Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening and welcome to the Planning Commission of the City of Moreno Valley. I now call this meeting to order on May 28, 2026 at 6.07 p.m. I invite Commissioner Sykes to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Caps, hand over your heart. Ready, begin.

Thank you.

Let's see. Can we have a roll call, please?

Yes, Chair. Commissioner Zaitz?

Present.

Commissioner Taylor is absent due to a sickness. Commissioner Steffen?

Present.

Vice Chair Baker?

Here.

Chairperson DeGeneres?

Here. With the absence of Commissioner Taylor, I'd like to make a motion to excuse the absence. Second. OK. Give me a vote, please.

We'll do a roll call vote, Chair. Commissioner Zaitz?

Yes.

Commissioner Steffen? Yes. Vice Chair Baker?

Yes.

Chairperson DeGeneres?

Yes. All right, that motion carries. All right, we're now going to move into the approval of the agenda. May I have a motion and second of the approval of the agenda?

I move that we approve the agenda as submitted.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. We'll roll call vote for electronic. There we go. Okay, the agenda is approved. All right, before we hear public comments this evening, I ask and encourage everyone participating to keep their comments respectful towards others, especially towards individuals speaking. I embrace and support the First Amendment right to free speech, including everyone's right to speak at this meeting and share their views about issues concerning our city. Any person wishing to speak either under the public comment section of the agenda, scheduled items, or public hearing must fill out a request to speak form available at the door. The completed form must be submitted to the secretary prior to the end of the public comment period. during the public comment period for each item, including items not on the agenda, each member of the public who is signed up to speak will have a maximum of three minutes to speak. The public must direct their comments to the chairperson of the commission. Do we have any public comments that are not on the agenda?

Yes, Chair, we presently have four comments, comment cards.

Okay.

Our first speaker is Lindsay Robinson, followed by Nikita Wilson, then followed by Ismael Gonzalez.

Commissioners, staff, and public, I've been concerned for many years that laws and rules of the city are not being followed. As it pertains to this commission, I was under the understanding that chairpeople only serve for one year and they can't do consecutive terms. So I'm puzzled as to why we still have the same chairman, and even though the council's playing games with appointments when we have many qualified applicants, I still think we should follow the rules. Rules are rules, laws are laws. I don't think that we should keep extending until the council appoints more. Secondly, public hearing signs, I would think that they're required to have the proper date of the hearing on them. And yet for certain projects, they haven't changed. They've continued things but not changed the date. So some people are confused and don't think that they can come because they think it's already passed and they missed their time to comment. So I don't know what the rule or the law on that is, but the sign at Pigeon Pass and Ironwood was not changed. It still says May 14th. So please correct that if necessary. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nikita Wilson, followed by Ismael Gonzalez, then followed by George Haig.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Nikita Wilson. Before I go into my comment, I wanted to make sure that I can comment on this matter. Can I speak? I know that Jose's is an agenda item, but I have a public comment.

This is for items that are not on the agenda.

So it has to not be. Okay. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Ismael Gonzalez, then followed by George Hay, followed by Luis Palomares.

Good evening, commissioners, city staff, everybody tuning in. My name is Ismael Gonzalez. I'm the vice chair of the Box Springs group here in Miranda Valley for Sierra Club. And I want to use this time to kind of reiterate, maybe give some prologue before we get into the discussion. agenda items that there is going to be I2 later on this evening. It's a part of the general plan update. And I just want to give some clarity as to what the general plan is for everybody here in attendance. It is a blueprint for the next 15 years of development here in Miranda Valley. It is THE PRECEDENT THAT THE CITY WILL USE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE, CONSIDER ALL PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE. IT'S ALREADY BEEN CERTIFIED LAST MONTH BY THE CITY COUNCIL. MR. ISHMAEL, PLEASE DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE CHAIRPERSON. SURE. AND NOT THE AUDIENCE. OF COURSE. I THINK IT'S JUST AN EDUCATIONAL MOMENT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN IS. AND BACK IN NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER, OCTOBER, THIS BODY HERE uh voted to move it forward to city council that general plan without all the information i think it was only commissioner david zeitz who said no because all the puzzle pieces were not there all the information was not there and he was the only one that stood up with integrity uh to say that exactly you know How can you make a decision for the next 15 years without actually knowing what's going into it? Here we are having an agenda item, part of the general plan, and still the general plan itself is certified by the city. It doesn't make sense how one aspect or a couple aspects like the trucking routes can be left out and still be a certified last month. How does that make sense? I don't know. You please explain it to me and explain it to everybody here how the next 15 years, will be certified with still items up for discussion. It doesn't make sense. And so all these people are here for Jose's Mexican food, That would have probably been in the general plan if it was handled appropriately, right? I think developments go into the general plan, something like the Jose's Mexican restaurant issue. And everybody needs to know what happened in November. You guys failed, unfortunately, just keeping it real. The city staff failed to mention this to city council and still they went ahead to approve. Why? It's probably because the state is breathing down their neck about high residential density housing and they just wanted to get it over and done with. The attorney general for the state came and negotiated terms for them.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is George Hague, followed by Luis Palomares.

Good evening, George Hague. Once again, I want to read what is sent to the public for projects that are heard by you. It says, please note, the Planning Commission may approve changes to the item under consideration during the public hearing. I almost never see that. You almost never change things. You simply almost rubber stamp what staff gives you. But we, the public, we're told this can happen, but we don't see it. Hopefully you will make some changes. Before you in the next few weeks, there will be a hearing on a storage facility, 100,000 plus square feet. You should require solar on something like that. Staff should give it to you with solar on it, but if they don't, you should make the change necessary for that. You need to make findings when you go against staff. So if staff says this is a wonderful project and it's beneficial, you need to listen to the public and find ways to make findings that maybe it isn't and then work with the city attorney to put those findings into the proper words. A couple of weeks ago you approved a car wash that was going to be the 24th in the city and there's six others going through the city. Okay, that's a total of 30. You need to tell the city enough is enough on those car washes. And you need to realize that the 30 that are there are still going to be approved. Yours will stop after that. Hopefully you can convince the city council. Same thing with warehouses. Right now, There are four warehouses out there that you and the City Council have approved that are not built. There are five going through planning right now that more than likely will get the same vote of approval, hopefully not, but may. That's nine warehouses. So even if you say today enough is enough, we've got nine warehouses going to be added to the 13,000 daily truck trips that the World Logistics Center will eventually add to State Route 60 in our local roads. So again, enough is enough. Another point is the fact that the city council is required by law to have their meetings on television so people can call in like we did during COVID. That starts July 1st. You need to do the same thing. You need to tell staff that you did this during COVID. They have everything set up that works. So please ask them to also do this for you. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any more speakers? Yes, Chair.

Our last speaker is Louise Palomares.

Wow, Luis Palomares, community activist. I wanted, this is my three minutes, and I'm going to say, talk about our mayor, our $2 million mayor that's costing us a lot, a lot of money. I want people to see this. And it's not ending here. We're identifying him because the couple that he sued on a previous lawsuit, he lost in the court here in Moreno Valley. So now, this couple sued the city because they identified him the first time around on the previous lawsuit, sued the city, and got $2 million of our tax dollars. Now, the city still gonna identify him in the federal court. in LA County. Now if he loses that lawsuit, we're gonna spend more money. And not only costing the attorney fees on this lawsuit, it was close to 40,000, and now the city council voted to identify him for the federal case, the federal case, and they got, I think, three attorney, no, Two attorneys and three paralegals for him. He's not paying the bill, so he doesn't care. And everything he's done in the city has been a train wreck. Like the speaker was saying, you know, another car wash, wow. Another 99-cent store, wow. You know, another, golly, what do they call them, storage places, wow. You know, when is enough is enough. Take your money, you know, they passed a law, they passed a tax here. It was only a penny. I was against the tax. It's not the penny. It's what they're gonna do with that penny. You know what it is? $30 million a year of my penny, of my money. Why don't we get a state-of-the-art library? A state-of-the-art senior center. That's what I've been talking about. The things that people need. But they get all these tax revenue, like, we're in trouble, we need your penny. You know, and they do what they want. Give themselves their pensions, their pay raises. You know, I'm tired. Like I said at the last council meeting, take your hands out of my pockets. I only got four pockets. Come on. Enough is enough. Every time you turn around, they got their dirty hands in our pockets. Get them out. It's time, we're tired. There's over 200,000 people in the city. You gotta come out. I'm an activist. I'm out here. There's at least about seven, eight of us. We're out here speaking truth to power. But you gotta come out, not just because of this reason, but all the reasons why. Look at your tax bill, how much you're paying. to the school board. We're paying a lot of money to those people. And our kids ain't learning. And our special needs students are really, they don't do a darn thing for them. Shame on them. They don't have no shame in their game. All they want is money, money. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other speakers?

Yes, Chair. Our next speaker is Roy Blecker, followed by Sharon Morton.

How do you follow Hurricane Louise? The sad part of it is, is she's 111% right in what she said. We don't have, where's the public safety? Where's the public safety we passed with that 1% sales tax increase that our mayor promised us? No, they screwed it up. They spent the money and we got nothing. We got an unsafe community. We have no senior center. We could have took the money we had there. Why isn't there a senior center in Edgemont? Why isn't this planning commission up the rear end of the city council advocating for us like you should do? You're not fighting for all these people that are sitting out here in the audience. You're picking their pockets. And you're doing it every day. And you're giving them less every day. You're taking a once fabulous community and flushing it down the toilet. We'll be hearing more about this later on. Like I can tell you, this is my native area. I've been here for parts of seven decades. I've seen it go from the land of opportunity where no matter what you wanted to do, if you put your nose to the grindstone and got out there and got after it, you could make a better life. And we don't see that opportunity is going slipping every day. And it's from decisions made here in this very room. Like I say, I see Dickie Stu back there and we went across the bow all across this deal. And as many fights as we had, he was about 9,432% better than the current mayor we got. At least we didn't have stupid going on back then. Today we have stupid, and I think tonight you're seeing the people come out and seeing that they are affirming that, and we want some change coming in this community. We want stuff. We want 10 bicycle parks, not one at 6 million. That is ridiculous. It should not cost that much. Our kids don't have an opportunity because of the decisions made here. It's about time we got our act together and straighten this stuff up. If you guys can't get it done, then we will find somebody else who can.

Thank you. Do we have any other speakers?

Our next speaker is Sharon Morton.

Good evening. I'm Sharon Morton, and I was here the last time speaking, and I'm going to speak again, because I don't think there's enough people speaking for us. See this here booklet that I got over off the table the last time? It has all the addresses I wrote on here of all the McDonald's, one on Paris Boulevard in Elder, one on Indian. and Alexandra, one on Hecox and Sunnymead, one on LaSalle and Iris, and if you count the one on Day Street, that'll be the fifth that used to be Moreno Valley, East Riverside, that's on Day Street. That's too many McDonald's. Can you guys promise us that ain't no child going to get hit on that corner once they put that McDonald's in? Do you guys take a survey of all the kids that flood that boulevard after school coming from Canyon Springs? Have you guys taken a survey of all the children? They're going to flood McDonald's. Homeless encampments are going to go around McDonald's. Those kids are going to be there. And kids can get hit by cars. We don't need that. We just don't need it. And I said it before. I was here before McDonald's came to this city. I watched all this stuff get built. And like these people said back here, we don't need another car wash in this town. We don't need another warehouse in this town. We just don't need all that extra. And you can keep your Dollar Trees, too. We have enough of those, too. We do. And God forbid they put another Walmart in the center of Moreno Valley. We just don't need all the extras. You know, we want more, we'll go to another city. But you guys need to slow down the pace on all the traffic in Moreno Valley. It's very congested, very confusing, and then you got to think about the welfare of children and the elderly out there. And yeah, we sure do. I'm a senior. We need another senior. I went into the senior place across the street from where I live, and it was so packed I had to leave out. We need a different one and a bigger one. We need another library that's big enough to hold all the populations of Moreno Valley. You guys keep thinking about the warehouses. Who cares about all these warehouses and storage places? We don't need them in Moreno Valley. I was here in the late 70s. Calm, cool city. Look at it now. It's a miniature L.A. A miniature L.A., and the crime is getting bad and bad and bad because of all the homeless people know how to stake out all these fast foods and wait on the crimes to come. Build them a shelter somewhere on the outskirts of the city. You can build them a place to live. Take some of that money you're taking from all our taxes and build them a place to live. Riverside had one. Why not Marina Valley? You guys need to do something like that and get them off the streets so you can start harassing the children and the elderly and everything else and break it into all the businesses. Keep that McDonald's out of Marina Valley. We got enough here. Five. And see this booklet? This booklet was from the last time I was here.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you.

Mr. Chair?

Do we have any, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Mr. Chair, I have a comment. If anyone wants their comments about the McDonald's project to be part of the official administrative record, they should submit their comments at the time that item comes up on the agenda. Absolutely. So that's to their benefit to submit their comments at that time.

And just a reminder, these are comments that are not on the agenda, okay? Do we have any other speakers?

We have no more speaker cards, sir.

All right, thank you. All right, the next item on the agenda will be the approval of the consent calendar. All items listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non-controversial and may be enacted by one or more motion unless a member of the commission requests that the item be removed for a separate action. Items withdrawn for a report or discussion will be heard before action on the consent calendar. Questions or comments from the public on a consent calendar matter must pertain to the subject under consideration. At this time, would a commissioner like to pull an item from the consent calendar for a separate vote or discussion? Okay, take that as a no. All right, do we have any public comments for items on the consent calendar?

We have no speaker cards.

Do I have a motion and a second for approval of the consent calendar?

A motion to approve the consent calendar.

Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. All right, the motion does carry. All right, the next item on the agenda is a public hearing item. We have item number one, a conditional use permit, PEN 25-0136. Do we have a staff report?

Good evening, Chair. Thank you. Good evening, Planning Commission members. Angelica Frausto-Lupo, Community Development Director. This item will be presented by Dijon Patel, Assistant Planner. Before the staff presents the project, I would like to preface the presentation with some clarifying facts related to the existing tenant, Jose's Mexican Restaurant, and the Commission's role in evaluating this application tonight. First, the city is aware that there have been legal actions between the property owner and Jose's Mexican restaurant pertaining to the lease of the property. Per our city attorney's advice, if the tenant pursues an appeal or is pursuing an appeal, the existence of an appeal does not provide the city with the legal basis to delay, suspend, or place the pending application on hold. Doing so could expose the city to potential due process litigation. The city has received an application and we must provide the applicant with their due process concerning the proposed McDonald's application for entitlement. It's important to emphasize that the city is not a party to this private lease dispute and does not have jurisdiction over whether Jose's Mexican restaurant remains at the existing location. That matter is governed by private property rights and the court process and is separate from the Planning Commission's consideration of the application. The city has received significant number of written public comments, including correspondence regarding to at least two change.org petitions requesting signatures to save Jose's Restaurant and opposing the proposed McDonald's development at the site. However, just as a reminder, primarily for the public, the Commission's responsibility this evening is to evaluate the conditional use permit request based solely on the applicable provisions of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code, including Section 9.02.060 related to conditional use permits, as well as all applicable development standards within the zoning code. Accordingly, the Commission's consideration should focus exclusively on the land use merits of the proposed project, including whether the required findings for approval of the conditional use permit can be made. In other words, the Planning Commission must make findings for approval or denial in compliance with the Municipal Code. Any action taken by the Commission this evening will not determine whether Jose's Mexican Restaurant remains or ceases operation at the subject property, as that is within the jurisdiction of the courts, not the city. Finally, I would like to remind the Commission and the public that our Economic Development Department offers various assistance, business assistance services and programs. Should Jose's or any business need assistance in relocating, The Economic Development Department is ready and available to assist. And they also offer concierge services associated with development permitting process. And with that, Chair, I would like to pass it over to Mr. Dish Patel.

Good evening, Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. The project we feature tonight is a request for a consideration of a conditional use permit to allow the development of an approximately 4,000 square foot McDonald's restaurant building with associated side improvements. The proposed project is located at 11875 Pigeon Pass Road on the north side of Ironwood Avenue, west of Pigeon Pass Road. The site is located in the Community Commercial Zoning District which allows eating and drinking establishments with the drive-through within 300 feet. The site is located in the Community Commercial Zoning District which allows eating and drinking establishments with the drive-through within 300 feet of residential zone or use subject to the granting of the conditional use permit. Surrounding land uses include established commercial uses to the north and the west, to the east and the south of the proposed project or residential zone parcels. The conditional use permit is required to ensure that the drive-through fast-food restaurant does not have any adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The project site is located within an existing commercial shopping center and will be accessed by two existing shared driveways along Pigeon Pass Road and Ironwood Avenue. The proposed project site will not alter the onsite circulation for the shopping center. The site is designed with a drive-through lane that wraps around the building and includes dual queuing lanes that merge prior to the service windows, promoting smooth traffic flow and minimizing congestion. The drive-thru provides approximately 295 feet of capacity from the pickup window to the lane entrance, accommodating approximately 14 vehicles under typical conditions and up to 22 vehicles during peak periods. Based on an average vehicle length of 21 feet. This exceeds the municipal code requirements for eight vehicles awaiting service and is intended to prevent overflow into adjacent circulation areas. A noise analysis was prepared for the proposed project to evaluate potential noise associated with the vehicle activity, drive-through operations, outdoor speakers, holding mechanical equipments, and general customer activity. The analysis concluded that operational noise generated by the project would not exceed the city's applicable daytime or nighttime noise standards at nearby sensitive receptors. Pedestrian circulation is through a network of walkways connecting the building entrances to on-site parking areas and the public sidewalk along Ironwood Avenue. ADA-compliant paths of travel are incorporated throughout the site to ensure accessibility and pedestrian safety. The project provides a total of 40 parking spaces including standard, Accessible electric vehicle and ev capable spaces the parking supply exceeds the municipal code requirements and supports the shared parking environment of the existing commercial center World the site has been designed to provide safe efficient and organized circulation for both vehicles and the pedestrians while remaining compatible with the surrounding commercial development The project also includes enhanced landscaping consisting of trees, shade trees, shrubs, and drought-prone land materials along the street frontages, parking areas, and building perimeter to improve the site visual quality and provide shade. Site lighting includes parking lot, pedestrian scale, and building-mounted fixtures designed to ensure safety and visibility. In addition, the applicant will be also required to submit a security plan for city's review and approval to help ensure the safety of the customers and employees on site. The proposed project consists of a contemporary commercial building designed in accordance with the current McDonald's prototype architecture. The building incorporates a combination of materials including stone veneers, smooth stucco, and metal composite panels to create visual interest and architectural variation. The primary elevation features a prominent tower element and enhanced glazing to provide a strong pedestrian-oriented frontage. All building elevations include material changes, horizontal and vertical articulation, and varied roof lines to minimize blank wall appearance and ensure consistency on all sides of the structure. The color palette consists of neutral earth tones with complementary accent colors consistent with corporate branding while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding area. A trash and recycling enclosure with the roof cover painted to match the proposed building architecture and its design is also included with this project. The proposed project as designed meets and exceeds the required design landscape and lighting standards and objective of the municipal code and satisfies the city's parking requirement. The proposed project complies with the section 9.02.060 conditional use permits and all applicable development standards of the zoning code. With the recommended conditions of approval, the staff recommends that the planning commission adopt Resolution number 2026-05, determining the conditional use permit PEN 25-0136 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, and CEQA guidelines as a class 32 infill development in accordance with CEQA guidelines section 15332 and approving the conditional use permit PEN 25-0136. Subject to the attached condition of approval including as exhibit a of resolution number 20 26 0 5 and as shown on the approved plan This concludes staffs presentation I'm over 20 questions also present with us tonight is really and also available for questions as the applicant team Thank you Thank you All right, are there any commission of questions for staff I do

I just want to know, according to the Class 32 exemption, Title 14 and 15332, the CEQA says to approve if the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, and then they go on to water quality and et cetera. I want to know how did you come to the conclusion it wasn't going to

Thank you for your question, Commissioner Steffen.

As far as noise traffic and air quality.

So the city relied on an analysis prepared by environmental consultant to analyze those four topical areas. And within that analysis, it showed that there would be no significant impacts within those topical areas. So that's how the city concluded that it qualifies for a class 32 infill exemption.

Wow. I brought up some facts that say that, you know, there's a history of accidents in that intersection that has been on the site of tragic collisions. Fatal accidents requiring hours of long road closures and traffic reconstruction investigations by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. It's a high incident zone.

Okay, before we go into that, may I please remind the public that this is a hearing and that we do need to be respectful. I understand that some things can be emotional and that we have outbursts, but think of this more as a courtroom because this is a hearing, and we need to hear the responses from the commissioners, the staff, the applicant, the people that are speaking. So please be respectful.

And then for... Talk a little louder. The commissioner... Oh.

Absolutely.

Okay. And then there was another thing that I researched and found that Pigeon Pass and Ironwood Avenue is known as a frequent site of car crashes. Local and state databases characterize this area as a high incident corridor for traffic collisions and that's through Caltrans.

And I'm asking the commission right at this point, do you have any questions of staff based on the report? Oh, I'm just... That looks more like deliberation stuff.

Oh, okay. Well, then I'll read it on deliberation because I just did think that it really qualified. And like I say, I don't know, but I'm just raising the questions because we do have, you know, a lot of concerns. as to traffic noise and air quality. Okay.

Do we have any questions for staff?

I just wanted to know how they came to that, and he told me because they had a company. Is that what happened? You had somebody announce?

Mr. Stephan, allow me to provide a little additional information. So for the purposes of CEQA, With respect to traffic, what's analyzed is actually vehicle miles traveled. It has nothing to do with the level of service or safety or potential existing conditions with respect to incidences that may or may not occur within that corridor. So with respect to vehicle miles traveled, which is the CEQA threshold, this project screened out and did not require any further analysis. for CEQA purposes. Now, the study did include a level of service analysis with respect to increased daily traffic associated with the project, and that information has been provided in the packet. So those are the, with respect to CEQA, what we analyzed, are there any vehicle miles traveled impacts, and in this condition, there is not.

According to City of Marina Valley itself, maybe is this something I should even read out?

If you have a question, a question for staff.

Well, it seems like there was a discrepancy in what actually I brought up and what was in the packet. It says the traffic is 20,000 to 27,800 vehicles per day. heavily rush our congestion. So, I mean, I'm just questioning because on the packet, you know, and what I was given didn't seem to correlate with what I brought up.

I didn't hear a question in there, Commissioner Stephan. So, if you have any additional questions, we're happy to answer them to the best of our ability. We do have the consultant, the applicant's consultants here as well.

Well, I just said that my question was why there was such a discrepancy.

I'm not familiar with any discrepancies within the traffic portion of the memo that supported the Class 32 exemption. It's pretty clear. They outline what the existing trips associated with the existing use are. It projects what the proposed trips associated with the proposed use are. And it does the math to show what the difference is, which is about 987 trips a day. And I'll ask Dijon to confirm that for me.

So that's going to be the difference that is going to be added?

Net increase of nine hundred and eighty seven trips a day in digital McDonald firm that yes, ma'am Okay Are there any other Commissioner questions of staff It was stated that we did not need a we were exempt from a CEQA and report on this, but yet we're basing, sounds like to me, our traffic analysis off of a SQL report. If we did not need that SQL report, why in this particular area, which is a high volume area, high school down the street, other schools nearby, apartments, was there an individual city traffic report done?

The city relied on the traffic report that's contained contained in the agenda packet that's part of the sequel memo Outlining how the project qualifies for the class 32 exemption, okay?

There has been a lot of concern with traffic and I'm just wondering why the city did not step up and go ahead and do its own report Considering Where this is located in the city and whatnot. I realize that it may not be Normal to do so but To me I think we need to as as a city to step up and answer the questions of our Public so with that a question is We have sensitive receptors in that area at least one what has been done to mitigate anything to that I

Are you asking, are there mitigation measures that would preclude any potential impacts the project may have on the nearby residential uses?

On the sensitive receptor, yeah.

So there are conditions of approval. As an example, I'll turn to condition of approval number nine, special condition, which limits the volume of the outdoor speaker system for the drive-up window. There's a condition number 14 that requires a security plan of the project. There's a condition number 10 that talks about maintaining the lighting and good repair. There's a condition number 12 that talks about the trash receptacle Shall be provided for site use of the patrons required for every 10 spaces. So those are the types of impacts that we anticipate this project might potentially have on the nearby adjacent properties. And that's how we're. We're trying to ensure that there's no impacts for some reason. If the, if the. project was operating out of compliance with those conditions, this body would have the ability to call it back for a hearing to potentially revoke the CUP if one is granted tonight. So those are the safe falls. That's the reason we have a conditional use permit. That's the reason the city subjects it to this extra level of review at a notice public hearing to ensure that any potential impacts have been identified and addressed with specific conditions of approval for the project.

Okay. Has there been anything in that conditional use permit that deals with the extended idling of vehicles waiting in their drive-through since we don't have that there?

As the GHG analysis showed, depicted within the memo prepared that supported the class 32 exemption. There are no thresholds being exceeded that would require specific condition of approval for excessive idling. No excessive idling was identified as part of that air quality analysis prepared for the project.

I don't understand how that could happen considering that there is no drive-through there now and there will be. Another thing. Let me find my notes here, excuse me one second here. In your analysis, you say that we're going to have approximately 675 new trips into that area. Or 900, approximately 900 trips and approximately 675. At least that's what it says on my notes, so that's what I'm going to go with. With that many vehicles going in and out of there, I do believe that we need to do a traffic study on the in and outs and we need to do them during peak times, such as when school lets out, traffic in the morning, traffic in the evening. Is that something that can be done?

Commissioner Zaitz, I will offer this. The City has adopted level of service and VMT analysis guidelines. Those guidelines include thresholds. This project does not exceed the thresholds that would require a traffic impact analysis to be prepared for this project. If it exceeded those thresholds, then one would have been prepared before we brought this item forward to the Planning Commission. So in this instance, The project is consistent with the adopted guidelines for that topical area and that information has been provided to the Planning Commission to make an informed decision.

But with considering with the outreach of the public that just to put them at ease, I think we should have probably had one done. Also, I noted that the noise levels were done Not really in the most peak times. I would also like to see noise levels basically throughout the day. We have virtually no activity except for maybe parking lot sweepers or whatnot in the middle of the night, and now we're proposing to put a 24-hour fast food. With today's... disregard for noise ordinance on vehicles and other public things. I do believe that our noise analyzing should be done and show the people that the noise is not going to increase that much during the hours that were normally a silent time for that. Is that a possibility?

If I understand you correctly, commissioners, I too would like a different noise analysis prepared for the project other than what's already been prepared. Is that accurate? Yes. So, um. No, noise is a tricky subject. I'm not an expert in it. I will ask. I'm not sure if the applicant has their consultant here. Perhaps they might be able to better answer that question. I can tell you that the analysis prepared for the project, which is really based on recordings at a certain time of day, and then they put it into a model, and the model tells us what the outputs are and whether or not there's going to be an anticipated impact. And the analysis showed that it would not create an impact that would exceed the city's noise ordinance thresholds. So other than that, I don't know what else to offer you other than... We'll have to maybe ask the applicant on that topic.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I just have a comment. So some of the questions that Commissioner Stephan asked are very relevant to this decision tonight. However, those kind of questions are related to the safety issues. So CEQA analyzes environmental impacts. But the conditional use permit requires you to make a finding if you approve the project that the proposed project will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. So her questions are very, they're legitimate and they pertain to this particular project. But what's being presented to you right now are environmental impacts that have been analyzed the context of CEQA but they are relevant questions and so they're not you know we're not intended to dismiss them they're relevant but they're related to the findings that need to be made in in the context of the conditional use permit absolutely I thought at the end of it she was going to ask a question

My question is, is there a provision made for deliveries? I didn't see that in the conditions of approval. So I know that in my previous experience with McDonald's, they use a semi-truck, the semi-truck comes out there, sets the air brakes, makes a lot of noise, but I didn't see anything about delivery times. Would that be, you know, deliveries have to be made between X amount of time, not to be three, four, five in the morning, that sort of thing.

Chair Dijon, I'm not familiar with the condition as written that we included that that covered that topical area. Certainly, the Planning Commission has the discretion to add a condition of approval that would limit delivery times, perhaps outside of peak hours and no later than a certain time of the night. I'll turn to Dijon to confirm that we did not include that condition within the project. I know there was mention in the staff report, but I'm not sure if it was memorialized with a specific condition of approval.

Okay. There's no condition of approval for that, but as per the study, I think it mentions about the delivery time in the morning, I mean in the daytime hours only.

Daytime, means that it'll be cut off at?

Let me just pull that out.

Chair Dijonet, what I think Mr. Patel is referring to is that within the traffic analysis portion of the CEQA memos, it described the times that the operator would only accept deliveries outside of the peak hours of traffic. It doesn't necessarily address potential noise impacts, so certainly if the commission deems it appropriate, they can add a condition of approval which would limit at which times those deliveries could occur. And the applicant would have to be willing to accept that as well.

Okay. I don't think I had any other questions because the questions that I were going to ask was actually pretty clearly outlined by Ms. Angelica over there. And just to be very, very clear, this particular body looks at just the conditional use permit, right? Not whether or not it's a McDonald's, not whether or not it's a In-N-Out, not whether or not it's a, or we do not make a decision on who was gonna get rented that space unless they have to put something in front of the commission like a conditional use permit or something like that, change a zone or something like that. My also understanding is that you mentioned that there were two judgments there. And like I said, I didn't see those before, and those judgments clearly say the lease is over, it's done, it's finished. Is that correct?

I believe legal counsel for the applicant is here and I prefer that they report on the status of the litigation.

I see, okay. All right. And then my last question would be, and I just wanted to make that clarification, is that the Planning Commission, and it's more of a statement with an embedded question, that we don't make the determination of who the property owner leases that space to. Is that correct?

That is correct, sir. Okay.

So whether or not Jose's, it stays or not, even though their lease is over with, we don't make the decision to say, let's go out and get a Ruth Chris, which I, you know, or Morton's or, okay, just making sure, okay.

I'd like to ask, which way, how is that truck coming in for those deliveries? It shows on the... They've got so many, like, I mean...

I think we can ask the applicant.

Should we ask the applicant?

Perhaps that's a question best asked to the applicant, yes.

Because I'm really familiar with that shopping center, so I know, okay, I'll just save that. But yeah, and we are here, it doesn't matter if it's McDonald's, any big chain that might go up there. I mean, we have to get everything right. Okay.

Okay, are there any other questions from the Planning Commission to staff? All right, well, let's see here. We will now open the public hearing at 7.01 p.m. At this time, would the applicant like to speak? Is the applicant present? Okay. Okay.

Good evening, chair and vice chair and commissioners. I'm Jamie Pham with Bickle Group Architecture, the applicant for the project. With me today are representatives from McDonald's, the landlord team, and our civil engineer. We're all grateful to staff for their work to get us here and for their thorough staff report. I don't want to repeat anything that's already been said, so I just want to highlight a couple things for you today. The new McDonald's restaurant being proposed will be locally owned and operated. The project has been designed to comply with all applicable city development standards, including site lighting within the McDonald's area of development that will meet or exceed city's minimum requirements for safety and visibility. The proposed hours of operations are up to 24 hours, which are permanent by right under the city's municipal code. Deliveries to the site will also be scheduled during off-peak business hours in order to minimize operational impacts to customers, surrounding areas, and business. We'd also be open to a condition regarding the delivery hours. Thank you for your time tonight. And as mentioned, the project team, ownership, and McDonald's are available to answer questions. And then next to me is Hannah, who's our civil engineer, who can address some of the earlier questions that came up.

Thanks Jamie and thanks again for your guys' time tonight. I think there was one more slide we had kind of prepared. I know that circulation was a concern for this site and it's something, to be honest with you, that took a front seat as we laid out the site plan and it really kind of drove the way that we, again, designed things and laid things out. So it has been thought out. We've run multiple truck scenarios with the delivery trucks to ensure that all delivery operations can be contained within our parcel and have minimal impacts to the rest of the center. We've also looked at traffic queuing. I think it was mentioned earlier, looking at how many cars can stack. We have looked at data from many other stores, many other McDonald's restaurants with similar anticipated volumes to understand what we think the peak traffic queue would be and we anticipate that the full peak queue can be contained within the lanes that we're providing again just minimizing the impact to the overall center from a traffic standpoint and then I think that was it I think the main thing we just wanted to bring up is we understand that traffic is a concern and that if you have any other questions As Jamie mentioned, our applicant team is here. We're ready to address any concerns or answer any other questions that may come up.

Thank you. Are there any commissioner questions for the applicant?

Yeah, I want to know, how are you going to be coming in on that? Are you going to be coming in through Stater Brothers? Are you going to be coming in through Ironwood?

are you talking about specifically for the drive delivery trucks yeah for delivery trucks yeah so in the in the exhibit that's in included with the application um it's anticipated that they would enter onto ironwood they would turn right and then kind of loop through the site um kind of around that parking island that we're showing now on the site plan how big is that truck um this is we have multiple modeled um this one's a 36 foot delivery truck And then I think we've modeled up to a 48 foot, which is standard for deliveries that happen in off-peak hours.

Okay. Yeah, because I was just wondering, because I know that they wouldn't be able to go the other way. So you're coming in through Ironwood?

Yeah, coming in through Ironwood.

And you're doing that during the daytime?

No. It would be during early morning hours or off-peak hours where it's not going to interfere with the operations of the drive-thru.

Well, I don't... I don't know if you know about that area, but in early morning hours, it's jam-packed. I mean jam-packed.

I think the operational team is obviously ready to address those concerns when it opens. That's the plan for now.

Yeah. Okay. It's just a fact. That is a fact. Everybody's going to school. Everybody's going to work. And even though school's going to be getting out, that's maybe two months. But the rest of the time, it's really, really bad. That's all I can say. So you might have to rethink that.

I'm looking at the site plan and it looks like in comparisons to where the existing building is, it looks like the orientation of the building has changed. So what happens to that existing, I guess there's a strip which I would call on the east end. there where Jose's is the furthest south, and then there's a couple other businesses that move up north. So if you look at the corner of Ironwood and Pigeon Path, the current restaurant there now, the front door will be facing to the east. And to the north of that, there are a couple of other businesses there. What happens to those other businesses?

Those are impacted by the development as well.

I understand that. Do they just disappear? Do they get relocated?

Yeah, that's not something that we can speak to, unfortunately. We have the landlord team here. I don't know if they can speak to what their plans are for that, but that's not within our purview.

Okay, okay. Please, please, please, please remember this is a hearing. We need to hear the applicant. We need to hear the planning commissions. There will be a time for the public to speak and you have three minutes to speak. But we do need to keep this official and we do need to keep this moving and stay within the agenda that we have. I understand that this is a very, very emotional, for many people but we do need to keep this an official hearing thank you so okay so right you're saying that there is something going on with those existing businesses and you said that someone could answer those questions or right now in your capacity you couldn't answer those questions

Yeah, that's not something I'm comfortable speaking to as we represent McDonald's. I see. But the landlord team is here, and they can speak to that if you guys have further questions.

Okay, okay. Any other questions?

On Ironwood Avenue, which I believe you just said that it's going to be basically the main entrance to go to the McDonald's,

Technically, both entrances could be used, yes, but Ironwood entrance is closest proximity.

Do you see that most traffic will probably be coming off Ironwood?

That would be the assumption, but again, both are open to be used for the site.

What is going to be done for people going eastbound to be able to turn into the... entrance exit on ironwood because there is basically no left turn lane there is a left turn lane going the other way i do frequent this store quite often it is the closest one to my house i have concerns with an extra and i'll call it 600 people coming in they will be coming east on ironwood west on ironwood and then also the people exiting there Right now, even without the McDonald's in there, at any given time, they may line up 10, 12 deep to get out of there. Plus, then we'll also have people sitting in the left turn lane going the wrong direction as the left turn pocket is designed to turn in. What's going to be done to take care of this problem? We're adding more cars and there's already a problem.

Yeah, obviously we can't address the current problem, but what I can say is that we've put together extensive traffic management plans for the site. It's included in the packet. It might be included in this slide, I'm not sure, but we have looked into that. It's something we've studied and it's not something that, obviously McDonald's as the tenant doesn't want that traffic issue either. Last thing they want is, you know, bad operations on their site. It affects their affects everything right so I think that you have a partner in that and that's not a situation that they're looking to make worse I will say that we're protecting and preserving all the existing traffic movements within the center so you know all the existing driveways on Ironwood and Pigeon Pass we're going to be utilizing existing traffic movements that are being used currently today we're not proposing any new ones we're not going to take any away so Again, if there's existing issues out on site, unfortunately, there's not much we can do about that. But I can say that we've worked extensively to try to mitigate making the problem worse.

Okay. Okay. So basically, there's going to be nothing done to either add left turn lanes, which would be responsibility of this, or signage signals, things of that nature.

Nothing's been conditioned to the project for those types of improvements.

Okay, and then on the other entrance exits that comes off of Pigeon Pass, I do have a concern with that Again, I do frequent that shopping center quite often people turning right and left out of that do run into quite a problem because it is not a very good line of sight going north and The signal during peak times will actually have traffic backed up past that entrance and exit so people cannot get in or out safely. I feel that there's something needs to be put in here that will guarantee a good result on these two exits. I also have concern with young people coming from the high school they'll probably be dropping in on the Pigeon Pass. I do have concerns with them getting easily getting to your facility and adding a huge amount of congestion in that Pigeon Pass. So you guys basically, like you said, have not thought about what this is going to impact the surrounding areas. Is that correct?

I think it was mentioned earlier that per the city thresholds we were screened out of both VMT and level of service analysis and so therefore we didn't do a full trafficked impact but there obviously were you know our documents were prepared to show that we screened out of those two items and it wasn't studied further for the direction application I think it should have been okay

I have a question. Was there any outreach beyond the 500 limit that they sent the notices out to the people that are around there? Did you guys do any outreach to the community itself?

I'm not able to speak to that as the architect for the project. So, yeah, I apologize. I'm not able to answer that.

Is there someone here representing that could field that question?

Yes. He's walking up right now. Okay.

Good evening and thank you for your time tonight. No, we did not reach out beyond that limit as directed by staff.

Okay. I think it would have been wise as far as, you know, just a good neighbor, you know, because these people are going to have to live with whatever's there, not just your project. I also had another question that may be sumptuous of me to even ask, but did you even look at any other areas for the McDonald's?

I'm a member of the construction team. Our real estate partners would be able to speak on that, but they're not here this evening.

Okay. Okay, I was just wondering why that site actually was picked.

I'm not able to speak on that behalf. I'm here to build a building and we're here for the conditional use permit approval.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions of the applicant? All right, well thank you, appreciate it.

There'll be other questions later. Okay.

Let's see here. No, we're fine, yeah. No, that was it, the applicant is there. All right, we'll move on to the public comment and we'll ask the clerk to call upon each person who has requested to speak. How many speakers? Mr. Carroll.

I think it might be helpful for members of the public who have never attended a public hearing for us to explain what this process is all about. Certainly. So they can keep their comments focused on what your decision should be based upon. So we're here because we're considering a conditional use permit. Now, the purpose of a conditional use permit is to consider those type of uses, developments which have a special impact or uniqueness such that their effect on the surrounding community cannot be determined in advance. So we have some type of uses where we know exactly what sort of impacts they're going to have. This is one of those unique types of projects where we can't assess what sort of impacts it's going to have. And so anytime we have a drive-through establishment that's located, I think it was within 300 feet of a residential project or residential units, we require a conditional use permit, which means that we solicit public input from the community to determine what sort of impacts that particular project will have on the community. So I think it's important to know that What this Planning Commission is going to consider based on testimony and evidence, the testimony provided by the public, the residents, and members of the community, is whether the project is consistent with our goals, objectives, and policies and programs of our general plan, whether the project is going to have a detrimental impact on you know, on public health, public safety, or the welfare, or if it's going to injure properties, like impact property values or improvements in the vicinity, and whether the location, design, and the operation of the project will be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity. So with conditional use permits, it allows the Planning Commission to consider what sort of conditions should be imposed on this project if you approve it that are going to mitigate these impacts that the impacts are going to have on the community. So to the extent you hear public testimony about traffic congestion, about accidents in that area, This is the opportunity for the Planning Commission to consider what sort of conditions can we impose on this project that will mitigate that traffic congestion. You may come to a point where there may not be sufficient conditions to mitigate And if that's the case, then that may give you grounds for denying the project. Now, the reason why I wanted to put this out there is because I want particularly the members of the public who have never been to a public hearing to know what parameters are being considered in the context of this public hearing so they can keep their comments and testimony focused on these particular issues to have the greatest impact on whatever decision you're going to make tonight. So I just thought it would be helpful for the public to understand the scope of what you're going to be considering tonight.

Is this a final decision for the Planning Commission?

Yes, it is, unless it's appealed to the City Council.

Okay. All right. All right, we'll move on to the public comment. And please, I'd say that, gosh... Please understand what the city attorney is saying that we have to operate within a certain parameters of what our decision making process are. I understand that it is a very emotional thing and I just tell you, I used to be the vice principal up there at Canyon Springs. I travel that all the time. My kids live off of Swan. I understand.

The impacts of traffic and that sort of thing, again, are unpredictable.

No, they are. They're unpredictable because this, let's say, and I'm just making these comments. Jose doesn't stay there. Something else is going to go there. Okay. It could be any other restaurant. It could be any other commercialized entity to go there. Now, McDonald's is a busy place. I understand that. But that doesn't negate that there are other places that are also busy. which would mean that if we set that precedence, we'd have to pretty much give everyone the same shake if they put in a conditional use permit. We'd have to tell everybody no. Right, which is probably... if we look at just the conditional use permit only, not whether or not it's a McDonald's or Burger King, whether or not it's a Ruth Chris, whether or not it's not a Jimmy Choo's or whatever it is, we still have to look at just the conditional use permit. There are, again, certain parameters that we have to follow and some of those are, and again, there is no limit to how many can go in the city. There are no limits to say that we could set a limit and say, but that's not set now. So just please remember as you're making your comments to just be respectful to everyone. Please be respectful to the Planning Commission, the city staff. Please understand that. And that no one on the Planning Commission goes out to go shake hands with Ronald McDonald and say, come here and put that in here. We don't make that decision. We don't drag them here and say, put your business here. And sometimes I hear you say, you guys are putting a, no, we're not. the applicant can choose who they want to go here, and that has nothing to do with the Planning Commission. We don't go out and pick McDonald's, we don't go out and pick Starbucks, we don't go out and pick, people have property, they rent it, who's gonna go there? That's how that works. So just please be respectful when you make your comments, and please try to keep your, you can make whatever comment you want, it's free speech. But remember, we're only looking at the conditional use permit portion of this project. All right, with that being said, the clerk will call up, wait, well let me ask this, how many speakers do we have?

We presently have 47 speaker cards.

Okay. With 47 speaker cards, I would like to make a motion that we move the time limit to two minutes. Again, we do have bailiffs here to remove people that are not being respectful. That's why they're here. Remember, this is a hearing. And yes, we can set limits. We most certainly can. That's within our jurisdiction to set limits. We most certainly can. So with that being said, is it under the preview of the Planning Commission to move or adjust the time for each speaker? I guess that's a question for city staff.

That's a decision that needs to be made by the chair and or the commission.

So would that be a motion? Yes. Okay. So I would like to make a motion that we move the, because we have nearly 50 speakers.

Let's see. Yeah.

Well, really, let me take a look at that. I'm just going to just do a quick.

Four minutes each.

Yeah, that's 150 minutes, so that would be two hours of speaking if we go at three minutes. No, that's more than that, that's 120, that's two hours plus another four, that's almost three hours of speaking. So I'd like to make a motion to adjust the minutes for each speaker to two minutes. Do I have a second, or no? No, I'm making a motion to no. You can say no. Okay, all right, we'll leave it to three minutes. All right, all right, so let's go with the first speaker.

Thank you, Chair. Our first speaker is Denise Mortati, followed by Richard Stewart, then followed by Nancy Keller.

That's what she said. I'm not giving all that...

Good evening. Sorry, I've lost my voice. I have been a resident of Merino Valley for 44 years now. I've seen Sunnymead go from a sleepy town of 26,000 people to what it is now. I am urging you, the Planning Commission, to reconsider the impact of building McDonald's with a drive-through at Ironwood and Pigeon Pass. This is already a very bad intersection. It's congested. There have already been many bad accidents. This location is approximately 300 feet from people's homes. Would you want to have to hear the speaker of a drive-through from your home all night long? Or the trash trucks, the delivery trucks, which they're already saying is going to come early in the morning? And the added congestion. We don't need another McDonald's. This area of Reno Valley, we already have one on Day Street, Sunnymead Boulevard, and on Elder, which are in business areas, not a residential area. They are not close to homes. Ironwood and Pigeon Pass already deal traffic from Canyon Springs High School, the residents of Hidden Springs and Sunnymead Ranch, as well as the traffic that use Ironwood to avoid the backed up freeway. This is a really bad decision. It's as bad enough when the In-N-Out Burger was built on Elder, I'm sorry, on Hemlock, and then a Dutch Brother's built right across the street. The people who live up on Hemlock can't get in and out of their neighborhoods because the traffic is so backed up. Please don't make another bad decision by approving to build this McDonald's. This community does not want or need another McDonald's. My understanding is that Jose's has a lease until the year 2040. Is that correct? Has there been an environmental impact study done? So this all comes down to money, and you are putting money and large corporations ahead of the people of Moreno Valley. Mr. Delgado lives in this community, so it really surprises me that he would vote for this, and he is now running to be on our assembly and to represent us. I urge you to do the right thing and stop this dead in its tracks. Look around, the people of Merino Valley do not want a McDonald's at Pigeon Pass and Ironwood. I again urge you, please do the right thing. Do what is right and not approve this conditional use permit. Having an establishment with a drive-through within 300 feet of homes is just not okay. Please put the people of Marine Valley ahead of the corporate greed. Thank you.

Okay, if you can hang on for just one second. I need a short recess. My screen has gone off. So I need a, yeah, I don't have anything. I can't see the plan or anything. It's gone blank. Not blank, but I could see the E. Yes, the windows, but nothing. The windows, but nothing, nothing there. So I don't know if the tech guy could. Yeah. I don't know if the technician can come up and reboot this or. Yeah, I can imagine while that's going on. Yeah, let's take a five-minute recess so we can get this fixed, and then we'll go on from there. We'll be back at 735.

Everybody knows?

All right. I'd like to reopen the Planning Commission meeting for May 2028 back at, where are we at here?

7.44 p.m. All right.

It looks like we had an additional arrival for the, I guess, the applicant or speaking. And I'd like to give that gentleman some time to speak. Mr.

Chair, and he's legal counsel for the applicant, and I understand the property owner also wants to speak on behalf of the applicant.

Okay, so we have the legal counsel, and we also have the property owner would like to speak. Okay, all right. Now, I don't believe this is part of public speaking. This is part of the applicant. Yes, yes. Uh-oh, okay. Usually when the applicant speaks or the people representing the applicant, there is no time limit. It's a time limit for public testimony. So when the applicant comes up or say a representative or architect or something like that comes up, there is no time limit to speak. All right, sir, go ahead. What's your name, sir?

Mark Rosen. Thank you.

And you are?

I am the attorney for the landlord, the property owner, and I'm here to address any questions you might have about the two eviction lawsuits. There are two cases. I believe both of the judgments are part of the packet that you have. I also wrote a letter two days ago, which should be part of your packet. There are two cases, one is an unlawful detainer that went to trial last September and the court found, that was a one day trial, that the tenant, Jose's, was in breach of the lease and forfeited the lease and was entitled to be evicted. There was a second trial that went to trial, and that was in the courthouse in Moreno Valley. There was a second trial that took place at the historic courthouse in Riverside this past January. That was a four-day trial. And there were witnesses, there was testimony. Mr. Hara, Jose, testified for two days and told the same story that he'd like to tell tonight about how he didn't do anything wrong. The court listened to him, considered all his evidence, considered cross-examination. and found, like the first judge, that he had breached the lease and the lease was forfeited and we were entitled to a judgment for unlawful detainer for possession of the property. Now, the eviction has been held up because the tenant filed an appeal in both cases and there are certain appellate rules that delay an eviction. The point here, and I'll address this in greater detail, the point here is that this proceeding is not like a menu at a restaurant where you get to choose, do I want McDonald's or do I want Jose's to stay? Jose's is going to be gone. And when we're able to, when we have, when all the stays from the appeal are lifted, we will proceed with the eviction. So it's McDonald's or you're gonna have an empty parcel. Now, I wanna go into a little more detail on this. The reason... that Jose's is being evicted is that they built an addition of about a 1,350 square foot addition on the property without getting permits from the city. There had to be building permits to do that. Without getting the approval of the other tenants, Stater Brothers is a major tenant and has basically rights over what is built on the entire shopping center. They didn't get a sign off from the landlord at the time. My client took possession of the property in February of 2023, and he tried to work out an arrangement with Jose's so that they could stay. He said, you either have to tear down the addition, because it was an illegal addition, or you need to pay a little more rent because you've expanded into your property. Jose's refused to do any negotiation at all. And what I'm telling you, I'm limited to a short period of time here, but this is what consumed four days of trial. And so don't take my word for it, the judge after four days of trial listening to Jose for two days said, no, you don't have a defense, you breached your lease. So, my client, Mr. Ramon Azad, spent from February of 2023 to December of 2023 trying to work out a deal with Jose's unsuccessfully. I got involved in the matter in December of 2023 and I wrote a series of letters to Jose or his attorney saying, either you have to tear down this addition or you need to pay a little more rent. and I got stonewalled on that. And then, we didn't initiate the lawsuits. Jose filed a lawsuit, that's the lawsuit at the historic courthouse, where he sued my client and my client's predecessor on the basis that my client and the predecessor were somehow in breach of the lease because they wouldn't agree to amend the lease to allow him to have built this addition, which he had built without any permission from the city. We won that part of the case. The court, basically in pre-trial motions, said, you have no basis to claim that they had to approve your illegal addition, and threw that part of the case out. We then filed a cross complaint, and that's how this ended up where it is. We filed a cross complaint for basically for eviction to say, you know, you're suing us, you're not moving at all. We're gonna enforce the provisions of the lease. And we also filed the unlawful detainer action in the Moreno Valley Courthouse. And that's how we ended up where we were. We didn't wanna do that. We wanted to make a deal. Jose's would not budge at all. uh... and we were forced to take it all the way to trial and as i said two judges have now found that jose's acted unlawfully and we're entitled to possession of the property and that's why we're at where we're at and if you have any questions i'd be happy to answer them any questions no i don't have a question but i believe we're just here for the conditional use permit and Right. I'm here to answer any questions you might have about that. I know it's not pertaining to the conditional use permit, but just it's come up. Somebody claimed that he has a lease to 2040. Well, he doesn't because he forfeited the lease. He has no lease right now. And it's only the vagaries of the appeal process that are allowing him to stay right now.

Okay. I mean, that's not in our privy, I don't think. But whether they stay or they go or whatever, we're here to find out whether the project that is on the docket right now, whether it should be approved or not. Okay. So I'm glad you told us the backstory, but we're just really, as planning commissioners, we're not here for that issue. Thank you.

No, I served on my planning commission for four years. I was on my city council for 10 years. So I understand how these things get decided. I understand that some- I'm glad you said it for the public.

Okay.

Thank you. Now, Mr. Rabanizad, the property owner is here, if you'd like to ask him any questions.

Okay. Is that the... Jacob? Yeah, that's the applicant.

Come on up.

Good evening.

Okay. Do you have anything to add there, sir?

Well, all the things that Mr. Rosen mentioned to you are all basically that's what has been going on. And it was not our idea of changing any tenant, but what has all started has made this to come. And just along this, you know, the McDonald people happened to just – Wanting to have a chance to look at the site and that's where we are.

That's the only thing I could just want to say Thank you, thank you both

Hi, everyone. I'm Ida Cash. I'm also with the property owner. But they were talking about traffic counts and you guys did have questions about what's happening to the tenants. So why were those questions coming up if this is just for the conditional use permit for the tenants? We were talking about the orientation of the building and what's going to happen to the other tenants. So was that part of the conditional use permit or is that not?

No, those questions have to do with the impact. Not just the people that live across the street or the apartment. There are also impacts to the existing buildings that are already there in the businesses.

Understood.

Right. That's why that question came up. Absolutely.

Good afternoon, I'll be brief. I'm the attorney for Jose and Jose's Jara. Holding second, the tenant and the owner of the restaurant. So the two judgments are stayed right now, so the lease is not forfeited. The lease is still valid. We have high confidence that we're going to prevail on both of the appeals. There were very clear errors and abusive discretion made by both of the judges. The first Moreno Valley one, the unlawful detainer, The judge himself ruled that the breach of the lease, the patio, was an uncurable breach. But the plaintiff never gave notice of an uncurable breach. And the judge himself stayed his judgment. It's very unusual for an eviction to be stayed. It's a very high bar that you have to meet. And the other one the judge blocked all of our affirmative defenses Saying that the ruling on the demur which was unopposed was Was a matter had that had already been decided which was entered without prejudice as to Jacob and his entity so that was also a very clear abuse of discretion and that we weren't able to defend ourselves. And the only breach that they alleged, a lot of other breaches that they did not prevail on, they did prevail on the outdoor patio, which has been demolished now, which my client could not obtain a permit to because the owners were not cooperating. One of the owners signed the authorization form for my client to obtain the permit, but he did not notarize it. They were promising for years to cooperate and cooperate with my client to obtain the permit to regularize the outdoor patio, which was built out of necessity during COVID. And the landlord wanted them to build it. The landlord wanted my client to be able to operate and not close down. That was the only tenant that he had at that time, that property. So there's a lot of correspondence back and forth, both of the owners promising to cooperate. So the statements that you just heard are completely untrue. There was never a good faith effort by the landlords to allow my client to regularize the patio. Then they used that, THE PATIO TO EVICT THEM. THEY SUFFERED NO DAMAGE FROM THE PATIO. NONE OF THE TENANTS SUFFERED ANY DAMAGE FROM THE PATIO. THEY ALLEGED THAT THEY WOULD GET SIDED BY THE CITY. THEY ALLEGED A LOT OF THINGS WHICH WERE NEVER TRUE. They never gave a notice of rental increase. They could have done that. They could have said, since you build an outdoor patio, this is the new rent. They never demanded new rent. From the outset, counsel for Jacob said, we've been trying to resolve this with you and you haven't been cooperative, so you gotta tear this down now. That was the 1st that we heard from him after years of communication back and forth, trying to get them to sign the forms. My client needed to regularize the patio. 1 thing that is very important is the conditional use permit that that's based on on on. on their right to possession of the property. They don't have a right to possession of the property right now. And when they began this process, neither of the two judgments which they're now trying to weaponize had been entered. They started this even before they filed the unlawful detainer action in Moreno Valley with Judge Gregory, with Commissioner Gregory. And the judgment in the historic courthouse had not been entered. We had not gone to trial. And during the litigation, we did discovery and we asked them, you know, you have an ulterior motive here. You're trying to evict us because you have other tenants. And they said, no, no, no, we're not trying to, we don't have any of that. And they had already started this process. So that's our background story. I don't know if you have any questions for Mr. Hatter or if you want to add anything.

I'd like to add something to it. One thing that they never did, because they never accused me of an incurable or incurable breach, they never gave me a 30-day notice until that judge. I was not there at that court date when my attorney was there, because I've got to operate the restaurant. So my attorney calls me up. The attorney says, hey, for the first time in another two years plus that we've been in court, Jacob and his attorney had never accused us of having an incurable breach, and they never send us the 30-day notice they're supposed to send us whenever an incurable breach is committed. So when my attorney called me and said, what are we going to do now? It's not. We had their permission. That was built in 2020 with the permission of both owners. Because at the time, they owned the shopping center 100% between them, according to Joe and him. Joe owned 75%. And Jacob owned 25%. So they were both owners of the shopping center. So they were aware about what's going on. Not one of them came in and never complained. None of the tenants ever complained. Stater Brothers, I don't know if they're here or not, but they never complained. The only thing I did was follow the rules, and in desperation, I asked Joseph if I could take my tent that I had in the parking lot and stick it on top of the sidewalk, And before I did that, he had already mentioned to me, well, you can build the patio on the side, on the side of the patio, because no one ever uses it. That belongs to you. We had an existing patio, outdoor patio already. He said, why don't you expand that on the side? And what they do in court, because the judges doesn't do it like you do it here. Allow me to speak. Allow me to say what really happened. He said that, and they denied. Well, we never knew that the patio was being built. That never happened. How can you build such a massive infrastructure? Planning commissioners, I send you a letter to every city official, the city mayor, everyone else, that shows, that clearly shows that he signed this sheet here that says property owner identification authorization form. Joseph signed that as the managing member It says, property owner and managing member of the corporation that owned the center. He was the top guy that gave me permission to legalize a patio that he approved two years before that, which he kept his word. He said, okay, let's build it in a hurry because I don't want you to go out of business. I came in there 30 years ago. As you know, Lucky's was there. Lucky's went out of business. Albertson's came over, went out of business. It was dark for a while. I paid the price. I've been there during good times and hard times. They made me many offers. Yes. They made me many offers.

Hang on just one second, sir. With all due respect to the speakers, we're not here to re-litigate the issues. I think we've heard sufficient information and the information is that there is pending litigation right now. But we're not in a position to re-litigate this issue. That rests with the court.

I understand. Sir, I'm not here. I'm just here to say... I have a question. I mentioned all those things. Question for you. Here, look. Just give me another minute. They made many offers to me, but the only one that I took seriously was not the $1 million offer that they tried to buy at my lease. But Joseph told me, after I turned that one down, that he would give me $2 million for myself to walk away from the lease. I said, okay, now you're talking. But if you're serious about that, put that in writing. And what he put that in writing... was not what he promised me he was going to offer. Instead, he offered me here, and you have it in your docket. If you ask the city mayor, city manager, everybody got a copy of this because we sent it to them. This is what he said. His right-hand person, his main secretary, said to me, hi, Mr. Jara. Mr. Romano wanted me to send you an email outlining your conversation together last week. Landau would terminate your lease Give me one second. This is a livelihood that they're dealing with. You can see it here. He says, upon signing a grand lease with CVS Drugs, we anticipate CVS to pay $220,000. His secretary wrote this, because he also, when he sent it to me, she sent it to me, she also sent it to me. She says, we appreciate CVS, we anticipate CVS to pay $225,000 annual rent. And to trade at 5% cap, the sale would be around $4.5 million. Landlord would then split the profit over $2.5 million plus without a holding. But he didn't tell me that. Weeks before that, he said he was going to give me $2 million and he would keep the rest. That's why I told him, put it in writing. But before he gave me this, I just want to finish this. They have no possession of the property. We still have legal possession. What I'm asking you, to stop the CUP so you can allow the appellate court to make the decision whether we stay or not.

Thank you.

I have a question for the city.

Also, for either the attorney or for Jose, you can also exercise your right to fill in a speaker request? And then also if you have anything additional to say, you can also have those three minutes to speak during our public testimony. Because again, as the city attorney said that we're here for the conditional use and it's great information.

So I'd like to reference that CUP if I can. Would that be okay? And I think that the CUP, how can you have a CUP on a property that you don't have possession of? And I get that you're saying that that is not your place to decide, and we don't want you to be run a judgment on that today. But we have an order of stay. And we've also allowed, I think, something that is your decision is whether we're going to allow a big business with deeper pockets, just because they can, utilize the planning process to harass us, which is what's happening here. They tried to buy us out. It wasn't sufficient for us to do a whole new rebuild. The amount of money, time, and investment we've placed into that location for so many years, we declined. The harassments began. What harassments? I'm, CAM bills. If anyone knows what CAM is, CAM is like HOA, but for a business. They started, you have, according to our lease, six months. Six months. To reconcile your CAM, and then tell us, hey, you know, we paved, you owe this much.

Oh, we owe you this much.

Hey, we reconciled four years ago. You owe 10,000, 15,000. Oh. Can we see the documentation? Decline, decline. So we paid under protest. We paid, it wasn't enough, so now they said 17,000. We paid under protest, no documentation. We paid almost $100,000 under protest, reconciling some years twice. But they knew because one time the $55,000 bill, we said, you know what? Show us the documentation. And so we held on to that and didn't pay for four months. We got an eviction notice. So we paid $55,000 under protest, almost $100,000 under protest to keep ourselves from getting evicted. The point is, is we owe them nothing. We've been great tenants. We've fulfilled all of our obligations. So they do not have possession of the property. How else have they harassed us through court? A big business with deep pockets run you in and out of court trying to squeeze you until you'll just walk away from the lease. Excuse me, Chair.

Thank you. We would like to bring the public hearing back to order. As city attorney said, public common cards could be submitted by the Jose's restaurant owners. I have a public card. So names will be called.

Right, we'll call the names in order, and then you'll be granted the amount of time to speak.

You got this. We built the patio with tens of thousands of dollars.

absolutely sir through deception they forced me to remove it because otherwise they were going to evict me and now we got to find a way to get them to build it back and thank you and we are addressing the cup as the owners which is they don't have lawful possessions they should not be able to get one thank you thank you very much okay i have a question that's regarding the cup to the attorney to our city attorney

Are we legally able to even make a judgment on this when there's pending litigation and there's stays?

You know, based on the documents that my office pulled today, there was two judgments that ordered their eviction. It canceled the lease. So pending the appeal, those judgments remain in place. So the applicant has the legal foundation to submit the application for conditional use permit. Yes, you can consider this project.

Okay, so let's say they've got an appeal going here. So if the appeal ends up in their favor, then what happens to the- It invalidates the conditional use permit. Okay.

All right, now we'll start the public comment, right? And the clerk will call upon each person to speak. So we're restarting the public testimony. And who do we have up?

Richard Stewart.

You called me before and I came up and you guys just kept talking, so I don't know.

You ready? Mr. Stewart, your time hasn't started. One moment, please. So our next speaker is Richard A. Stewart, followed by Nancy Keller, then followed by Seth Cox.

Hello, my name is Richard Stewart. I was on the city council here for 24 years. I'm an attorney, retired Air Force, and I'm also a commissioner of the county on the Airport Land Use Commission. I'm very familiar with this. There's something that I think if you ask your city staff, unless they're going to lie to you, they'll tell you that they will not have done this. When I was on the council, Pigeon Pass was one lane in each direction. Traffic was horrible. We needed money in order to widen it to four lanes from climbing roads all the way to the city limits. There was a project of homes, thousands of people to be living north of the city limits in that empty space up there by Grand Terrace. Their access would have been pigeon pass. So we went to TUMF, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees, to get the money in order to pave Pigeon Pass and widen it. In order to do that, the city staff had put together a report to show how horrible the traffic was on Pigeon Pass and to show that it was so dense and so bad that we needed that money from the county agency. We got the money based on staff's representation about the horrible traffic. Well, that project never got built. Traffic is bad now without that. You talk about 900 whatevers, how about several thousand? We dealt with problems over the years. Poor old Detective Preston got killed coming in and out of that center over there on his motorcycle. We decided we wanted to put a signal in there. Staff told us it's too close to the signal at Ironwood. You can't do that. Traffic manual says you can't put a signal in like that. A PROBLEM WITH THE HOURS OF OPERATION, THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE IMPACT OF A DRIVE-THROUGH, TAKE A LOOK AT IN AND OUT. IT BLOCKS THE RIGHT TURN LANE. CARS MAKE A RIGHT TURN FROM THE OTHER LANES. YOU CAN'T GET IN THERE. IF YOU TRY TO MAKE A LEFT TURN IN THERE OFF OF HEMLOCK, YOU CAN'T DO THAT EITHER. THAT WILL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN. ALSO, WHATEVER YOU DO, ANY SINGLE COUNCIL MEMBER CAN TAKE JURISDICTION, ASSUME JURISDICTION OF IT AND OVERRULE YOUR RULING, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW. So you probably already know that. That corner was carved from a single mountain. Al Chiavatta was the owner for years and years and years. He's probably passed away now. He was a nice old guy. If you want to check on accidents, there's a program in the Sheriff's Department that I used to work with called Switters, and it'll give you your reports on the accident. I've got 42 seconds left. We had a big proposal for a Walmart up at Zantara and Ironwood, and we had the same kind of opposition. There was a Walmart going to be up there in that spot. And even though it would have been a good place and economically good for the city, the city council listened to the residents because it's the residents that elect the people, and the residents can also remove them. It's that simple. And bottom line is, I haven't heard a thing about the school district. Do we have an input, support from them or anything from them? I haven't taken a look at the whole report, but they are a player in this because of the schools and the impact on the traffic, the high school. I go to court in the morning. I had to go to Santa Ana Court.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

If possible, could we have the three speakers that are called to come up and be ready to speak? So we have, what, Seth Cox, and who else next?

Yes, sir, sorry, I had a technical difficulty. Our next speaker is Nancy Keller, followed by Seth Cox, then followed by Mark Rosen. Okay, thank you.

Good evening. My name's Nancy Keller, and I'm the on-site property manager for the Arbors Apartments, which sits right behind the Stater Brothers. We not only have a little traffic problem there, we can't even get out of our complex half the time because people are cutting down Medley Street to miss that intersection at the corner of Ironwood and Pigeon Pass. I've had so many complaints from my residents that they have issues getting to work on time because we can't get out of our property. It's become huge. That signal at Ironwood and Pigeon Pass is so long that they're cutting through our housing track. It looks like the 60 freeway in the morning when the kids are headed for school. There's traffic everywhere. that impedes my 100-unit residence. And it's something the city should look at. It doesn't just impact that corner there. It impacts our neighborhood. We've had serious accidents. We even had a seven-year-old child killed on that street many years ago. I've been with the Arbors Apartments for 25 years, and I have seen it. from the bottom up, and it's horrible up there. And to put in something that's a drive-through is not acceptable at this point. Stater Brothers parking lot is hard enough to get into or out of without having a McDonald's or any other drive-through facility. It's horrible. I just hope you take into consideration not just the corner there, but we're a 100 unit complex right behind there. And we are greatly impacted right now without a drive through. Thank you.

Thank you.

evening uh chairman commissioner staff audience everybody in the foyer um my name is seth cox long term long time resident of merino valley just to be clear i'm talking from a personal standpoint as a citizen not as a commissioner of another merino valley commission um i could play the sympathy card i could play the long thing whether i love Jose's or not, but I won't. I'm a detail documentation. I'm going to read a few things to you for your consideration to possibly update the CUP. Specific use development standard 9.09.80, drive-in, drive-through, fast food, and takeout restaurants. I could read you the purpose, but you could read the purpose. The one I want to part out is minimum development standards. Item 1. When located on a site adjacent to or separated by an alley from any residential zone property, a drive-in, drive-thru, fast food, or takeout restaurant shall not open prior to 6 a.m. nor remain open after 10 p.m. unless extended hours are specifically approved by the Planning Commission. I do not see that in the CUP anyway where you have extended the hours for a 24-hour drive-thru. Queuing, how many cars can line up to order food and get it. Here it is. We meet that one because it only requires eight. We're going to do 22. Our documents are limited. I would say default to some of the state standards on drive-thrus. And some of those are distance and buffers. Some jurisdictions require a 500-foot buffer from sensitive receptors, i.e. residents, and a minimum of 150 feet from the residential zones. Okay? So they counterdict themselves on sensitive receptors because residential zones are sensitive and it should be a 500-foot buffer zone. What else 902 9.0 2.6. Oh and the conditional use permit I Think Somebody has to prove it better The proposal project will not be detrimental to public health safety and welfare or material interest to properties or improvements to the vicinity That's one thing The location design operation of the proposed project will be compatible with existing and planned uses in the vicinity. I don't think that's been proven either. I could go on and on, but I would suggest that you read what's in our own municipal code. If it's not there, elevate to the state and follow their municipal codes throughout. And you could also follow Riverside if you want to because

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Chair. I'm experiencing some latency.

I see a Mark Rosen.

Yes.

Followed by Yannette Wood and Holly Trevino.

Yes, sir.

okay it will be mark wilson okay i'm back i won't take all three minutes i try not to repeat myself just that's my fan club outside um just the point i want to make two points number one is everything that you heard mr hara say and his lawyers say were all said at the four-day trial in the Riverside Historic Courthouse and the judge listened to it, listened to our side, subjected everybody to cross-examination and still ruled that they had breached the lease and forfeited the lease and my client's entitled to possession. The appeal from that case has actually been dismissed because Mr. Hara missed several deadlines and the Court of Appeal dismissed it. They currently have a motion pending to reinstate the appeal, but as we speak, the appeal has been dismissed. And then the final point is, even if you were to approve the CUP and the City Council were to approve the CUP, Nothing's going to happen as long as Jose's is on the site. We're not going to view and we can't view the CUP as permission to override the court processes and go in and remove them. There's got to... It has to be... There has to be possession, then there has to be the actual construction after possession, and then there has to be a certificate of occupancy. Your planning department is not gonna approve construction as long as they're there. You're not gonna issue a certificate of occupancy as long as they're there. There's a certain order to all this that has to take place. But what you don't want is to have the tenant off the site and then have the landlord have to start from square one. You want to be in a position, you know, we always talk about projects that are shovel ready. We like projects that are shovel ready, ready to go as soon as the conditions are met. And I think that's what you want here. So thank you. Thank you.

It's Yvette Wood.

Our next speaker is Yannette Wood, followed by Holly Trevino, followed by Ariana Martinez.

Okay. Are you Yvette Wood? Yes. Okay. And so who's next?

Hi. We've lived in Moreno Valley for a very long time and I will tell you, we are angry about this and we are upset about this. And we're determined to stop it. uh... we can see the negative impact that this is going to have on our neighborhoods i don't know why you can't well some of you can because you live in the area and you know the area but for those of the people saying with the studies and then analysis all of that you don't live there you don't experience it you're looking at it on paper Come spend time in our neighborhood. The traffic is bad. We have one lane in each direction on Pigeon Pass.

Ms. Hawley, please direct your...

I'm sorry. We have one lane each direction on Pigeon Pass and traffic is horrible. Multiple accidents. There was one time a car plowed through the State of Brothers sign on that Pigeon Pass driveway. A drive-through will create increased traffic, noise, and pollution. You cannot tell me 900 plus vehicles more a day idling in line is not going to increase pollution. Then vehicles at night you get cars that get impatient because the drive-through is taking too long. They're too slow You got cars honking the houses across the street. They gotta sit there and listen to it They're gonna have lights shining in their backyards and their windows 24 hours a day. I Wouldn't want that nor would I want to be smelling food cooking 24 hours a day and the wind is going to blow those odors and You've done those analysis and reports. Again, is it real world? Were you there? Or are you just looking at statistics on paper? That's what we want to know. And we demand a full environmental and noise impact report being done during rush hour traffic. Doing a noise study from 10 o'clock in the morning or a traffic study from 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock where everybody's at work and at school, that does nothing. So we're asking you to not approve this project. Prove that our voices matter and say no. We don't want this in our residential neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ariana Martinez, followed by Drew Fossil, then followed by Heather Ramirez.

Hello, everyone. I'm Ariana Martinez. I'm 22 years old, someone from a newer generation to speak here. I don't know everything that is there to be about the Planning Commission. It's like one of my first times being here. But I do know that there is enough McDonald's in the city. McDonald's is one of the leading companies for obesity in this country. There have been cities in California that have implemented a no fast food rule and their overall health has been raised because fast food companies usually use a lot of preservatives and really run down food. I do not know about the federal and law stuff that is going on right now between Jose's and the landowner. But I do know that Jose's is a very beloved restaurant and that a lot of people here today have taken the time to be here. I have looked up that There is only, so there's like five McDonald's in this city. We don't need another one. There is only, there is one that is 1.5 miles away on Sunnymead Boulevard from this proposed spot. 1.6 miles away on Canyon Springs Parkway, why build another one so close? Why in this specific spot that has to completely demolish the building that is already there and the building that has been there for a long time and has a lot of history and the traffic comments that everyone is saying, I don't live near here. But I do know that going near that way, there is a lot of traffic. And I do know that I would not want some 24-hour lights from a building shining in my backyard. I do know that 24 hours is a lot. And to be able to have that going through the night with homes nearby, that is never a good thing because there's a lot of people that have to have complete silence. And usually for that specific shopping center, to get in and out of there is, it's a mess and nobody wants to deal with that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Drew Faso, followed by Heather Ramirez, then followed by Renee Ramirez.

Hello, I'm not a great public speaker, so I probably won't use the three minutes, but me and my family moved into what was called the Dream Street. That's directly across from what was the Lucky's Center. I was there when it became Albertsons and I was there when it became Stater Brothers. My main thing, which was mentioned, the way the traffic flows through that thing now is horrible. I now live in Hidden Springs. So to get home normally, I end up going out on Ironwood, hanging a right, go up Melody, and then hang a right on Climbing Rose and hang a left to get onto Pigeon Pass. The traffic that cuts through Melody already, that street is an absolute nightmare. If you look at it, there's two little cul-de-sacs. Their kids are out playing and here's all these cars cutting through because Pigeon Pass and Ironwood is backed up to that intersection. Between that and I'm retired from transportation and logistics, Martin Brower is the service that they use to supply McDonald's. All large McDonald's like this, they're generally delivered to between 2 and 4 a.m. This involves a semi-truck pulling up, setting their brakes. They're gonna be there about an hour operating a forklift, unloading that truck. All of those neighbors are gonna have to listen to that. They're gonna have the exhaust smoke from that truck and the exhaust smoke from all of those cars queued up to go through a driveway. because of all of those reasons. I don't care if it's McDonald's. It's also, here's another thing, KD's Donuts. This isn't just Jose's. KD's Donuts will be thrown out. Where are they gonna land? It's a small business run by two people. So we're not talking about things that are only gonna affect Jose's. It's also gonna affect that entire shopping center because of the traffic flow. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Heather Ramirez, followed by Renee Ramirez, then Daryl Terrell.

Good evening, and thank you for your time. My name is Heather Ramirez. I am a business owner in the Pigeon Pass Plaza, a nearby resident, and a member of the Moreno Valley community. I want to be clear. This community is not against growth or development. What we oppose is irresponsible development that ignores the serious issues already affecting this property and the surrounding neighborhoods. The Pigeon Pass Plaza is already struggling with serious ongoing issues that PacWest management has failed to address. Business owners are currently paying for security services that have not been provided for months. Concerns about crime, trash, loitering, and property maintenance have repeatedly been brought to management's attention with no response. The reality is that this center already experiences regular public safety issues. I have personally witnessed drug activity right in front of our business. There was an armed robbery at the subway next door just a few months ago. We have homeless encampments, disturbances, and excessive trash that have become common occurrences, while small business owners there are left trying to protect ourselves, employees, and customers on our own because the people who are supposed to be responsible for managing the property refuse to do so. Adding a 24-hour drive-through restaurant, whatever it is, will not improve these conditions and will only intensify them. Traffic and safety are major concerns. The intersection is already congested and dangerous with accidents occurring regularly, including another serious collision that just this week happened, someone getting taken away on a stretcher. Families and children walk and bike through this area every day. A 24-hour drive-through will only increase traffic, noise, pollution, and pedestrian risk. The people opposing this project are not just the business owners. They're residents, families, and community members who deeply care about protecting our neighborhoods, our small businesses, public safety, and the future of Moreno Valley. Tonight, I respectfully asked you to listen to the people who live and work here every day and reject this conditional use permit. This isn't about McDonald's or anything else. It is about the safety of our community. And this CPU is not what is good for this area. Thank you.

Good evening, council members. My name is Rene Ramirez. I am the owner and CEO of Castro Realty Incorporated, and my brokerage operates from the center where this project is proposed. You want to know about community impact. I want to be very clear tonight. This is not about being anti-business. This is about being pro-community. There is a difference between economic development and corporate exploitation of an already burdened neighborhood. Your own reports acknowledge this area already suffers from severe traffic, pollution, and health vulnerabilities. Yet somehow the conclusion is still, let's add a 24-hour drive-through directly next to homes. That does not make sense to the people who actually live and work here. And the people are tired of being told to accept more traffic, more noise, more late night activity and more public safety concerns while being told the impact are somehow insignificant. Because they are not insignificant to the families behind this project and they are not insignificant to the small businesses already struggling here. For years, residents and business owners have dealt with loitering, transient activity, and security concerns at this property, all while PacWest management has largely failed to address them, specifically when it comes to public safety. Jose's is correct when it comes to how the owners manage the property and attempt to bully the tenants. And now we are supposed to believe a 24-hour McDonald's will somehow make things better? Respectfully, nobody believes that. Remember, this project does not just impact traffic, it impacts noise, it impacts safety, it impacts quality of life as well. That matters. And keep in mind, city councils are not remembered for the big box chains they approve. They are remembered for the communities they protect. And tonight, this council has a choice. Stand with the residents, the small businesses like Jose's and Katie's Donuts, and the community asking you to stop this project. Or tell the people living here that their quality of life is simply the cost of doing business. This community has made its position clear. We are not against progress. We are against being sacrificed for it. So tonight, reject this project, because the wrong project in the wrong location does not become a good project simply because a corporation wants it badly enough. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Daryl Terrell, followed by Krista Davidson, then followed by Nikita Wilson.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Daryl Terrell, and tonight I rise in strong opposition to this Conditional Use Permit. Commissioners, this issue is personal for me because I work as a courtesy clerk. If you don't know what that is, it's somebody who bags your groceries, push carts at the Stater Brothers Market. In every... Every time, I've been working there for three years, and every time I gather shopping carts, I see the circulation problems in this center firsthand. I've seen accidents and near misses as cars enter and exit this shopping center. When I say people have already taken their lives in their hands during busy hours, I'm not speaking from theory. I'm speaking from experience. I'm speaking from what I have seen with my own eyes. And that brings us to the question before you, Commission, tonight. Will giving this project the green light make this conditions better or worse? The report states that the project screens out further LSO and VMT analysis because it falls below the technical thresholds and is considered locally serving. But commissioners, a project does not become impact free simply because it qualifies for a screening exemption. A screening exemption is not the proof that impacts do not exist. And the fact that a project qualifies for a screening exemption under CEQA does not relieve this commission of its independent responsibility to determine whether this condition use permit is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and whether it will be detrimental to the public health and safety. Now, the analysis still estimates approximately, I think it's 975 daily vehicle trips and the peak drive-through of 15 vehicles. Anybody who works and shops or drives through this center knows what that means in the real world. More congestion, more circulation conflicts, more pressures on already strained shopping center. And commissioners, this is, where I believe the applicant case falls apart. Because the burden is not on the public to prove catastrophe, it's the burden is on the applicant to prove compatibility. The compatibility is measured not by technical exemptions, but by live experience, and by whether families can safely move through their neighborhoods, whether workers can safely do their jobs. And what I'm saying to you, my former commissioners, I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen people, like I said before, get in car accidents, near misses, you take your life in your trap, I think you should deny this conditional use permit, period. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Krista Davidson, followed by Nikita Wilson, then followed by Laurence Wisniewski.

Good evening. My name is Krista Davidson. I'm a longtime resident. of over three decades, a homeowner, a parent, and I live in District 2, less than a quarter mile away from Jose's. So every day I see what happens in this shopping center. I'm here tonight because I'm concerned about the adverse impact, in your guys' own words, that this project would bring to multiple longstanding businesses, that means that this community would be hurt jose's is more than just a restaurant it's part of this community it's the families that gather there it's where memories are made it's where many of us have celebrated birthdays special events dinners and everyday moments that would be taken away from this community by putting in a dual drive-through fast food restaurant we I'm concerned about the adverse impact of the demolition and then development on the nearby community of the students walking to school. All four schools within less than a mile of this shopping center. The increased traffic, the drive-through noise, the bright lights that would happen, the delivery trucks. the late night activity, which would significantly change the character of this residential area, impacting not only the families, but also the value of the homes in this area. The intersection has been talked about many times. It is a unsafe area, and we don't want to make it worse by adding a dual drive-through into that area. It impacts not only just the restaurant owner, But this impacts the employees, the neighboring businesses that will also be pushed out, the local customers, the overall sense of community in the area. It raises serious environmental concerns. Demolishing an existing building would create unnecessary construction waste, increase dust, air pollution, debris, landfill, while pushing out thriving businesses. The new equipment, construction and noise would impact everyone, as well as the safety of the students and families, as well as those that go into the area. The students at the local schools would be exposed to additional fumes, constant traffic and Lack of safety. These environmental quality of life impacts deserve careful consideration. Moreno Valley already has multiple fast food chains within miles of this location. Why so close? Why would you put one into this building when there are numerous vacant empty buildings nearby? I respectfully ask you to consider this when making your decision. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nikita Wilson, followed by Laurence Wisniewski, then followed by Dan Meeker.

Hello everyone, my name is Nikita Wilson and tonight my comments are of my own. I looked over the staff report and the public plans for case PIN 25-0136. What stood out to me immediately is how much this project depends on traffic circulations working almost perfectly. The applicant's own Kimmel Horn delivery truck analyst on page 14 visually demonstrates the concern. It shows delivery trucks sweeping across shared driving lanes and overlapping regular parking areas during turning movements. This commission still retains discretion over approvals tonight. I encourage the commission to closely review the circulation and the site constraints impacts identified in the applicant's own plans. This is what the applicant is concerned about. And then I just wanna address more of the heart of the matter. Some people had their first job at Jose's, right? For some others, it was a place that helped them pay their rent. It is a restaurant, of course, where she just stated before me, birthdays are celebrated, where families gather after church, graduations, long work days, little league, funerals. I just posted on my Instagram recently and someone said their wife had gotten an award and they went there to celebrate. You know, it's bigger than just meals. This is a place where seniors have frequent, they sit in certain booths, they order certain things. And so I just want to take all of that into consideration, which we all did a lovely job at doing tonight. And I also want to respectfully ask those who have the vote on tonight, if this was your business, your employees, your memories, and your community connections, how would you really vote? Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lawrence Wisniewski, followed by Dan Meeker, then followed by Damonda Johnson.

To the members of this commission and your commissioner, thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Lawrence Wisniewski. I was born and raised in Riverside. My family and I have lived in Moreno Valley for almost 40 years. We will drive from the south end of town to eat at Jose's. The food ambience and staff are great. There's a sense of community there. Additionally, because we are already in the area, we will shop at other businesses nearby. I'm here to speak in strong opposition to the plan to replace a family-owned restaurant, open for 30 years, survive the pandemic, and contributes tax revenue to the city with a multi-billion dollar corporate cookie cutter burger operation. Within two miles of Jose's, we already have a Farmer Boys, In-N-Out, and Five Guys. According to Google Maps, there are no Mexican restaurants within five mile radius. We do not need another burger joint. AT THIS LOCATION. WE ALREADY HAVE THREE MCDONALD'S, THREE JACK IN THE BOXES, ALONG WITH NUMEROUS OTHER BURGER OUTLETS THROUGHOUT THIS CITY. WHAT WE NEED IS MORE FAMILY SIT DOWN RESTAURANTS. IN THE MAYOR'S WEEKLY MESSAGE EMAIL I RECEIVE, MAYOR CABRERA CONSTANTLY BOASTS WHAT FAMILY FRIENDLY COMMUNITY MARINO VALLEY IS AND THAT THE CITY NEEDS AND ENCOURAGES SMALL BUSINESSES. These small businesses are essential to this family-friendly community. The plan before you will destroy a family's dream and livelihood, all for the sake of a faceless corporation. If you believe there is such a need for another fast food restaurant in the area, I strongly recommend that you build it up Pigeon Pass Road in the center where the Ralph's store used to be. That center needs some serious renovation and revival. I am a concerned citizen who in no way is connected to Jose's other than being a loyal customer. The health concerns before you should be the unhealthy food served at McDonald's along with the additional traffic in the surrounding area. I want you to know there are payoffs for you and the city. I want to know what are the payoffs to you and the city for the destructions of Jose's to replace it with McDonald's. Can you share that with us? I also want to remind you of Festus, Missouri, where four members of their city council who voted to approve an unpopular data center were voted out of office. I respectfully ask that you deny this plan. Respectfully, and thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dan Meeker, followed by Damonda Johnson, then followed by Patty Barcia.

So there were a lot of great speakers tonight, and you've had a lot of public outcry that there's over 300 people here standing outside to say probably the exact same thing I'm going to say. My ask is just this, right? Let's bring common sense back to what we're trying to do here. I appreciate the fact that we're doing due diligence and that you're all up here to make sure that we do the right thing. So I'm grateful for that. I want to share that first. With that said, I would say that there's more impact on the community, which is what we talked about, protecting the impact on the community, than you could ever project in what we're talking about doing here. We've heard all the traffic concerns, all the trash concerns, all the things that are there, but also the fact that it is a family-run, independent, operated restaurant that's been there for 40 years. I raised four daughters, dined and shopped here for 30 years, six grandchildren. It's one of their favorite places to go, not because of the food, but because of the people that work there, the people that are here tonight supporting this restaurant, the people that you sit and dine with. That's what community is all about, and that's what we're putting in jeopardy. I can't remember a time that I sat at a fast food place and said, I remember when we did this there, right? I can tell you how many times I sat at Jose's and talked about how great our family was able to spend time together. I will tell you how many relationships I've forged in that restaurant over time. My ask is just that you guys do have some power. I understand this is all about conditional use permit, but you do have some power to really do good due diligence. Take the time to make sure we make the right decision and that our community that all spoke tonight are heard and that you take the time to make sure that this business stays in business. And that would be my ask.

Thank you.

Hello, good evening. My name is Demonda Johnson, and I gotta tell you, the first thing I gotta start off with is what I've heard repeatedly is this is an emotional decision. Well, let me clarify one thing for you. This is a life-altering event. Okay, so let's not mince words here. You guys have a responsibility, and I do appreciate those that are clearly hearing us through basic common sense. I mean, that staff report was ridiculous. Are you serious? Common sense is pretty simple. How many kids have to suffer and die before you start to take responsibility for your constituents? You work for us. Don't get that twisted. Just as clearly as you sit in that chair, you can be unseated. And I guarantee you this, any child gets injured from this because of your negligence, your lack of reporting, your lacking of care, we will take you out of that seat and put somebody else in that seat that cares about all of us. We are people. That's why you are there to speak for us. But if you're going to allow a big business, I mean, anybody that doesn't clearly see that this has everything to do with big business. Basic safety. We're telling you that our safety is at risk in a normal day. You compound, I mean, all you have to do, forget your research, go to McDonald's. They're telling you how they operate. They can't control their egress. They can't control their ingress. Their only care and concern is how fast you can get them in and how fast you can push them out. Well, the problem with that is you're not putting into the aspect of the people that live there. This is not a temporary event for us. We live there every single day. We're not pushed through a drive-through. We try to go out of our establishment, get to our place of work, and we can't successfully do that without having a high concern for our safety. Are we going to go home? Are we going to come home? Are we going to go to work? Are we going to come home? And right now, from what I'm hearing from everybody, is how they don't want to take responsibility for my safety to come home. And that's ridiculous. So let me make something crystal clear to you tonight. My family, my safety, my peace, and my liberty are not for sale. Let's hope you're not selling your seat.

Excuse me, Chair. Just a reminder to the speakers to keep an eye on the time. There is a bit of a delay, so Stacey, if you can also remind as we go through that the time is just a little bit delayed, so just watch the timer there. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Patty Barcia, followed by George Avalos, then followed by Yovana Aguilar.

No? Patty? No Patty? Marcia? Okay. Who's after Patty?

George Avalos.

There's George here. Looks like he's making his way up. Okay, who's after George?

Following George is Giovanna Aguilar, then Jose Jara.

I put a speaker slip in early on and it still hasn't come up.

I came and put it in early.

Okay, could you restart the timer for him? He didn't get a chance to start it.

Yes, Chair, one moment.

All right, well, I don't have a whole lot to say. A lot of speakers here tonight have said so much that I don't want to just keep repeating what everyone else is saying, but I'll just say that I'm a 30-year veteran with those days Mexican food. making a decision to see our restaurant in comparison with with mcdonald's there's no comparison we're a family oriented restaurant that has been in the IE for so long and if you if you look at what mcdonald's is it's there's no connection so making a decision to replace us for For a fast food place is my argument, but it's not a difference of food preferences, it's a matter of injustice that's happening here. I think that's why we're all here. That's why the emotion is in the room, because we feel that there is something wrong with something that's gonna eventually try to fall through to get Jose's out of the picture. I would ask the Planning Commission to consider the facts, and I would ask that you pause your plans for this conditional use of permit. Wait until the appellate courts decide the outcome of this ongoing litigation. And lastly, I want to thank everybody who has come to support my family's business. Let us all pray. for this body to make the right decision, as it says on the wall right above you, in God we trust. So I would ask everybody to pray to make the right decision, and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Iovanna Aguilar, followed by Jose Jara, then Timothy Jaich.

Good evening. My name is Giovanna Aguilar. I'm the general manager at Jose's in Moreno Valley. I've been there for 10 years. I really have nothing new to add. Everybody has been so articulate tonight, and I'm so grateful for that. I know you guys are listening. I know you guys have common sense, and I know that you know that the best thing to do is squash this. McDonald's doesn't need to be here. The traffic alone is one thing to consider. But other than the livelihood of my livelihood is on the line. And I do ask you guys to just do the right thing and understand that changing us or tearing us down for McDonald's is not the right thing to do. So I will leave this rest of my time to Jose Jara, who I'm sure has so much more to add. I thank you for your time.

When does my time start?

One moment, sir. Thank you.

Good evening again. My name is Jose Jaram, the owner of Jose's Mexican Food. I've got a couple of things I'd like to share with you this evening in regards to us being accused of being late with payments, owing $50,000. We don't owe them a cent. In fact, under protest, we pay almost $90,000. And I say that just because the intentions of the individuals that own the shopping centers, to get us out, to get someone else to pay, two to three times more money than we did. But don't forget one thing, we weren't there, we weren't in that shopping center when that shopping center was in a dire situation. It was a ghost town. We paid our price, we sacrificed a whole bunch of things to make sure that we survive in that center. Not today that it's doing a little better thanks to Stater Brothers coming over. They want to get rid of me because now they have tenants. First they have CVS that proposed to pay a whole bunch of money. and blew me out. Now they have McDonald's. We need to stop it. That's really the benefit. The community does not benefit. Outside of this, just please think about this. Our company's got five restaurants. We got a little bit over 100 employees. So many of them been with us 30 years, 25 years, 20 years. We love working together. It's really a family, not just a family with customers coming in, but a family within the company. That's important. We've been paying medical benefits for every one of them since the 1990s, early 1990s, when it wasn't required or mandated by law, by the federal law. When Obamacare came over, you know how much we were impacted? Zero. We were actually offering better medical benefits than what Obama made us pay. So I want you to keep that in mind. We really do care about our people. This is why they've been with us as many years as they have. Also, in regards to us, I shared this in court as I was being drilled for a couple hours. My wife and I have been married 52 years. We both have over, personally, not the business, the business had excellent credit, but we both have over 800 FICO score. I got 842. I checked that about six months ago or so. You know, and that just says, and this is what I said in court, how is it possible that the judge can believe that I am late in payments when I have paid everything personally on time? Here I have... a list of all the checks only from when they took over. The first payment that we made to them was November 4, 2014. We have paid them from that date until the last payment that was made for May. Total, $1,210,375 that we have paid in rent. Never been laid with them one, one time. That's only 12 years, but we haven't been laid in payments in 30 years with them. This is why we deserve to stay. How am I going to do anything wrong? Fail to make a payment when I got offer of $10 million.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Sir. Sir. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Timothy Jaetsch, followed by David Sadler, then followed by Deanna Hargreaves.

Good evening, Commission. My name is Timothy Jaetsch. I've lived in Moreno Valley for 40 years. I've worked out here for 50 years. And I understand business can decide where they want to do business. It's not the Planning Commission's jurisdiction to decide where people want to put a business. But it is your job to make sure that they're doing things with our safety in mind. We'll decide if that business is successful. If they want to come in and we don't want to go there, then that's fine. But it's up to you to make sure that we aren't getting in traffic accidents. I can't believe that they aren't recommending any traffic mitigation at that project. You cannot turn left into or out of that shopping center with any reasonable safety a big bulk of the day. I go there probably at least five days a week, shopping at Stater Brothers. I probably go to Jose's once a month. For me, I mean, I hope Jose stays, but that's not what it's about. It's about being able to get in and out of that intersection. The Seabrook Street there, I remember hearing about them talking about a traffic light at that location, and that was, I don't even know, 10, 15, 20 years ago. because you can't get in and out of there. It's not safe. So the lady here mentioned the section 9.02.060 of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code. I took a minute to look at it. So you guys are supposed to look at the driveway restrictions. Configurations to avoid dangerous left turns across busy thoroughfares. Deceleration lanes to keep arriving traffic from slowing down the main flow of a public street. Street widening and dedication. The property owner may have to dedicate a portion of their land to the city for future street widening. Traffic signals. If a project degrades the level of service of nearby intersections, the developer may be required to install new traffic signals and or pay a proportion of the project. We're going to get stuck. You're going to let this McDonald's come in, and in 18 months, 24 months, you're going to be like, wow, we can't get in and out, and there's 20 more accidents. Who's going to pay? They're going to already be there. You can't go back and say, oh, now you pay. We will pay. So anyways... This goes fast. One thing, the last meeting, you guys were gonna postpone it. The applicant didn't bother to show up. We came, they didn't. I wanna know, they're here today, they can hear nobody wants them there. Why do they wanna be there?

Please direct your comments.

Why do they want to be there? We don't want them there. They can hear us. They didn't have the time or the decency to come last week. You guys should have just proceeded last week, two weeks ago, and just turned them down. They weren't here. You could have proceeded. You guys discussed it. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Thank you, sir.

Our next speaker is David Stadler, followed by Deanna Hargreaves, then followed by Susan Valencia.

Is David here? David Stadler? No, okay.

Our next speaker is Deanna Hargreaves.

Hi, Planning Commission. I really, really want to thank you all for your time and allowing us to take our full three minutes. And I do realize how overworked you guys are and what you have before you. I've probably sent you all 40 different emails since the last meeting, so I'm sorry. I've been learning a lot since the last meeting. I sent you all, I gave you all packets. Obviously, I know you haven't had time to go through it. Most of the residents here have said a lot of what's been needed to say. So I'm not gonna bore you with my letter. I already gave you that in the packet. I do wanna have, I do have some contradictions that the planners themselves pointed out in the project. A lot of contradictions that they pointed out. One of them, did the city evaluate whether unusual circumstances created a reasonable possibility of significant effects that could invalidate the class 32 exemption? There's a ton of questions here. What substantial evidence supports the conclusion that approximately 987 daily trips and 691 drive-through trips will not materially impact nearby residential streets? What true overnight activity directly analyzed before concluding nighttime impacts would remain insignificant? Why was a full environmental impact review not required despite documented PM10, PM2.5 dust, diesel, and operational emissions? This is in their own report. They're contradicting themselves. How are sensitive receptor impacts evaluated for a 24-hour dual drive-through operation? Approximately, in their report, it said 87 feet from homes. So I'm a little confused on that. If impacts are insignificant, why are extensive operational restrictions already necessary? What enforceable monitoring and enforcement mechanisms exist if actual traffic, stacking, noise, or operational impacts exceed modeled assumptions after approval? I mean, I could go on and on and on. They just contradict themselves over and over in there. I want to go into now the fact that I requested the day after the meeting, I sent to your city clerk and everybody through all my emails a traffic impact report. I finally got an email back from the city clerk or somebody. I enclosed it in the pamphlet that I gave to you guys. They can't supply a traffic study to me until June 9th. It's in there. They should have it at their hands right now to be able to give to us if they actually went through this stuff. The staff failed. I'm sorry, but the staff failed and they've made your job harder because how do you be able to, this doesn't make sense. They looked over nothing. What about climbing rows? Climbing rows, this is a big issue. I live right on Barclay Drive. I know how parents cut through climbing rows. They speed and the traffic backs up on climbing rows to pitch.

Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Suzanne Valencia, followed by Terry King, then followed by Don Johnson.

Susanna Valencia? No Susanna.

Our next speaker is Terry King.

Good evening, everyone. I'm not going to reiterate everything that everybody else had already said, but I've lived in this community 30-plus years, raised my children, went to soccer practice. This has been a family environment for everybody that's lived here for that long. Jose has been around forever. And one of the things they said in the paper they handed out today was, and I'm going to read this to you. This is Jose's. My family and I have proudly served the Marina Valley community in this location for over 30 years. During that time, we have never missed rent payments and have built a stable community-rooted business that supports employees, families, and local vendors. This request is not about opposing new development. Rather, it's about preserving an existing, successful, community-serving business that has demonstrated long-term stability and meaningful local impact. My family has gone to Jose's when they were little. My kids, soccer practice. We had our little trophy awards there. They've been around forever. Why would we get rid of a business that does so much for our community? for a McDonald's. I'm not in favor of McDonald's. I don't like McDonald's. It's not healthy. It does nothing for our community. It does nothing for our health. Why would we put another McDonald's in our community? It doesn't help. They have deep pockets. That's why they're coming in and getting rid of a small business. That's not okay. That's not what we're about. We have never been about that. Marina Valley used to be a family-oriented business. I understand that we're growing, but this is not okay. Would you guys please listen to the homeowners in the community? We don't want them there. We're not going to support them. We don't even eat their food. Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Who's next?

Let's not get it twisted. This is about.

I'm sorry, sir. This is Don Johnson.

Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Don Johnson.

Hang on just one second. When you guys come up to speak, just take a peek at the right and you'll see the timer right there so you know as soon as you start it should go. Tell me when. You're good.

Okay, this is definitely about the environment. I am the environment. Chairman, can you look at me? What do you see? Never mind, tell you what you see. You see a strong black man, 72 years old, that walks that block every day that God lets be.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. McDonald's got the dinner bell. We're living on a mountain. There are coyotes. There are mules. There are snakes. There are rats. And the dinner bell? So when I'm walking, I'm going to see coyotes. I'm going to see a homeless getting eaten by some of these coyotes. I'm going to see these rats. I'm going to see these burros getting hit by cars. Grand Denver and the coyotes eating on them. Their blood will be on your hands. And if I get injured saving somebody's life, from these animals, my blood is gonna be on your hands. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mary Hugabaugh, followed by Arthur R. Barr Jr., then followed by Carol Duran.

Sounds like Mary, is that Mary coming up? Okay.

the list is not scrolling so we can't see who's coming up my name is Mary Huckabee I'm a graduate of Marina Valley High School class of 1981 I've been a resident of Marina Valley for more than half of my life right now I am an attorney for the state of California I do not represent any party in this litigation I speak only on behalf of myself Jose's does hold a binding lease with options through the year 2040, and it remains in legal possession of the property while the matter is under appellate review. Despite what either of those attorneys have told you, those cases have not yet been fully briefed. It can be up to a year or even two before those cases are resolved. If you issue a conditional use permit at this time, you put limits on it. One year, two year, I have not had the opportunity to research your municipal code for your timing. However, It is my opinion that the city of Marino Valley should not approve this conditional use permit until and unless the lease is terminated, shovel ready or not, there will be time if those cases are resolved to move a business out and start and approve a conditional use permit at that time. The city attorney talks about due process for the appellant, or the applicant, excuse me. Fine. You've done that. You've given them due process. You've had this hearing. You're listening to our comments. You're taking into consideration the, in my opinion, inadequate report of the staff. There are standards to be considered that you, our planning commission, must consider before making your recommendation to the city council.

Excuse me.

Remember that a conditional use permit is a special zoning exception that allows a property owner to operate a specific business or use that business or use that is not automatically permitted by right. the zoning district it allows the city to evaluate special uses individually and impose conditions to ensure that they remain compatible with the surrounding neighborhood there are no conditions that you can put on this conditional use permit to mitigate all of the concerns that everybody here has been expressing and i will not repeat they cannot be mitigated I am asking that you do not rubber stamp the recommendations of the city staff, that you use your discretion, excuse me, and that when and if the current tenant is vacated, you revisit this. And at that time, we, the residents of Moreno Valley, as should you, demand an independent, full study of not only environmental impact, but safety nuisance. And I refer the city council to the snow versus city of Garden Grove.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Arthur R. Barr Jr., followed by Carol Duran, then followed by Russell Schaffer.

Hello, Commission. I'm really passionate about this because I've emailed both you and both the current and former mayor about trying to get new businesses into the city, but not at the expense of current businesses. I've been basically talking about getting things like Sonic and other things into the city, but not like I said, not at the expense of things like Jose's and definitely not at the expense of the next door donut shop. And and then and like people are saying, the conditional use permit has no grounds because the environmental impact report basically would fall flat on its face because. The traffic within the parking lot and getting out of the parking lot, even right now, is insane. So put the McDonald's there and it would be hell, to put it bluntly. I've only been in this city basically 14 years, but I've been in Riverside itself the last 31 years. So I basically know how businesses work, but this is definitely a curveball for me to see something like this. And like the previous speakers have said, there's at least half a dozen McDonald's and other burger burger joints including the in and out which has actually doubled their Drive drive through space and they still block the on-ramp which is which is a health concern both for Drivers and pedestrians so for for McDonald's to come in here. You're basically repeating what in and out is doing and I'm definitely not eloquent in speech, as you can tell, but I've definitely done my research. Thanks.

Thank you. You did great. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Carol Duran, followed by Russell Schaffer, then followed by Bob Palomares.

Carol, she must be outside. Carol Duran.

Carol left the building.

Our next speaker is Russell Schaffer.

I just want to know who they got to take that safety assessment or whatever because I took my own video up there, about five minute one, and going up to Ironwood, left on Pigeon Pass right there, and the traffic on the right and left side is crazy. You get up there toward Climbing Rose, and you got these kids coming down from Canyon Springs on the left side on those electric bikes and scooters, can you imagine them thinking okay well I got after school I can go over to Mickey D's you know and they crossing that road what's gonna happen I wouldn't want to think what happened so as of today the area around I wouldn't Avenue and Pigeon Pass and Muriel Valley experiencing active community discussions regarding increased traffic especially regarding proposed 24-hour McDonald's Here's what I know about the traffic in that vicinity. Ongoing congestion. They are is described as a high volume zone, often heavily trafficked due to surrounding residential land commercial establishments. Pigeon Pass Road and Ironwood Avenue acts as a major intersection for commuters. Nearby businesses traffic the Stater Brothers Market in the North Moreno Valley area nearby operates during regular business hours from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. AND CONTRIBUTORS COMMUTERS TO LOCAL TRAFFIC FLOW ACCIDENTS REPORTS NOTE THAT LOCAL COMMUNITIES GROUPS AFTER REPORTS ON ACCIDENTS AT THIS INTERSECTION HIGHLIGHTING A BUSY AND PROBLEMATIC SPOT WE AS A CITY DON'T NEED ANY FAST FOOD PLACES IN THAT INTERSECTION AND WHY DO THEY TAKE OUT THAT CROSSWALK OVER THERE Well, due to local safety and upgrade, an intersection was redesigned. The city removed the crosswalk on Pigeon Pass Road near Climbing Rose Drive due to improved traffic flow and reduced rear-end collisions. because of this stretch serves as a busy transit route leading up the hills. They're still having traffic collisions in that area. The most recent accident was May 12th by Canyon Springs High School. A 24 hour McDonald's or any fast food place would be a complete disaster in that area. We don't need no more accidents and pollution in the atmosphere. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Bob Palomares, followed by Luis Palomares, then followed by Kerry Johnson.

Good evening, Commission. Well, you've heard the people. And I would tell the applicant and the landlord that these people that are here, They don't just support Jose's, but they support that entire complex. And if you're not going to listen to them, they might not do no shopping there. You know, they know what they want. And forget about the dollar. Listen to them. They've been there, Jose's, for years and years. And, you know, when you talk about two lanes in a McDonald's, and all the cars that'll be in those lanes, remember, three cars equal one diesel truck. And you're gonna have it constantly? And you know, when summer comes, that's a lot of pollution. So again, I tell the applicant and the landlord, listen to these people. Put that dollar aside and listen to them. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Luis Palomares, followed by Kerry Johnson, then followed by Glenn Barcia.

Louise Palomares, community activist. Tired. Louise Palomares, community activist. Wow, action-packed meeting tonight. I mean, everybody already said it all. There's nothing left for me to say, but I mean, I smell a rat. Somebody's lying in here. Let's really talk about the real deal. Who knew what, when, and how? That's what I want to know. The staff, the applicant. I mean, you know, Jose came up here and... gave all his information, hey, here it is, send it to you, plus the council, plus our no good mayor, but oh, wow. So saying all that, you know, and Jose said, Jose said, oh, he told me that I could put the patio up, but my rent will go up. But why, you know, did he tell him he could do it and then he tells him, no, you know, you're out of here because of that and for other reasons. He's lying, I believe he's lying. You know, it's corporate greed, it's big money. That's what it's all, follow the money, follow the dollar. Follow the dollar bill, that's where it's at. How much more can McDonald's give tax revenue to the city, I wanna know. That's the question I wanna know. You know what, the million dollar question, how much money are we gonna get from tax revenue from McDonald's being there? And the staff, it seems to me, hey, THERE'S A CAN OF WORMS GOING ON HERE. SOMEBODY DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHO, WHEN, AND WHEN. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW. IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S A CAN OF WORMS, AND IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE THAT HAD WRECKS RIGHT THERE COMING OUT OF STATER BROTHERS ON PIGEON PASS. IT'S DANGEROUS. PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN KILLED RIGHT THERE IN THAT SAME SPOT. AND OUR KIDS COMING FROM HIGH SCHOOL, You think they're gonna go to the corner and cross the street? Hell no, they're gonna cross right there where the Stater Brothers driveway is. That's what's gonna happen. It's not when it's gonna happen, it's not if, it's when. That's a matter of time. It's a dangerous spot. Right now it's not that great. It's a bad, it's a rough area. And who's going to be going there? The people at the pothouse? Hey, we ate, we smoked, let's go down there now. We're hungry now. At all hours of the night, mind you. Then getting driving out of there? Come on. It's a tragedy waiting to happen. We don't need it here. We don't want it here. It's corporate greed, it's corporate wealth. I mean... It's an outcry of the community. And nobody, it doesn't look like anybody did their damn homework. Nobody crossed their I's or dotted their T's or looped their Z's either. Something's wrong in this picture. And really, really wrong. Really look at this. I don't think you should go do this tonight. You better really look and study. And I know you have gotten hundreds of emails from the constituents, so hey, yeah, it's not a good idea.

listen to the community thank you our next speaker is uh carrie johnson glenn bar followed by clem barcia excuse me and then followed by rebecca wilking okay good evening my name is carrie johnson i will

admit upfront that I am terrified of public speaking, but I am more terrified of having a McDonald's on that corner. My husband and I had the privilege of watching our first home be built from the ground up in 1985 and our second home in 2003. We raised our daughter here. We've been active in the community. I did something I'm here because I had a feeling something would not be mentioned and that is the actual physical corner. That is a raised pad. The only entrance to that is from the two driveways. Those driveways are horrible already. They are terrible to get out of. I went and did something today that I figured nobody else would do. I went and I sat in front of and put on my Apple navigation, and I checked the distance to the next three McDonald's. One mile to the one on Sunnymead, 1.1 mile to the one on Canyon Springs, 2.1 miles to the one on Paris Boulevard. All three of those McDonald's have multiple entrances and exits. They are not one on each street. And then getting out here to try to get to this council meeting was hair raising to turn left onto ironwood and try to get to pigeon pass i waited through two lights and even then i and the other two cars that were there with me it was very difficult to get out of that and you're talking about bringing in large commercial trucks more traffic and i have seen the almost bumper car atmosphere especially on the weekends in front of stater brothers where are these cars going to go they only have two entrances two exits onto very busy streets and that's why i'm here because there are no other options that is a raised pad on the corner as was just mentioned There have been fatalities there because the people coming out of the residential areas are crossing at their exits, their streets. They are not walking down to the corner, crossing at the crosswalk, and then walking back to the driveways to get into that shopping center. On paper, on flat, it looks like, oh, well, there's the intersection. There's the crosswalk. But it's not a logical crosswalk for most people. And it would not be a logical crosswalk for our youngsters. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Glenn Barcia, followed by Rebecca Wilking, then followed by Sharon Morton.

Can you reset my time? Okay. My name is Glenn Barcia. I'm a 37-year resident. I live on Swan. I'm very familiar with this area. Regardless of the litigation with this restaurant, this shopping center was never Plan to have a drive through. It's totally unacceptable. It would be that it's already chaos in the shopping center as far as the. Travel goes through it and. Putting a drive-through in the shopping center would just cause accidents within the shopping center and then accidents leaving the shopping center. There's no way that they're going to condition that shopping center on the Pigeon Pass side to be right-hand turn only exiting It's already people taking risks crossing straight over to the side street or making a left. Most people will exit by the dispensary, go down the side street and come out on climbing rows if they value their life. THIS IS A COMPLETELY WRONG SITUATION. YOU SHOULD NOT APPROVE ANYTHING IN THAT SHOPPING CENTER THAT WOULD HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH. WHEN THAT SHOPPING CENTER WAS FIRST BUILT, THE WAY IT'S CONFIGURED IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE LEFT. IF YOU WANT TO PUT A FAST FOOD PLACE IN THERE, REGARDLESS, IT SHOULD HAVE NO DRIVE THROUGH. I've been in this community for a very long time. I was a commuter when I was working. I would drive almost 700 miles a week. And coming home to this community, was like a blessing. And as far as I'm concerned, there's only four restaurants in this community that are family-oriented. That's Joe's Italian, that's Dragon House, that's Steerenstein, and that's Jose's. They've been here since forever. And to even propose to have them removed would be foolish. I know that's not your call, having them removed. I know that's the landlord. But putting something in that shopping center that's fast food with a drive-through would be unacceptable. If you want to put a McDonald's, the applicant should look at the lakeside shopping center that's empty on the on the east side towards where the fire station is they have an open pad there there's also an open pads by the district and there's uh the right eight on the corner of ironwood and hecox that would be thank you

Our next speaker is Rebecca Wilking, followed by Sharon Morton, then followed by Ismael Gonzalez.

Rebecca? Not Rebecca.

Our next speaker is Sharon Morton.

I know you probably say, there she is again. But here I am again. I'm for the people. I'm for the city of Moreno Valley. I love this city. Everybody tell you that know you, my whole church know I love this city. But I don't love having people get hurt or killed on that intersection. It's a bad intersection. And it looks, just to look at everybody, you guys look bored, tired, and you look like your minds are made up. But our minds are not made up. We just know that you guys need to hear us out and go over what some of the other people have stated about looking into the traffic during the traffic times. School is getting out in two weeks and one day. Come here, stand on that corner, and watch when schools start. That first week is horrendous. It's terrible that first week, especially going to the high school and the two middle schools that's headed that way, our Pigeon Pass and Ironwood, okay? You guys can dot your I's and cross your T's and made your mind up and you have the people, the lawyers or whatever, you don't have the rest of us in consideration, okay? The families that's going to be tortured by a drive-thru in that area, okay? I go down that street all the time, headed to my church. Five lights, I told you. Five lights to get to my church from that street only. It's not fair to the other businesses over there. It's not fair to Stater Brothers, and it's not fair to the small businesses, the donut shop. We want to keep our donut shop there. We want to keep Jose's there. I think we ought to pack them out and then barcott McDonald's. If it get there, I'll never eat there. I'll never eat another McDonald's for the rest of my life. Okay? We already got kids that's overweight. We already got kids that's dying at the corners. It's not right. What are you guys going to do? How are you going to look at us and we're going to come back here and talk to you same people if one of those kids get killed when that McDonald's shows up? Or the homeless person attack one of the children because they definitely going to be like the rats over there. They're going to be over there for the handouts and begging. You know, build a shelter for them so they can stop doing that. It's not right, guys, to sit up here and dictate to the people who live over there. All these people live there. They're concerned. They're concerned about the safety of their lives and the children's life that go to school there and have to hear those big refrigerator trucks that I hear every day, because I live behind Cardenas, and I hear the trucks all day long as they come there and deliver their produce and stuff. They're gonna hear the noise. It's gonna be bad. Gonna wake people up, babies up, and all of that. You don't have to live there, so you probably don't care, but they do care.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ismael Gonzalez, followed by George Haig, then followed by Linda Hara.

Hello again. My name is Esma Gonzalez. I live in District 2. I hope tonight serves as a testament to who actually runs the city. I hope this is a grain of salt for all of you here on the dais and city staff. You have 45 speakers in opposition to this CUP. You have over 100 people come out in support of Jose's Mexican food tonight. And the organizers behind Jose's have garnered almost 4,000 signatures online in support of Jose's staying around and against McDonald's. I think it's about time that this city clears house, especially with city staff, because you guys are getting paid six figures to go based off of a memo. That's insane. We have a conditional use permit for the construction of a 4,000 square foot McDonald's, and you guys don't have a EIR on hand? Circulation to back up your claims?

Please sir, direct your question.

I'm directing it to you guys, all of you guys. You guys all need to be cleared out because you guys might be experts in your subjects, but you guys have no lived experience in the city. You guys get paid six figures to go off of a memo? That's insane. That's insane. And for you guys up here on the dais, You have a bomb cell of an issue here. It's exploding in front of you. If you approve it tonight, it's only going to go to the city council, and I'm pretty sure they're going to be really upset that now it's come to Verdeus, right, on an election year at that. The city attorney, Mr. Quintanilla, put it... when he said that this CUP is related to the public health safety and welfare of our city all three of those are negatively affected by the McDonald's proposal you've already heard that there's three McDonald's within two miles of the proposed site the Applicant and Jose's are in litigation. Write to your earlier comments, Joanne. Why are you guys sticking your hands on this? Sure, this might be due process, but it's going to blow up in your face if you get involved in it right now. because if they win the appeal, this is all wasted time. So thank you so much for the applicant, for everybody else wasting our time and our taxpayer money on this, when we obviously all want Jose's Mexican food to stay here, right? You can stop it now. And I will just admit a personal truth. I have not eaten at a McDonald's for three years. Why? Because.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir.

Our next speaker is George Haag, followed by Linda Hara, then followed by Mildred Romero.

Before you start my time, I want to make sure the commissioners have this in front of them. Looking at the side that shows the project, and then we'll turn it over to the other side later. I wish the public could see this. There were some copies. But if you look at the project site, I would like you to locate, if you can, the entrance exit that goes on to Ironwood Avenue. Where you see the large building, you can see the cul-de-sacs there on Medley. You need to realize, like David Zeitz said, when you're trying to make a left out of the project, we already have a situation that you can't do it. There's a backup. And look at where McDonald's is going to be. They're going to try to move their traffic into the line that's already backed up, trying to make a left onto Ironwood. Looking at the other side, this is the side I want you to focus on. Once again, locate that exit entrance. And I want you to decide now if you're driving west on Ironwood Avenue. Well, let's go the other way to begin with. Let's say you're leaving the project site and you're going to be making a right onto Ironwood Avenue. And that lane, there's a deceleration lane there. Look at the word Ironwood and underneath it you'll see an arrow. That arrow helps somebody, shows that that lane is to use to make a left on the medley. Once again, you get out of the project, you make a right out of the project, you go over to the middle where the yellow line is in the middle, And you see that in order to make a left onto Medley, you move into that deceleration lane there to make a left into Medley. And under the word Ironwood, you see an arrow that even indicates that you're going to be making a left into Medley. What's going to happen now? People are coming home from work or something else and they want to make a left into the project. Where are they going to make a left into the project? They're going to make a left in that same lane that's dedicated to be making a left into Medley. There's no lane to make a left into the project site. This is, once again, health, safety and welfare. You need to take care of the people. This project is not going to do that. It's causing major safety and health problems. Make findings to do that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Linda Hara, followed by Mildred Romero, then followed by Shatam Odom.

Hello. I do want to start by saying I know someone, a new friend back there told me she was encouraged, and I agree, to hear some of the questions that we asked at the beginning from the applicants. And it made me think, and someone else shared, if we look at SCAG, right, a CUP should be categorically exempt under Class 32. It should be. And in order to be categorically exempt, the project must not result in any effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. And I think that's open and shut. Everybody here that's really studied it, everyone that lives here in the community has shown it affects traffic. It's going to affect noise. You will be smelling McDonald's from across the street into all those communities. It will definitely affect the air quality. The CUP isn't categorically exempt, and I think that is your decision. I know you say it's not your decision whether Jose stays, and I completely agree. That's the court's decision. But I also think it is your decision whether we allow a big business to utilize the processing system, the planning process, to continue to harass. local businesses when they don't have possession of the property. And I do want to say that their harassment has been real. It started with what I said regarding CAM. It started with dragging us in and out of court to litigate. And it starts with our lease payments are due on the 15th by the lease. We get calls into my main office, my two wonderful ladies that work in the main office. They get calls with foul language asking where the beep and bill is when our lease isn't even due until the 15th, right at the beginning. And now they're utilizing the planning process, putting signs up in front of our store, creating – creating tension among our team members, creating confusion and fear for our team members. And that really does affect a small business like us. And so I am asking you to cancel it. I think you have everything you need by looking at whether they are categorically exempt under class 32 and they're not. They're not categorically exempt and I think we could put a pin in this most definitely period for the community whether Jose's wins or not we could put a pin in it for the community period um but i do believe that our justice system is the best in the world and i know that the courts will will see that when they really see all of the the data and all of the facts of this court case so we thank you so much for your time and i thank you for listening as much as you have and i thank the community for their amazing support thank you so much

Our next speaker is Mildred Romero, followed by Shatam Odom, then followed by Rebecca Perez.

Mildred? No?

OK. Our next speaker is Shatam Odom.

It's late, but it's okay. I stay because this is really, really important. My name is Shetam Odom, and I'm a resident of Moreno Valley. I've been here since 2002, and tonight my concern is bigger than whether this project is a McDonald's. My concern is the vision for what we have for our city. When people enter Moreno Valley, especially here near the gateway to one of the most beautiful areas, what message are we trying to send? Are we creating places that reflect health, community, family experiences, and economic growth? Or are we simply approving another project because it's familiar and easy? Many residents have expressed that they want to see something different. We talk about quality of life. We talk about attracting families. We talk about creating destinations where people want to gather, dine, shop, and spend time together. Yet when opportunities arise, we continue to see the same types of development. As a parent, and as someone whose child has asthma, I carry concerns about the cumulative impact of development decisions on our community. But beyond that, I'm asking a broader question. What is the long-term plan for Moreno Valley? I go to Mr. Cabrera's, Mayor Cabrera, which I have a lot of respect for him. I go to his little town hall meetings, and he always talks about the vision of this community. He does, and I believe him. That's why I don't understand why you would put a McDonald's in a place like that. And it's a beautiful area. And I'm not saying that other areas are not beautiful. I'm just saying, what makes you think that's a wise decision? I know there are a lot of things that you guys have on your plates. It says that about 3,900 buildings or things that are happening. Moreno Valley's moving fast. It's getting bigger. But we have to think about quality. Just down like this, the Blue Zone, it's like 20 minutes away. Think about having another McDonald's. What does that do to the quality of life here? I live here. I'm not going anywhere. I don't know if you guys live here, but I live here. I love this place. But there's no way I'm going to stand by and allow you guys to just make decisions without really thinking about the risk and the health of my baby, my child, and everybody else's. Guys, you can do better than this. And I said this last time. With much respect, I just want you to think about that. I don't know how many McDonald's they own, the farm or the people. No disrespect. I don't know if it's a family venture, if they own all the McDonald's or whatever. But this is a community. We don't want another box place here. Please consider what we're saying. And by the way, this is the most diverse community ever. And this is black, white, Hispanic.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rebecca Perez, followed by Abraham Sanchez, then followed by Deborah Diaz.

Rebecca Perez. Okay. Abraham Sanchez.

Yes, and then followed by Deborah Diaz.

Thank you. I'd like to clear up a couple of things. First of all, I'm humbled and just greatly impressed by the community of Moreno Valley. It's really amazing how many people came and how prepared they are. And the research that they've done, it does look like, you know, based on the application and that they do not meet the requirements for the conditional use permit. They're not 500 feet away from the homes. They don't meet the requirements for the exemption. that the impacts to the health and safety of the community are, given the intersection, are clearly negative. So it shouldn't be approved on those grounds. I think Speaker Mr. Seth Cox outlined it very well, as well as many others. Just very impressive You have a great community here and not you you should you know, listen to them and and try to keep it that way regarding the litigation What your city attorney said is incorrect The appeal process One is automatically stayed. That appeal will be reinstated. We didn't miss the filing deadline. We filed the notice of record on appeal through the e-filing system instead of filing it through the e-submit system. It's just a technicality of the Superior Court. They use the e-filing system for all civil filings and limited civil filings benefits and filing to do with an appeal that has to be filed and the Superior Court has to be filed through the e-submit. So it'll be reinstated and that's an automatic stay on the Riverside case. On the Moreno Valley unlawful detainer case, the judge issued an order and then had to issue another one because the plaintiff, in contempt of the court's order, went seeking a writ of possession. When the judge had expressly told Mr. Rosen that the stay is still in place, notwithstanding that, he went and tried to get a writ of possession. So we had to go to the judge, and that stay was... reissued, so both of them are state. They do not have the legal right to even apply for this right now. And thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Hello, good evening, council members. I'm Deborah, and I'm a member here of the community. Forgive me.

Just one second, on your time. The time reset. Oh, okay.

All right, well, I'm a member of the community here in Hidden Springs, and I fell in love with this community since me and my family moved here. I have two babies, and I really love just the slow pace that we have currently. What kind of slow pace? Not really, but compared to Riverside, where I came from. And so I really appreciate that. And I appreciate some of the council members who have pushed back and asked questions about what the planning commissioners and the data that has been presented. So I do appreciate that. And I've heard so many amazing things from the community members. I am just in awe of like everybody that's here showing up so eloquent and just raising their concerns. And I just want to raise up my concerns also that just by hearing what the numbers and statistics that we've heard or just the fact that there's just not much data that is actually something we can stand on. Data, statistics, numbers can be kind of pushed and kind of interpreted in the way that whoever wants. And I feel like it is your job to look and really pry into that data and really see, is it really what you're saying? I mean, we've already heard they've only conducted these traffic analyses during their convenient times where it's not going to look like it's going to cause really any type of extra damage. extra traffic collisions but we all know from experience from everybody that has said it over and over and over again that yes it's not a good idea and yes traffic is going to get worse and there's going to be accidents so i really really uh urge you to pry into those numbers pry into the analyses do not let this pass we are urging you to please do that for us You are the ones in power. You are the ones that can do it. We are asking you to please look at those numbers and interpret it in a way where they can see the reality that we've been telling you. Interpret it so that they can see and we can show and we can shut this down with the reality that everybody here has been seeing. We've even heard from the architect that they're using a wait-and-see approach. We are not an experiment here. They don't even have clear mitigations for traffic. They're not making it better, so how is it going to be better? How is it going to be insignificant change? They're using a wait-and-see approach, and I don't want to be that experiment in this community. We've just heard so many things. Also, we've heard about crime. It'll go up. It's just, you know, putting a McDonald's there on that corner. We're going to see transient people coming in. You know, we're going to see people doing drugs. We're going to see more crime. It's just, I don't think it's really a aha. I think we all know this, you know, and we just need to show it on paper. I need you guys to show it on paper. I need you to really... do your due diligence to make sure this doesn't get passed, because it all has to do with what's on paper.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Roy Blecker, followed by Christina Torres, then followed by Lindsey Robinson.

I too am extremely nervous as this is my first night public speaking. In exactly 30 days, it'll be 65 years since I stepped on this ground. I've watched the iconic and legendary Riverside International Raceway flourish and then go. Watch the orange groves and the wheat fields go bye-bye. Businesses like Monte Lumber, Bradley Florist, Alamo Markets, and the list go on. Out the door. Do not. I repeat. Do not. flush KB Donuts and Jose's down the toilet. You've heard everyone so far come up in this community, and a lot of great points were made. You know, conditional use permit is a 100% discretionary decision by you and or the city council. As the city attorney said, you got to make a finding in fact that doing this project is going to improve this community. I think the community has spoken and spoken loudly. that this project will not improve the community. In fact, it will degrade it. I mean, I've supported CPUs, and some of them I haven't. Some of them are good. That's why we have this process. That's why we're here today. It isn't necessarily that the property owners are bad people or anything like that. Hey, it's business. You roll the dice and you take your chances. Sometimes it comes up 7-11. Sometimes snake eyes. That's the chance you take. So please keep the heritage. Keep some. Don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Let's keep some. of what made this community. And maybe one day before I'm looking at the roots of the grass, I can be back proud of being from this land.

Our next speaker is Christina Torres, followed by Lindsey Robinson, then followed by George Luis Valos.

Do I start? hi i'm christina torres well that sure went by fast resident of marino valley since february 1988 so i've seen a lot going on here um but um i want to say all the community members so far have done a really great job of speaking i agree with uh so so many of the great points that they've uh put up but um i have to say also um i haven't always agreed with miss paula mara's on things here over the years that i've been coming to planning commission meetings and city council but i agree with her on this that there's something wrong here and uh Yeah, there's, I don't know what's going on. It seems like a feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys, between the landlord and Jose's Mexican food. So I don't know what's going on there besides greed, which is one of the seven deadly sins. Just putting that out there. And I do want to say that, yeah, I don't have any good memories of going to a fast food restaurant, which I rarely go to anyway. It's been at least 25 years since I've patronized a McDonald's. Back when my kids were still little and occasionally we would get the little happy meal. But I haven't been to one in at least 25 years. But I've been to Jose's Mexican Food a few times this year already. I don't go out to restaurants a lot. but that's one of my favorites here in Marino Valley as a longtime resident. I love that place, take my hiking friends there when we've been hiking in the Fox Springs Mountain and stuff, we go there. My whole group from the Mojave Desert came down and where did I take them? Jose's Mexican Food. Yes, that was like a year or two into the pandemic when the outdoor seating was there. We went there, we had a great time. I got great memories of going to that place, even just this year with my friends and family and stuff. So yeah, I don't need a McDonald's, certainly don't need it there. We don't need all the traffic problems, the air pollution, light pollution, noise pollution, and everything else. Anyway, just want to put that out there, and I hope the landlord reconsiders after listening to all this stuff that, you know, maybe you need to step back and let this go and let Jose's Mexican food stay here. It's a great place, and we don't want the McDonald's there. That's all I can say. So thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lindsey Robertson, followed by George Luis Avalos, then followed by Lloyd Stowers.

I've noticed several things over staff reports recently, well actually over the last year. They're all very similar and it all appears to be AI and chat GPT because I made up a project and I put in make a favorable report saying it doesn't need CEQA and that's what it looks like the staff is doing because this obviously needs CEQA. You're here to determine whether there are detrimental effects of this affecting traffic, noise, air quality, public safety, and compatibility. Everything is detrimental, this project. They're talking about ingress and egress, and no one mentioned the fact that a big semi-trailer trying to pull in off of Ironwood, that is a very narrow driveway. Sometimes it's even too narrow for two cars, one turning right and one coming out. So they're going to have to widen that, but they didn't say anything about widening the driveway. What really bothers me is the staff report that said the environmental consultant advised that there are no adverse effects to traffic noise and air quality, which is BS. And I'd like to know who the environmental consultant is, because our city has a horrible track record with environmental consultants who always give us severely flawed EIRs. noise model used the city accepted noise limits. They're not realistic and I speak from experience when Solaris paper company opened. I live a couple miles north of that and 24 hours a day it was large lot noise. People closer to it could not have their windows open and at 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. it would go off when they clean the tubes and wake everybody up and The city said, oh, it's acceptable noise limits. And I asked for data. There was no data. It turns out they just put up a little machine for 10 minutes and said that's the acceptable noise. Well, at my house, two miles away, it sounded like there was a generator going in my front yard 24 hours a day. And that's not acceptable. I'm sorry. So staff is using bad consultants. They don't have real data. And this project is totally detrimental in all of the environmental aspects that you guys are required to vote on. So please vote no. We don't need a drive-through there, whether it's Jose's or something else. As one person said, that was not designed for a drive-through, and it doesn't need a drive-through. Thank you. And staff.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is George Luis Avalos, followed by Lloyd Stowers, then followed by Nathan Urena.

No George?

Okay. Our next speaker is Lloyd Stowers, followed by Nathan Urena.

Good evening. My name is Lloyd Stowers. I live on Barclay Drive, and usually at this time of the day or night, I'm in bed. But this is very important to me, and the reason why it's important, because we talked about the traffic in the area, and we know how bad it is, but it's really bad at night. And let me explain that. From about 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., The traffic, you have people racing up and down Ironwood Boulevard. And they're going at such high rate of speed that there are times, like three or four times a week, I have to get up because it just wakes me up. Now, let's just add a McDonald's to that. So with that said, let's just say the traffic increases by, let's say, 10%. We're going to have that traffic going up and down the street. waking people up, and most of the people in my area are senior citizens. And at this point, and I'm going to keep this short, the only thing that should be open at 3 o'clock in the morning is a hospital. That's it for me.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nathan Urena, followed by Heather Kay, then followed by Tangela Ford.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, staff, residents of Marina Valley. I am deeply touched that so many residents came out to speak on this matter. I just want to look out. Do we have any residents from District 2 here? Thank you. This is our community. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, do you know how many drive-through fast food restaurants are in District 2 off the top of your head? There are three. A Del Taco, a Jack in the Box, and a Carl's Jr. off of Elder Avenue. Whereas in Districts 1 through 4, there are dozens. Now why is that? Fast food drive-throughs do not work in District 2. They do not work. Now, it seems to me that some developer looked at the plot where Jose's is and saw the little alley behind Katie Donuts and thought, this would be great for a drive-thru. Let's put it here. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, previous months ago when there was a call to put more individuals on this planning commission, the community spoke up against that. They said, that this commission has the experience, the integrity, the knowledge of how this city should be planned and built. And accordingly, the council deemed it that you would stay in your seats. Now, I say this as a fellow commissioner within the city, it is our role to focus on the policy that will improve this city and recommend to the city council favorable options which will benefit the community. I do not see how a CVS pharmacy on this corner or a McDonald's or anything other than a family owned restaurant which has been productive for over 30 years in the community would benefit that. We have seen the issues with traffic. We have seen the issues with crime. And if you go to any other McDonald's within the city of Myrna Valley, especially at nighttime, you will know that there is classical music playing on loudspeakers. Why is that? To deter vagrants, to deter criminals, and to keep away individuals that the business doesn't see fit. Now, I don't live directly off of Ironwood, but I can imagine anyone who lives off of Ironwood and Pigeon Pass does not want to be hearing Mozart at 2 a.m., Just my opinion in that sense. So I say, as civil servants, as individuals trusted to represent the interests of this community, go by our motto. What is our city's motto, anyone? Marina Valley, where dreams soar, where dreams soar. Mr. Hara and his family have built this community's favorable restaurant which has served District 2 for over 30 years. That dream is soaring. Do not shoot it down for a McDonald's. Please, we do not want another 250 fish filet come spring. We don't want that in our neighborhoods. We don't.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Heather Kay, followed by Tangela Ford.

We're almost done, guys. Are you awake? Good. Okay. I'll be very quick. High-volume drive-through operations tend to be associated with increased nuisance, police calls, loitering, littering, vandalism, and traffic congestion, which we've all heard tonight. Also... Jose's and Katie's are small mom-and-pop businesses. We cook our food fresh. No preservatives. It's like your at-home meal. No offense to people here who are trying to take over, but...

Please direct your comments.

I'm so sorry. Their food does not expire, according to some. And we don't want that in our town. We don't want that in our community. And, you know, we take pride in everything that we do, serving the food to the great community that's been here supporting us tonight. I plead and I pray that you are all listening to each and every one of them who are against this for any and all reasons. Let's just say no to it and turn this CUP down. Say no way, Jose. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tangela Ford.

Hi, guys. Thank you, staff. Thank you, commission. I really do admire you guys. I want to be on the commission one day, just throwing that out there. But while I'm here, on the matter at hand, I would like to say that according to SCAG, the Southern California Association of Governments, To be categorically exempt under class 32, a project must not in any significant way interfere. Hold on, let me read it. I tried the memory, it didn't work. Okay. The approval of the project, to be exempt, this is one of the five qualifications, the approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. In opposition to the consultants, we can see for free, everyone has given testimony of how traffic would be adversely affect, and thus, I don't think this project is exempt, categorically exempt, so if we're here to determine if it is exempt, I think that it's clear that it's not. just with the effects of traffic alone, according to SCAC, if it qualifies under this Class 32, which it doesn't. And I just wanted to say that. Have a good night, and thank you for giving us our full three minutes, and thanks so much.

Thank you.

We have no more speaker cards, Chair.

All right, well, if there are no more speakers for public testimony, then we will close the testimony at 10,000 years from now. No, 1018 p.m. and move into deliberations. Or if we have a motion. You know, I don't often go first.

Oh, go, go. So, again, District Two has come out in force when they feel something is wrong. They've done it in the past, and they have fought hard for what they want in their neighborhoods. It is in our decision whether there's a court case against us or not, whether Jose's his neighbors or family, which they are, We are here to decide whether this CPU is viable. I'm gonna make it short and sweet. We've heard it all. At this point, I may step on toes, but I'm gonna go ahead and do it. I am gonna go ahead and make a motion that we deny this CPU. under public health, safety, and welfare of our citizens. We have inadequate traffic reports. We'll have definite airtight pollution from the 24-hour cooking. We will have air quality problems with the stand and the traffic. We will have safety problems because of the traffic. I stopped that area. two or three times a week. And I am choosy about what time I go there because if it's in the evening or whatnot, you cannot get in there. So again, I'm gonna redo my, I'm gonna motion that we deny the CPU for public health, safety, and welfare of our public. And that's what we're up here for. EEN 25-136. I am putting a motion in to deny it. Mr. Chair?

Now, it's critical that we have sufficient findings of denial, and so I kept track of some of the comments that were submitted through the public testimony, and I have some findings of denial to offer for the record. Thank you. Again, this is based on the public testimony, and in the context of these public hearings, public testimony is considered to be credible evidence. So, if I may, I'd like to read those into the record before there's a second.

I didn't think we were finished deliberating. Okay.

Absolutely. Okay, again, this is all based on public testimony. The proposed project will be detrimental to public safety in that based on public testimony, there is already severe traffic congestion in the vicinity of the project site, which will be exacerbated by the additional vehicular traffic the proposed project will generate. The proposed project will be detrimental to public safety in that based on public testimony, the proposed project will add more vehicular traffic in an area where there have been numerous near miss accidents and serious accidents and fatalities. The proposed project will be detrimental to public welfare in that based on public testimony, the proposed project will contribute to late night traffic on Ironwood Avenue, which will interfere with the sleep of residents, which includes many seniors who live along Ironwood Avenue. The proposed project will be detrimental to public welfare and public safety and that based on public testimony, the proposed project will increase loitering and police calls. The proposed project will be detrimental to the public health in that based on public testimony, there is concern over the cumulative impacts the air pollution produced by the proposed project will have on children with asthma. The proposed project will be detrimental to public safety in that based on public testimony, the proposed project will add more vehicular traffic near the State of Brothers driveway where there have been numerous near miss accidents, serious accidents and pedestrian fatalities. The proposed project will be detrimental to public safety in that based on public testimony, the proposed project will produce more crime. The proposed project will be detrimental to public safety in that based on public testimony, the proposed project will exacerbate existing traffic conflicts which will endanger pedestrian scooter riders and bicyclists. The proposed project will be detrimental to public safety in that based on public testimony, the proposed project will exacerbate existing traffic congestion at the intersection of Pigeon Pass Road and Ironwood Avenue, which will endanger pedestrians crossing streets at this intersection. The proposed project will be detrimental to public health in that based on public testimony, the increased number of vehicles created by the proposed project will expose students in the area to increase fumes. The proposed project will be detrimental to public health in that based on public testimony, the increased number of vehicles will add to local air pollution. The proposed project will be materially injurious to nearby properties in that based on public testimony, the increased traffic congestion will impact nearby property values. The location of the proposed project will not be compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity since based on public testimony, it will add additional drive-through establishments. in an area that will enhance the traffic conflicts with the existing large volume of traffic entering and exiting the existing large parking lots servicing the existing larger businesses in the vicinity. The location and operation of the proposed project will not be compatible with existing land uses in the nearby vicinity in that, based on public testimony, The addition of another drive-through use situated near State Route 60 on ramps and off ramps will create additional traffic congestion and exacerbate traffic conflicts. The proposed project will be detrimental to the public welfare, materially injurious to the value of nearby properties due to noise associated with early morning delivery trucks servicing the proposed project. The proposed project will be detrimental to the public welfare in that based on public testimony, the proposed project will enhance light pollution in the vicinity of the proposed project. And finally, the proposed project will be detrimental to the public welfare in that based on public testimony, some members of the public find the smells generated by McDonald's offensive. And that's it. And again, these are all based on public testimony.

Okay, with the motion made for denial of PEN 250136, I'll second it. All right. Okay, can we have a vote?

Yes, Chair, we'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Zaitz?

Yes.

Commissioner Steffen? Yes. Vice Chairperson Baker?

Yes.

Chairperson DeGeneres? Yes. Motion carries.

All right, so it looks like the motion carries. Do we have a staff rep?

Yes, Chair. Please let the record show that the motion passes 4-0. Actions taken are final unless an appeal is received by the Community Development Director during the 10-day appeal period as outlined in Section 9.02.24 of the Municipal Code.

Okay. It looks like the next thing, we will move into the next item, but I would suggest a short recess. so we can possibly not have the eyes glazed over here. Let's return in about 10 minutes. All right, we're going to reconvene the planning commission meeting of the city of Mariano Valley at 1041 p.m. It has been a long time since I've seen 1041 p.m. Sitting here. But this is fantastic. Bring the people, speak, let us know what's going on. So we're gonna move right into item two, which is an ordinance adopting logistic use facilities, mitigation measures, negotiated with the city attorney general's office, PEN 26005. And it looks like Commissioner Sykes has something to say about that.

Basically due to some of the paperwork and stuff on some major changes on this, I would like to ask for a continuance till next meeting to give us time to review the changes that were given to us today. Do we need a motion for that or?

Do we go through the staff report first?

Thank you, Chair. There's a motion on the table. If there's a second and the Planning Commission would like to continue, that is at your discretion.

I see. So it sounds like the motion is to continue it based on us receiving some changes and what you say, you didn't have enough time to go through them?

To review them properly, yes.

Okay. All right. Do we have a second? Second that Thank You chair we take a roll call vote, okay, I

Chair, if I may ask, if the motion maker might amend the motion to continue to a date certain so we avoid having to re-advertise the item for a future public hearing date, if we continue to date certain.

Yeah, I said our next meeting.

Thank you.

You can fill the date in. Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

And we have a second, so can we have a vote?

Commissioner Zaitz?

Yes.

Commissioner Steffen? Yes. Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Chairperson DeGeneres? Yes. Motion carries. Okay.

All right. We don't have to go through any of that. It's continued, so no public speech. It looks like we're going to go right into item three, PEN 260019, which is amendment to the Village Specific Plan 204. Do we have a staff report?

Yes, Chair. I'd like to introduce Claudia Manrique. She's going to be providing the staff report on this item.

Good evening chair and council members This is pin 26 0 0 19, which is a Pacific plan amendment the amendment to the village Pacific plan SB 204 is based on direction established in the recently approved MoVal 2040 general plan and the city's approved housing element for cycle 6 which is through 2021 through 2029. As you can see, the project was funded through a regional early action planning REAP 2.0 grant that we received from the Southern California Association of Government or SCAG. partnership with the Western Riverside Council of Governments . This funding enables us to update the village plan to align with broader regional goals including increasing housing opportunities, promoting sustainable land use and transportation, and supporting climate and environmental adaptability. The partnership between SCAG and ARCOG ensured that the project benefits from both regional coordination and local expertise. And the funding allowed us to have a consultant team help us on both the edits to the document and required CEQA. Now we have a map, this is the area that's included in the village plan. The area approximately is covered from south of State Highway 60 and it's generally bounded to the north by the 60 as well as Frederick Street to the west, Hecox Street as well. and then Paris Boulevard to the east and all the way down south to Dressia Avenue. This is a zoning map that's included in the plan. The highlighted area mostly that's shown as a peach or orange color is the VR, which is Village Residential, and that was the main area that was updated with our work here. At Project D, the city saw a need and wanted to use this document to promote additional housing types for the city. This is to include housing types for empty nesters, multi-generational families, students. The housing demand and rising costs required in this area gives us an opportunity for more options and affordability. And then it was just the aging plan that really needed to be updated, as well as the last thing, which was to implement the housing element program 3D, which is lot consolidation. And now I want to introduce our consultant from Judact. And we just appreciate all the work and effort that was given, again, through the funds that we got through the REAP grant. Part of the program, we had our public engagement. We had two successful workshops. And then the partners with DUDEC also did some community partners interviews so we could get an idea of what people wanted to see in the area. This is the updates that we were able to do. So we're doing the zoning, again, for the VR. Currently, before the general plan, MoVal 2040 was put back in place, was 15 dwelling units per acre, and now it will be 20. And this, again, makes it consistent with the general plan that was approved April of this year. And then the development standards, we updated to match the R-20 standards. And then we put in place the lot consolidation plan, again, to address the housing element program 3D. And then again, just lastly, to modernize the document itself. And staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2026-10, recommending that the City Council determines that the addendum prepared for the MoVal 2040 revised program EIR. which was certified by the council on April 21st of 2026, complies with the CEQA requirements and approved the village plan amendment. Staff and the consultants are available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any commissioner questions for staff?

Anyone? No?

OK. Looks like no questions. OK. So it looks like if there's no commission or question for staff, we'll open up the public hearing at, always look at the time there. 10.51 p.m. I guess the applicant is a city, so I don't think you have to speak again, or would you like to speak again? No, okay. All right. All right. Okay, so we're in the public hearing at 10.51 p.m. I don't see on the deal here, are there any public speakers?

Roy.

Roy.

We do have public speaker cards, Chair.

Okay.

Our first speaker is Ishmael Gonzalez, followed by Roy Bucker.

There we go. Ishmael got in front of, okay, there we go.

Hi, hello. It's full circle, this conversation. I began with my first public comment explaining to you how city staff and this planning commission, with the exception of David, failed to just go through the GPU, right? To go through everything. There's hundreds of pages, and you guys approved everything with elements still out for consideration, just like how we continued the... Attorney General's matrix, the ordinance, right? We just continued that. That's part of the GPU. I'm not sure why the city felt it was appropriate to certify the whole thing in mass. I want to point out something that was left out of the staff report. The workshops that were had for this project, SP204, was held the day after certification of that general plan update. Isn't it a coincidence, maybe a little fishy, that the city already had plans for this workshop before the GPU was certified? And it explains everything. The city has the state breathing down their neck for more housing, even though a lot of the housing projects that are being considered especially in my district district 2 are impractical just to be honest you're trying to put art r10 r15 r20s in district 2 where it's a wildfire area this one is a little different it's near sunnymead um but that area that neighborhood i go through it very much i would hope that the city staff goes through that neighborhood uh as well uh it's a problem for parking if you go down there it's already very densely populated uh and that's not a problem i think everybody loves their houses there but what you're trying to do is up it from 15 to 20. that means that whoever has a vacant lot or maybe some uh extra land and on their property they're gonna be able to renovate, add ADUs, add more people. Where are those new people gonna park? On the street where there's no parking already? It really seems unpractical, right? And my concern is that pink dot right in the middle of that map that was shown i hope you guys can bring it back up but what i was told at that workshop is that that will be a commercial area for this new development and i hope that you guys can really add some uh new stipulations some strenuous stipulations to protect everybody in that neighborhood from having another sprouts or another corporate shopping center, we have a sprouts not too far off from that area. And they want to, you know, your planners want to add more commercial, it should be commercial to benefit the community. You already see you already saw tonight.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Roy Blacker.

What pains me is the misleading information we always keep getting. You heard affordable housing? If I remember Jernigan's latest project, which they upped to 30 per acre, which we're paying for, half a million dollars for one-bedroom apartments. Tell me how that is affordable. Tell me how. W-R-C-O-G-S-C-A-G-E. What a great acronym. Tell me how as we've increased the land density, how housing or anything else has gotten more affordable. I challenge everyone and I will give you as much time and we'll broadcast it to the world. Prove me wrong. Your job up there is is to not rubber stamp this stuff. Your job up there is to question this stuff. This is why we run into what we had earlier and what we've had in 40 plus years in this city. When do we up the talent level? The intelligence to be able to actually provide what once was in this area where you could have affordable housing. Where you did have opportunity. Where if you were starting out as a young person or a family, you could come to this community and start building a future and a life. That's gone with exactly what you just saw there. And yet you stand in silence. No questions, no this, no how did that? Again, the fundamental question, how did housing density make housing more affordable? That's what you were told. That's what all these acronyms and government agencies have done to the people. It's time to not be silent. It's time not to accept. It's time to challenge stupidity. When do we step back and do that? If you don't, Go look at Venezuela, China, or any of you, Guatemala. That's what you're going to run this place and this whole country into. Pay attention.

Thank you. Any other speakers?

I have no more cards, sir.

Okay, at this time, if there's no more speakers, then we're gonna close the public testimony at 10.58 p.m. and move on to deliberations or a motion.

Yeah. Motion? Okay, I'll make mine quick. Sorry, get the train stopped here. 20 houses per acre. Do we have the infrastructure for that? I know a lot of them are gonna be coming in with ADUs where they're not allowed any kind of parking or they'll put one car, one parking spot per unit and with today's society, you have multiple families living together or multiple generations. I don't mind the high density if it will work. I don't think this would work because we don't have the infrastructure in that area to do it yet. Yes, it is a better place than the Northeast Inn or the North Inn where they're jamming R10s where there were R2s. This is a very highly populated area, but I just don't feel right if we cannot back up with infrastructure which is transit, bike lanes, parking. alternative transportation. At this point, until we get that set up, I don't want to see jamming this much in there. It's like putting the cart before the horse. It just doesn't make sense unless we have the infrastructure planned or going in. That's just my feeling on it. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a problem with it too, I really do. Putting 20, like David said, in an area where we really don't have the infrastructure, and I've seen some of the projects that were passed in the past, and they almost look like dominoes. They're just like row houses. And it's just the quality of life. or the residents, it's kind of like baffling to me. And then if we don't have the infrastructure to support all that, we're gonna run into big problems. So I don't know, maybe I'm tired, but I just, when I saw that, I just was like, wow. Yeah, row houses.

Is that zone now R15, is that correct?

The zone now is R20 due to MoVal 2040. The general plan changed the zoning in April to R20. This is just to have the development standards and the plan changed. meet the R20 standards. And then we also have the lot consolidation plan.

When we did the general plan, we passed that for an R20 in that area, is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

Nothing we can do about that, right?

Right. This is just for the development standards.

That just stands then? Because I know that I was on the general plan committee, but then with COVID and then plus we ran into an issue with getting re put up here. So I was ended up not being on there. So I don't remember that. So it was probably done after they didn't put us back on to the dais. But no, I guess if it's something that was in the general plan.

No, my understanding is that we're trying to make the development standards match the 2040 general plan update. Without that, they don't match. And so we have some inconsistencies there.

I just don't really care. Right. I think who was on that thing should have looked at it.

That was us three.

No, because I got... Oh, you got pulled off. We got both pulled off. the same thing. We were supposed to be re-upped and we weren't re-upped, remember?

No, no, that's right. You guys were gone.

We were taken off.

Go ahead, throw your mic.

With the development of the little red dot that he was talking about, will those particular areas or businesses go in, will have to come in front of us for CPUs? Did I say that right? Commercial commercial commercial is It already based on what's going to be in there or are they gonna have to bring it back to us to prove?

What is put in there right most entitlement application types in the area for all the zoning in the village most likely will come back to Planning Commission The exceptions would be ADUs, custom homes, maybe a small duplex. But the commercial uses, especially along Sunnymead Boulevard, as well as that area that was pointed out, which is VCR, those projects will be coming to Planning Commission.

Yeah, because we just did a project, I think the last time, where the gentleman put in so many apartments and then he put two AUDs, it almost looked like three, and I was told that's going to be the norm. So I guess we're going to be seeing a lot of those. They decide to do that. Do we have a motion? I'll do it. Adopt Resolution 2026-10 recommending that the City Council determine that the addendum prepared to the Moreno Valley 2040 Revised Program Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2020-039022, which was certified by the Moreno Valley City Council on April 21st, 2026, complies with the applicable provision of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines and Approved Village Specific Plan SP 204 Amendment PEN 260019.

Second that good job Okay, we have a vote Did anything show up on your screen chair, okay, we'll do a roll call vote Commissioner Zites, yes Commissioner Steffen? Yes. Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Chairperson DeGeneres?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Okay. Do we have a staff wrap-up?

Yes. Let the record show that the motion passes 4-0. Tonight's action by the Planning Commission is that of a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed specific plan amendment. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be considered by the City Council at a notice public hearing in the future.

Okay. The next item on the agenda is item number four, the Municipal Code Amendment PEN 260059. Do we have a staff report?

We do, Chair. Tonight, Senior Planner Miguel Del Rio is going to be presenting this item.

Good evening, Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. Miguel Del Rio, Senior Planner. The item before you this evening is the Spring 2026 Omnibus Municipal Code Amendment. This municipal code amendment revises and updates various sections of Title IX, planning and zoning of the municipal code for the purposes of clarifying and streamlining various entitlement processes and development standards related to temporary uses and multi-family residential projects. The proposed amendments are as follows. Amend section 9.02.150 titled temporary use permits to add homeless resources fair slash outreach event including those with mobile shower units to the list of permitted temporary uses that can be conducted within with the approval of a temporary use permit. And amend section 9.03.040 titled Residential Site Development Standards to eliminate the minimum 35% site landscaping requirement for multifamily residential developments. This amendment would align the code with section 9.17.080, titled Multifamily Residential Development, and establish that section as the primary regulatory text in the municipal code governing landscape requirements for multifamily developments. Additionally, corresponding amendments are proposed to the landscape standards handbook to remove the existing requirement that multifamily residential developments maintain a minimum landscape area equal to 35% of the total site area. Staff recommends that the planning commission approve resolution number 2026-11 recommending that the city council find that the municipal code amendments are exempt from CEQA and introduce and adopt ordinance next in order approving the municipal code amendments based on the findings set forth in the attached planning commission resolution. This concludes my presentation. I am available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Are there any commissioner questions for staff? Not everybody at once.

Okay. Then do we have a motion?

Okay. No question? I mean, we can either, we can go, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. You're right, you're right, you're right, you're right. Okay, if we don't have any commissioner questions for staff, I believe the staff probably won't speak on it again, just a guess. And we'll move into public comments. The clerk will call upon each person to speak who's requested to speak. Do we have any public speakers on this item?

I have no speaker cards, Chair.

I know, I was jumping the gun there. All right, so then we'll close the public testimony at 11.10 p.m. And do we have a motion and a second, or we'll move into deliberations? What do we got? Come above this. Yeah, there it is, it's right there.

Yeah, go for it. This move that we adopt resolution 2026-11 recommending that the city council find the PN 26-0059 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act percent section 1506. And then also introduce and adopt ordinance next in order approving p.m. 26 0 0 5 9 based on the findings set forth Search Planning Commission resolution attached. I'm sorry attached planning resolution I'll second it I

A blank screen?

Blank.

We'll move to a roll call vote. Commissioner Zaitz?

Yes.

Commissioner Steffen? Yes. Vice Chair Baker?

Yes.

Chairperson DeGeneres?

Yes.

Motion carries. Okay.

Do we have a staff wrap-up?

Yes, let the record show that the motion passes 4-0. Tonight's action by the Planning Commission is that of a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Municipal Code Amendment. Pursuant to Section 9.02.050 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission's recommendation will be considered by the City Council to notice public hearing.

Okay. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is other commission or business, and we have no other business. We move on to the next item. On the agenda is staff comments. Do we have any staff comments?

Chair Desjardins, all we have to offer is at the next regular scheduled meeting of June 11th, we have one item scheduled for a conditional lease permit for a 132,000 square foot self-storage facility on a vacant three acre site located on the east side of Indian, north of Alessandro Boulevard and south of Bay Avenue. We also have the continued item for tonight regarding the Logistics Warehouse Mitigation Measure Ordinance. So those are the two items we technically have scheduled for the next meeting.

All right. The next item on the agenda is Planner Commissioner Comments. Do we have any Planning Commissioner Comments?

Nope.

Wow, okay. Well, I'll say one. Thank you, staff. You guys did a fantastic job. It's a lot of heat that you guys have to take. I will say that sometimes the public is sometimes uninformed about the scope of the decisions that we can make. And sometimes... they could perceive that if it is a legitimate mistake, that you're doing something purposely. And I just don't believe that at all. So I think you guys do a fantastic job. I really, really trust the information that you guys do give us. I read the information, and I think you guys do a fantastic job. Despite what the—never mind.

No.

No, no, you guys do a fantastic job. But I really like hearing from you guys and the information. Yeah, I'll stop talking because I can see the glazed over eyes right now. I have them too. So therefore, the planning commission will be adjourned at 11.14 p.m. to our next regular meeting on June 11, 2026 at 6 p.m. Thank you.