurisdictions. So, it it's a little provision in the tax code that the city of Marino Valley does take um advantage of in which to bring local dollars back to the city.

Thank you, sir. And one one more clarification. Um I asked about the R5 north of um Arbor Glenn and then the other adjacent uh R10. You said that those were they came in a little bit smaller on this on the R10s.

Yes, the the project came in with a planned unit development similar to this one. And with a planned unit development, you can deviate from the the overall standard. So, some of those lots in that development to the north um east. Some of the lots may meet the R5 standards, but some of them may meet the RS10. So, there's a variety of different size lots in that area. I see. So, essentially, whether or not it's R5 or R10, I mean, looking at it from the aerial view, it could essentially I mean, you can you almost can't tell the difference.

Correct. And some of the setbacks were different as well because again with the PUD, the setbacks are designed within the project. Mhm. I I mean looking at it, it almost looks like the dis density is a it's fairly close. And and again, it's similar to the this one is the density is 7.7 units. So, it's not quite up to the 10. That was the same um in that other track. Is that something that happens during the actual um construction and development or No, it happened during the entitlement process. Entitlement process. I see. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.

Can I ask what was the reasoning for that? Was there some unusable land or was it just a decision to make some bigger and some smaller or were there some issues with the land use itself? I I don't recall what the um what the it was just put in as the the applicant had a a vision for the site and um the plan unit development was designed to um assist the the process to make it all usable area. There was also a some there was some topography issues somewhere along there and again it's been a long time for that project. So,

okay. Now, with this project, is that the same type issue? Because rather than put in to get our 10, I would imagine a developer would want to do use all of the uh, you know, lots to be able to build 10 if he's going to get it because let's, you know, economics, let's just say plain and simple. And, um, if it's a 7.7, I'm wondering why the reasoning is for that. Is it because there isn't there's going to be the same issue with the land?

So I I'll I'll chime in on that one. It it's it's economics ultimately at the end of the day. And what they are identifying is that at this 7.7 they are able to make the project fiscally work for themselves and provide a product that ultimately will be acceptable to the by the marketplace. if they were to go to a higher density, it may not fit to the same degree in the marketplace that they're and the market that they're trying to seek. Ultimately, that's something that they can speak to. But as part of this project, the other thing that they've done because it is a PUD is they did include a small park as part of this project as well, which is um common open space for uh all of the residents within that development.

Okay. So my question was is so all the land is usable because I know there are areas and there are people that I know live on houses where they've got a big a yard but then the rest of it goes up or the side part goes up. That was my question. Was there any of that or is it just all flat land and it's all usable? It's relatively flat again. Most most if not all of the rear property lines are at least 15 ft. My other question is is I know Bradshaw is going to go all the way through now. There's not going to be really a big exit on um on Cactus. You're there's just that one exit.

No, you can go all the way around. Go all the way around. [clears throat] I went around this evening before [snorts] Yeah. Because with that many houses, it's just, you know, if something were to happen and we have some sort of catastrophe, you know, we want to be able to have these people get out of

Yeah. Cactus today is not built out to its ultimate ride ofway. It does not have its full improvements. That is one of the conditions of approval relative to this project. Cactus was originally designed and constructed um under county jurisdiction, so predating the city of Marino Valley. um some of the developments that have already come before you in previous years that are under construction um or have completed construction uh those expanded portions of the north side of the loop of Cactus Avenue. This project would ultimately finish the remainder of those street improvements and would also seek to um dedicate um the street for ultimately public maintenance uh to the city of Marino Valley as part of its overall development. So we are so this project would ultimately better the situation as it comes to maintenance because it would be at that time maintained by the city rather than maintained by a uh mix of property owners who either live on site or live at the site or in some cases we have vacant parcels still in existence out there today that will see development in the future at some time.

Okay. I'm just I was just having a struggle with the fact that they weren't going to build all those houses, but they're asking for a zone change. That was my my question. My concern actually. Any other questions for staff? All right. [snorts] All right. At this time, we will now open up the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. And I'm sorry, hang on. Hang on.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm on the wrong page here. Would the Would the uh planner like to come up and uh speak? Developer

[clears throat]

I skipped right over there, didn't I? Good evening, commissioners, staff. Thank you guys for your presentation and uh I am here to answer any questions, concerns that you guys have. Um, Councilman, I'm sorry it's kind of shiny. I can't see what your name was, but uh to Yes. Uh so to answer your question on the economics is part of the reason why we don't get 10 units the acre. Uh we want to do 10 units to the acre because it fits within the neighboring communities. We have an R10 to our west and to our north. Uh but we are required to do things like a WQMP basin provide parks. Uh so that takes up land where we're not able to get all the way to the 10 units to the acre. Um so we found a way to get seven but that's more than the R5 that it is. Um, so the economics wants us to go up a little bit, but the requirements through plan checks, entitlements, city staff, uh, that's how we ended up at about that seven units to the acre. So it's through, uh, code and those sorts of things is why we're not able to get all the way up to that 10 units to the acre while still providing uh, a good home uh, with driveway, backyards, things that we think are important uh, for a community like this. And then uh if you guys have any other questions or concerns, then I'd be happy to answer.

Any questions for the I have a question, sir. Um can you talk about how the layout and design of those homes were planned to feel compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods?

Yeah, our our main goal was to provide both a backyard and a driveway. Uh we think that's very important for the uh the market out here. It fits within the neighborhoods that are uh designed along Cactus Circle as well as to the north and to the south. Um so that's kind of we went in with that footprint. Um and then tried to um go off city setbacks, timelines, and uh so that's kind of how we built it. We built a product that we wanted that we thought fit the marketplace. found the and then maximized it as we could. I have a followup. U did you do any outreach to the neighbors?

Um we have not done outreach to the neighbors. Um we we've been here before and we've heard um comments from the neighbors and u you know a big concern was the the private streets liability and things like that. So we have tried to take on that public improvement. Um, and initially it was we just had to do our frontage along Bradshaw. And our response was we're going to do the entirety of Bradshaw Circle, make it into a public street. So, um, we can help with the traffic that comes in as well as help with the maintenance of that street for current homeowners as well as future homeowners. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for the development?

Who is the builder? Do you have a builder? We will be the builder. Okay. Any other qu? Yep. No, absolutely. You You guys are up. This is the big boss. [laughter] I don't know about the big boss, but

first of all, [clears throat] this is not my first rodeo by any means. And I want to thank staff for working with us. Um, very professional staff, very cordial. We really appreciate that. We appreciate the planning commission reviewing this again. And I say again different members I think of the planning commission. Um but we are we're grateful to be to be back. Um yes, I'm the builder and I'm the person liable and I'm the person that will repay the loans. I personally guarantee the loans. So I'm very interested in what it is that we build and where we build. We build primarily in Southern California and primarily we build for the firsttime home buyer. Notice I said firsttime home buyer versus attainable or affordable. We build for people that want a certain type of product in a certain type of market and that is conforming to what it is that we propose which includes the full driveway and a backyard. Okay. Very important. What's also very important is for the community to address additional housing. I'm a housing advocate. I firmly believe that housing is very very important to all people whether it's a first-time buyer, a move up buyer, or someone that is perhaps buying their last house. We really work hard to provide housing for firsttime people, which means that the square footage has to be in in line with what people can afford. We own this property. We bought this property from the Catholic church. So, this was a basically a nonprofit organization that could have been a

Mormon church. Okay, it's very good. We did a market assessment. Not only did we look at the neighbors currently, but also out through the c through the the city itself and we're also not new to the city. I was the first builder in Sunnyme Lake and the first builder in Sunmade Ranch. I have built over 7,000 houses. 37 houses are as important as the 7,000 houses I built. My name is on the door. I'm at risk and I'm responsible. And I really really care about people and the fact that people gain self-worth and net worth by owning property. And it's so important that we provide a product that they can qualify for. I say qualify for which is not easy, but we have to have a certain efficiency in the land plan to do that. If we had 7,000 foot lots, we'd probably be building 3500T houses and they would be selling for 700,000. We're trying to aim for the mid 500,000. Not saying it's affordable. I'm saying it's achievable for a lot of people and we work very hard at that. So, please take this under consideration. We really love your community. We love this location. We are dedicated to not only getting it built, but properly getting it built, being a good neighbor, and improving the the the circle. I call it the circle, the Bradshaw circle, which was not the case originally when we were here. We really didn't understand and and quite honestly, the gentleman that lives adjacent to us has every right to be concerned about liability. I I never really understood that. I mean, because I didn't realize really what where the street was and who owned what and so

forth. And as if you go out there and I think the the chairman has been out there, you'll see at least five posted signs. Private street, private street, private street. Well, it is a private street and there is liability associated with with that private street. So, let's make this better. Let's let's provide sidewalk, curb, guttered, drainage, and and a public street that allows people better and and and a more accessible uh community. Do you have any questions of me? I would like to distribute something. I'm not sure I'm allowed to do that. May I, Sean? Or when I say that, I have some elevations and some additional information I just like to provide. May I do that?

I believe so. who makes that decision. Okay, we've [clears throat] got So, any any questions that I might answer for you on the private road um that is now currently owned by the or at least half of it by the residents that are there now. That's my understanding. I I believe well I I I believe it's half but I I it could it could vary as you move around the loop for this the circle.

Okay. And then on the private is there compensation for the people that are owning it now that you are turning it into a public road? We're turning it into a public road. Right. Compensation to the owners of that property. We're improving the the public road providing that to the neighbors. Okay. But it's a private road now. Right. So um again Larry land development I I can offer some um okay

some information on that. So essentially the approximately the westerly half of Bradshaw circle that has been offered and accepted by the city. So that westerly portion is um has been accepted by the city along the easterly the easterly portion I I would say roughly the majority of it was offered to the county but not accepted. So, um, and and there's it's kind of a patchwork quilt, but, um, there's also a small portion, um, on the easterly leg of Bradshaw Circle that runs north south, and, um, that part was accepted by the county. So, but but none of these portions uh, none of Bradshaw Circle to date has been accepted for maintenance. And I think somebody asked a question about maintenance a little bit earlier. So it's it's a patchwork quilt, but by the time this project is finished, the entirety will be accepted. The ride ofway be will be accepted as well as it will all be accepted for maintenance by the city. So hopefully that answers your question.

Yeah. I just don't want to see just one homeowner or something coming up and say, "Nope, you can't have my Yeah.

Little chunk here." and and that won't be the case because the entirety of it has has already been either offered and accepted or or offered and not accepted by the city. But that means we can go back at a later date, you know, once the project is complete and we can accept those portions that have been previously not accepted, but the offer still stands. And the reason why when you brought it before us or before this commission before it was denied um what were the reasons why it was denied before you want to elaborate on that? Uh I didn't attend that meeting but my when I read the the information it was I think primarily due to the liability associated with with the street itself that our homeowners would potentially well not potentially but they would have access over the road that is owned by others or by the county. I think uh I think the other aspect is many people would rather not have anything or no more houses or no more traffic. No,

no, I I don't mind development. In fact, development is what we need, but I just want to make sure that we're well, that was that's that was kind of my the interpretation was why are we allowing h more houses and you know why more traffic and I think this is my 50th year by the way in this business. Um cuz me, myself, um Stefan and Baker were here and it was that the private street was owned by the homeowner in that circle, but we were putting a development in there where they would be liable for because they were driving on their private streets to access that neighborhood and that put them in a liability state. Agreed. Right.

Yeah. Yeah, I don't think it's it's it's not that we don't want development. I I I kind of you took me back on that one. It's it's just the fact that when you're asking for a zone change and putting in more density, that's where we have an issue because a lot of the residents have an issue with it and we live here. So, that's our our issue is how, you know, it's going to add to everything that we already have here. 40 years ago, we had nothing. Now 40 years running the clock up. You know, we're kind of against the mountains and stuff and we got to build, but we have to build

uh you know, smart and we have to think about what we're putting in and and is one of the residents that that has been here for a long time. Is is it is is it going to be a positive environment for our residents? You know, what priorities do we have? Those are the things. It's not that we don't want development. We want development. We've got a lot of development. So it's not that and we have been a good steward to all the developers that come. They're just we have to ask the hard questions and we have to do that. Are there any other questions for the developer? Thank you. No, thank you sir. Appreciate it.

All right. Um if there are no more questions for the developer, let's go with uh public testimony. We'll open that up at uh 6:54 p.m. Do we have any speakers?

Yes, we have five speakers. Bill Redden, followed by Lori Painter, followed by Roger Hobbs. Good evening. I'm back. Um, as you may recall, I was uh opposed to this project uh back three years ago, and now we've got it coming back again. It's for the spa basically the same reasons as back then. And maybe you don't know this, but we were successful in collecting signatures against the project. Over a hundred were submitted to the city council. Now, what was surprising is about 90% of the people we approached signed it, but it really shouldn't be so surprising. People just don't like this type of zone change from higher lower high low density relative R5s up to the higher density. That's just that's why we're successful. In fact, on the second leg, we another petition that was very short and very fast. A lot of people said, "It's back." Yeah, it's back. And again, they signed it for the same reason. It's just amazing how you get such a strong support against this project. We would and in this business that we're open space, we want the the better. We rather have these infield. There's actually two developers that's approached uh the city this year. Uh there's a vacant land to the I'm on the Bradshaw court circle. There's one to the um e west of us and there's one to the north. In fact, there's a map I circulated there that you might look at that shows uh there's pretty there's like six homes going in. Come and build them fast, which is very important because this is very important because back uh three years ago, it was all

private street. Now only half of it is private. and with these other developers interested in the next couple years, 5 years, we're anticipating it's all going to be public regardless of what happens with the the 37 homes. Um, the other thing is uh critical is I've heard and you probably have your own commenters uh make a issue of that. When we bought this property, I checked what is the zoning? Oh, it's R5. was surrounding this. So, we did our homework and I've heard some you lament that, you know, somebody's come in here and he's building his commercial and he says, "Well, how come you didn't bother checking the zoning?" Well, I did that work. And to me, Hobbs should have done the checking his own not to be surprised that there's opposition to this and such wide opposition. And I'm running out of time. But anyway, at this moment, I'd like to look at um have a for everybody that stands in opposition to this project, please stand. So, thank you for the time and I looking forward to your verdict. Thank you.

Thank you. Mhm. Our next speaker is Lori Painter, followed by Sheay Miller, followed by Veronica Outland.

Thank you. Um, I'm I'm here for a couple reasons. My question, I guess, is on the street. So, we own our part. Our private is ours. When is it going public? Are they going to have all those construction trucks coming in tearing it up while I still own it? or when is the city plan on taking over? I guess that's one of my question. It's a big question uh that I had also last time. Um the other thing too is it's the zoning change. It's it's just the density. Uh that's a lot of traffic right there on Bradshaw coming onto Cactus which is already busy. There's no turn pockets. Um I don't know if that's going to be changing or what the plan is for Cactus itself to handle all of that. Um it's a big horseshoe and so there's two ways to come in to Bradshaw in and out but that's it. So, uh, those would be my biggest concerns is when when does my liability end on my portion of the street that I own and, um, just what just again, um, I would rather have homes than than dirt, but uh, certainly a responsible looking at it as the R5 and keeping it R5. So, thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Veronica Outland followed by IE Informer.

Good evening. My name is Veronica Outland. Boy, I hate public speaking, but I'll do my best. I've lived um I live on Cactus in Bradshaw Circle on the Westerly side and um 30 years I have been there and so when I first moved there it was because that's the lifestyle I like the bigger lots and the R5 and so have you but I am against the change. I think it's too much. Um, we're already seeing with just the eight homes that were put on Bubon Court, a lot we're seeing movement of traffic. Now, you may say, well, traffic, we're in California. But one thing that I wanted to bring to all of you tonight is that I'm very upset. Um, and that is because the city of Marino Valley did not notify me. Okay? They went ahead and they did changes to my property. I went from 0.91 to 78. Okay. Nobody told me anything. So, I get my tax bill and I call the tax assessor. Oh, well, you don't you didn't know that your lot was reduced? No, I didn't. Nobody told me. There was a resolution recorded and a resolution is supposed to be addressed with property owners. I have rights. Been there 30 years. That's a long time. I'm so upset. The assessor is having some trouble. Um they changed my parcel number. Can't verify I paid my property taxes. So I got a mess over there. So bear with me if I'm upset, okay? because I have rights. It was taken from me. I spoke to Larry Gonzalez

who happens to be here and he explained, "Well, before you even owned your property in 1978, so and so was dedicated from the the county to where Marino Valley didn't exist. They were unincorporated at the time. Now, I should have got a notice. Okay, I should have got something. It's wrong. 6,000 square feet of my lot was taken from me. I felt like I was robbed. I don't get a dime. For what? For public use. Because of a map that doesn't really I looked at the map. I got a magnifying glass because I used to work in title years ago. And I said, "Well, I don't know what was taken. Um, I don't know how this was done, but I'm not getting answers and I have to do the research. I'm calling the city. I'm calling the assessor today. I contacted the property tax. Hey, did you get my tax bill? Um, we're having a hard time finding your property. They're a little confused.

Thank Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. Next speaker is the IE informer.

All right. Good evening, commissioners. Good to see you guys. Happy New Year to all you guys. Uh chairman, congratulations on your your wedding to your beautiful wife. I saw that was really nice. So, you're a lucky man. That lady's testimony just broke my heart right there. Now, those of us that have been in Marino Valley for a very, very long time, we've seen this city go from base dust to where it's at today. And in my time that I've been here, I have never seen a developer not get what they want. Sooner or later, if you reject them one time, they come back and then this is changed. The promises are made and people's dreams and aspirations are crushed. These people are residents here. They live here. You know, when are we going to start listening to the people? We know progress must happen and things things of that nature, but just like you said, uh, Chairman Stefins, four years we're up against the mountains. That's how dense and quick it is. Bumont, all these places that are being built so rapidly and fast and LA people are fleeing LA, coming out here, just changing the whole culture of my Valley, right? And nothing against the developer, the developer is here to make money. he's here to uh improve the lives of the uh community, you know, but people are some people are saying they don't want this. And I want you guys just to think about this. If that was you and that was your property that was left to you by your loved one or you, you know, put all your money, hardearned money into that, would you just want that taken from you be in the in the guise of progress? Well, you know, we got to do that because, you know, we just got to take it from you. You know, you're getting in the way. People making millions of dollars or whatever the situation is. You wouldn't want that. And I, you know,

and I'm nonpartisan here because some of you guys know I live in Edgemont, the most abused community in Marino Valley, the most neglected community in Marino Valley. So, I sympathize with the people here, but because I live in Edgemont, I also understand progress must happen. And during the WLC wars, you guys remember I always advocated the warehouses should be in my neighborhood, not in $700,000 homes when people got their dreams and goals. When is the city, our representatives, you work for us, going to listen to the people that actually live here? There's got to be a middle ground. So, for me, I wouldn't want to be in in in your um seat today. Nothing against the developer. I'm very sure I'm going to tell you one thing about when I see a person just come up looking like a plain looking person and you know, I like the way the gentleman's dressed. He has a good he has a good heart. I'm very sure he does. But you guys have got to find a middle ground here. Thank you.

Thank you. [clears throat] Are there any other speakers?

No other speakers. All right. If there's no other speakers, we will close the testim public testimony at 7:06 p.m. and move into deliberate. Oh, I'm sorry. Let me take that back. Um, would the developer like to? Yeah. Have any other words to say? again, Roger Hobbs, uh, owner, developer, RC Hobbs Company. Um, it's a privilege for me to build homes. It's real a privilege for me to build homes. And like what we're asking here today, it's not unusual for us to ask that in other communities as well for a land use change. And it may very well be from commercial or abandoned retail, but it's all about housing. And I continue to emphasize housing because we are an advocate of firsttime buyers and generally we develop attached housing because attached housing provides for more density and there are a lot of cities that support more density either at the local level or at the state level which is what is occurring. the mandate for more housing. This site does not is not suitable for our opinion for town homes or higher density, which would mean a lower price and be very popular for first-time buyers. I'm putting my money and my team's talent to develop what we think will be

a very desirable, charming small community. kept within the community. There was reference to gates, I believe, and there are no gates, but again, just think about walkability, safety, convenience to this location to shopping. What a what a lovely small community for lovely new residents of Marino Valley. May not be new, but you do have a lot of employment and you need a lot of nice, charming houses. I think you saw the brochure that we sent out, which is a little bit different on the renderings, but we really do pride ourselves in uh developing communities for first-time buyers, which generally is not the case for large, big public builders. We're a small, caring, concerned builder. Questions? Thank you.

Thank you. All right. So, at this time, we're going to close the public testimony hearing section at 7:08 p.m. And uh let's move into deliberations. I'll start. You know, I think this is a project we're only looking at 2.9 units over the the density, which isn't a whole lot when you think about it. And the other thing they're dedicating two basins in here plus the recreational area. If that wasn't included, then it would hit an R5. So, I think it's a good project. We need to do something in that area. And the other thing is we're straightening out that Bradshaw circle with the curb and gutter and getting the road uh assigned to the city. I think that's a good deal. It's just something where it's part of progress in this city that we got to pay for. I know a lot of people would rather see dirt there, but we've got to get this done. This is the second time this has come up here and um I'm for it 100%. I'm going to end up disagreeing with uh my colleague Baker. I just think that it's not consistent with the general plan. In 206, it was R5. On the 240, which actually isn't a done deal yet because the state is still coming down on things, it's R5. Had it been designated for R10, then maybe I wouldn't have an issue with it. But I do have an issue with changing the zoning. and we have a lot of residents that are opposed to it that do live here. And um I just have a big issue because I I was on that general plan for the uh redo of it for the 240. And um I just think that when we start changing um the consistency of the general plan, what vision do we really have? Why should why do we even have a general plan? I mean, there are goals this that this city has set and they're

supposed to be gone by and if we have people come in and want to do different things. I mean, sometimes we do do a zone change because let's say it's not viable to put in something because of economics and the area itself, but here I don't see a huge difference like Baker said. I mean, it's 7.7 when you know I mean I just I just don't I it doesn't sit well with me to do a zone change. It really just doesn't. And it's pretty tight in there. And u the other development that's going to be on the other end is only six homes. we start doing our tents and everybody's going to want our tents. They're going to want to cram in as many houses as they can and do zone changes. So, I'm just I'm just not uh it's just so so close here. Seven compared to five. I I

Yeah. Yeah. Two points is two points. Well, that's what I mean. But if we do a zone change Well, I didn't like we're going in there with tens. Yeah. I don't like the R10. No, 10 make a huge difference. But without the park, the entitlements, I think he's saying, "Yeah, but if we do this, we sent precedent to other ones that want to do the same thing." That's where I'm at. We do one and then there's going to be another developer said, "Well, this is it's been zoned now for Artan." You know, I mean, we Where does it stop? Where does the ball stop?

I agree with Joanne. Um I'm going to be really short. Um, Miss Outland, if it was 6, I don't care if it was one square foot, 6,000 just to snatch from somebody and not even say anything. Absolutely diabolical. Um, along with the simple fact that 100 signatures of residents in our city, our neighbors, Mareno Valians that don't agree with it. Like I said, I've said this before, when people are serious, they come and they have something to say. When nobody really cares, they don't. They took the time out. Um, I I'm all for building homes, but I feel like there's a way to do it. Just because you have the um equity and the money does not mean you get to get your way in Mareno Valley. And um I just don't agree with the zone change at all. They would bought those homes. Um I don't care if that they did buy it out the streets, the pri whatever whatever millions of dollars that they gave them to buy out that street. So what um the residents have spoken and I don't agree with it. First of all, yeah, it is a nice looking project, but again, as our colleague has said, once we go to R10, what's the next to stop the next person that puts R10 in in putting in town hounds by limiting it to the R5, we can keep control. I am not against development, even though I've been accused of that. Um, I am all for development. When people buy property, they should know what's there. These people did their due diligence. They knew what was zoned around them and they would not expect it to be changed. Just force somebody to make a little more money. Um, I am against the zone change. I will be more than happy to approve, well, wouldn't need a zone change approval. The builder came back and built it R5. The gentleman's a good builder. He's an honest guy. Um, again, I'm going to say the same thing. He came in dressed as

somebody that works, and that's, you know, he's not a suit and tie trying to sell us something. I think it needs to stay R5. We have given up too much in the past for developers, and I don't think we should be doing it anymore. Um, we have general plan for a reason. There is more than just that one project to be thought about when we do general plan updates. If we change this one, then we change this one, then we change this one, pretty soon our traffic is different. We have to have different amenities. We have to have different police department, fire department. This is all figured into our general plan updates. Um, that's why we need to stick with them. Now, there are the exceptions to the rule where things need to be changed. Maybe the way the the the the land is laid out there. There are good reasons to do it, but just to add a few more houses is not a good reason to change the zone. These people bought in good faith. They've lived there decades expecting it to be R5 and they'll accept the R5 and that's what we should leave it as. So, at my this point, I will not vote for the zoning change. Well, I'm gonna chime in on this thinking hard about this one. But I like the fact firsttime home buyer. I I like that one. I like the fact the investment in public infrastructure because some of these um surroundings don't have the infrastructure. But at the same time, I I listen to the neighbors. But when I make decision, I look at it a project on his own merit

and I listen to what the public has to say and what the applicant has to say. He's a good guy. I like what I like his product. And I'm always going to be I've I have been an advocate for housing because we want people to live where they work. And I think that's very important because a lot of our people going go get on the 60 freeway. I call it the highway of despair to go to work outside the city because there's nothing here for them. So when I look at that and I look at the 37 houses and I and again I look at the kind of investment he's going to put in there but at the same time I'm weighing the other side too about the residents who already live there and their expectations and and I and I kind of it it's it's tough. That's why I'm here. I'm not here to be an ice cream man as I always say because I'm not here to please everybody. I'm here to do a job and look at the future and the here in in the future. So, I look at this project as a whole like the houses and everything, but again, it goes back to a tough decision, but I have to look at consistency with the general plan.

It is not consistent with the general plan. Sorry to say that, but it's not. It's a tough thing for me to have to say because I support like I said I support housing developments and I support I support developers who bring good projects and it's a good project but I just in good conscience cannot support this one because it's inconsistent with the general plan. I'm sorry I had to say that, but it it is I mean, I'm looking at at the facts. So, I have to side with with my conscience and side with what's the right thing to do as as the big picture of the city because I look at things on the bigger long-term view. And I think we should keep it in as a R5 and see how we can make it as Mr. Uh uh Sadique said find a middle ground to make it work because I there has to be a middle ground. I I don't believe there's all nothing. I think we can get a product together, work with the residents and just put a project together because I think it's it's a it it's doable. I'm not the I'm not the one going to say, "Oh, it can't be done." I think it can be done. I'm I'm not the expert at this. I But I do understand what what people on both sides could do when they work together. they could do something magnificent. And I'm optimistic that that you, Miss uh um Mr. Hobs, will work with the with the residents and and produce something because it can happen. I know it can. And I'm not giving hope on this on on you developing this area, but work with the resident and see what we can do together because you can you got a good product, but let's get the residents involved to say what can we do feasible that uh the pencil there as they say meet the pencil whatever that saying is. So the residents can have can feel comfortable and you could say hey I work

with them and here's what we produce. So that's my comments and again I'm sorry sir but I just think I it's inconsistent but I do think that the res is on this end you have to work with Mr. job. You got to make it work. You can't say, "I don't want nothing." You got to work with the man. Work with him. Have a commitment. Work with him so you can have a project and present something and not say, "I don't want nothing." Or, you know, I want I want what's on R5. So, let's work together on it. I'm optimistic. Thank you,

Mr. Chair. Now, based on my simple math here, it sounds like we're heading toward a denial and um so staff has in the packet a recommendation for approval. So, I would suggest that before you take final action on it that I'd be allowed to read into record some potential findings for the commission to adopt to deny the project. Fine with that. Just based on the notes I've been taking. Mhm.

So the um so the proposed motion would be that the planning commission denies general plan amendment 1024-000023 to change the land use designation of the project site for residential R5 to residential R residential 10 R10 and change of zone pen 24-24 to change the zoning of the project site for residential 5 R5 district to residential single family RS10 district based on the following findings. One, you have to go back to the

since the city is a general law city, all zoning ordinances and land use decisions must be consistent with its general plan so that all land uses and zoning ordinances must be compatible with the objectives, policies, general plan, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan. Two, the proposed general plan amendment is not in the public interest since the city is currently preparing a comprehensive general plan update which is anticipated to be considered by the city council in February or March 2026 with the proposed zoning of the subject site remaining R5 which has been analyzed under the draft DIR for the general plan update as being zone R5. Three, changing the land use designation of the project site from residential 5 R5 to residential 10 R10 would be detrimental to the public interest and convenience [clears throat] and welfare of the city and that it would be inconsistent with the existing lowdensity residential development adjacent to the west of the proposed project site. Increasing the residential zoning density for the project site is not necessary for meeting the city's regional housing needs assessment objectives with respect to affordable housing. Five, the proposed general plan amendment is not in the city's best interest in that the city's proousing jurisdiction designation received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development is based on the project site being zoned R5 rather than R10. The proposed general plan amendment will not promote public promote public safety in that in that it can potentially add more traffic to Cactus Avenue which is currently not built out to accommodate traffic based on the proposed or tend zoning of the project site. What number am I on? Oh, seven. The proposed general plan amendment and change of zone will not propo promote

public safety in that it will potentially add increased traffic to Bradshaw circle that would jeopardize emergency access to the community of eight homes located adjacent to Bouvon Court which is access via Bradshaw Circle. Um eight, the proposed change of zone is inconsistent with the general plan as set forth in the findings of denial of the general plan amendment. And nine, the proposed change of zone will adversely affect the public safety and general welfare and that higher density development will add more traffic to Cactus Avenue, which which is currently not built out to standards to accommodate traffic based on the proposed increase in density of the project site.

So those are my recommended findings and these would be memorialized in the context of a minute order rather than a resolution. I just want to point out that with both general plan amendments and zone changes, the code provides, they're in different sections, but basically they read the same. that the planning commission action recommending dis disapproval of a proposed general plan amendment or a proposed change of zone shall be deemed final unless appealed to the city council within 10 consecutive calendar days after the planning commission's recommended disapproval or unless the city council assumes jurisdiction by the request of any member thereof prior to the end of the 10-day appeal period. Those are my recommended findings. God

and that would be for denial. Um thought I was on Facebook. [laughter]

I I Yeah, [laughter] thought you were playing Space Invaders over there. Um I just my two cents. I'm kind of with Darl. This is a tough one. I I I tell you the tough one about this is we've been here before and we did the night before and I I explained that um here you're at a uh R5 and based on what I heard the the developer say because of the park because of entitlements because of you know we're probably looking at more like a 7.7 what is very consistent with the two neighborhoods that are just to the north. You cannot tell the difference between that R5 and that R10. It's a little slight difference. Probably couldn't tell it unless you went out there with a measuring tape and measurement. Now, take away the part, do a R5. You're probably going to get 37 homes there anyway. Leave it at R5. Probably look at the exact same amount of houses. Close to No, not close to maybe what? 30. Maybe 30. Okay. All right. So about seven homes there, right? So not much of a difference, but R5 or R10 or 7.7 or 8.5 or ABC123, something's going there. That's the bottom line. You know what? It's not going to be R2 and it's not going to be R3 because when I was on the general, I was a chairperson of the general plan update. If I and I I looked it over and above that it was it was uh the uh it was rule. We changed it from rule to R5 and the general plan update from 20 2020 20006 to 2020 2040. We changed that. I remember that. So I was kind of wrestling with that. So I looked it back over. So two of those zones were

designated rural because of the horses and stuff like that. So now that we move to R5, now we're looking at a difference of like I heard him say maybe 30 31 homes to 37 maybe five homes, right? What 35 maybe? No, 30 30 homes. So residents are going to have to decide, do I want 30 homes or do I want 37 homes and a park and do I want that whole street to be private? But it's not going to stop. That's not going to stop it. It's going to happen whether or not it's R5 or 7.7. Right? So, I mean, what I'm saying is when you're looking at that, in my in my view, I'm looking at the amount of houses that are going to go there and some of the concerns about the amount of houses. Yeah. So, the zone, I get it. I get that. um you know so

I just have a question about the process just I don't know if we can go in the question we're in deliberations but I'm okay I'll just say this then why are we doing the zone change last and having the developer come in and you know want to build houses and it seems like it's going from Z to A instead of A to Z and now we're here like the zone change should have happened first before Mr. Hobbs even went into building homes on the site with repertoire with the residents getting their approval first and then why we're going back. I mean I'm I'm not crazy. We're going backwards and now we're here.

Okay. Um, and those are my com, you know, just my comments there because, you know, I don't know, like I said, if if we're talking about the amount of homes or just that it's R5 and we can get 37 homes in R5, are we upset with that or is it that it has to be R5 and it's hang on. Are we upset that it's R5 and not concerned about the amount of homes that are going there? So, that's that's something we're kind of looking at there. Um, but anyway, do we have a a U recommendation? [snorts]

I motion that we deny the zoning changes per statements of the city attorney made on those grounds. Is that sufficient for a motion? So, based on the findings that were read into the record by the city attorney's office. Okay. And I second the motion. Can we have a vote? It's going to be a roll call vote and yes means no. Yes. Yes. Yes would mean no because we're re it would be the recommendation is to deny it. Yes means recommendation of denial. Recommendation

which in our municipal code and under the government code is a final decision. Okay. Commissioner Zites. Yes. Commissioner Terrell. Yes. Commissioner Taylor. Yes. Commissioner Stefen. Yes. Vice Chairperson Baker. No. Chairperson DJ Jane. Yes.

All right. The motion carries. So um just for the record, this is a de facto um denial also of the conditional use permit and the uh plan development. And the map. Do we have a staff wrap-up? Yes. Thank you, chair. The action of the planning commission is an appealable action. Anyone wishing to appeal the decision of the planning commission must do so by filing an appeal application with the community development department and paying the applicable filing fee within 10 calendar days of the action. Thank you.

Okay. The next item on the agenda is other commissioner business. Do we have any other commissioner business?

I just have a quick question. I know there's a new law stated out there. I can't remember the number and I do apologize for that. um about the way that the meetings are held of being zoom or whatever you want to call it where we can have people that are home be able to to particip participate in our meetings or at least in the city c meetings and I'm just wondering if we can also include this this commission in that because there are some I know it's only supposed to be for the legal outities or whatever But we do have some final decisions such as we did tonight. So I think we need to be included in that if we are not going to be. Believe you're referring to Senate Bill 707 which allows the public to participate remotely in meetings commencing July this July June or July of this year. So that's not until July 1st of 2026, correct?

Oh, okay. All right. [laughter] Do we have any staff comments? suggest that that be added to a future agenda to be considered by the commission. Okay. As a recommendation of the council. Absolutely. Um do we have any staff comments? Yes. Thank you. Uh we just wanted to say happy new year to all and that we're looking forward to another year of serving the Marina Valley community. Thank you. All right. The next item on the agenda is uh planning commissioner comments under the preview of the planning commission. Do we have any commissioner comments? I didn't get the email for that thing that's going to happen in Anaheim. You didn't? No, I didn't.

It's not the first time. Are you going to send it to me on? You got my email? Okay.

Um, I'd like to say happy new year. Merry Christmas to everyone. I seen a couple of seat changes. One seat change over there. Um, it's great to see everybody. I hope you had a wonderful, wonderful uh Christmas, a holiday. It's great to see everyone back and we're going into 2026 and let's put our, you know, let's let's put our feet on the pavement. Let's let's make it happen. Uh, all right. That means the planning commission meeting is adjourned at 7:34 p.m. to our next regular meeting on January 22nd, uh, 2026 at 6 PM.