Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

good morning am i too fully caffeinated today let me let me calm my voice down good morning everyone and um welcome do you want me to wait okay welcome to the planning commission meeting of july 16th this meeting is called to order please play the recording

Pursuant to the City Council rules of procedure and order of business resolution, the members of all Boards and Commissions and the public are reminded that they must preserve order and decorum throughout the meeting. In that regard, members of the Boards and Commissions and the public are advised that any delay or disruption in the proceedings or a refusal to obey the orders of the Board or Commission or the Presiding Officer constitutes a violation of these rules. The City of Riverside is committed to fostering a workplace that provides dignity, respect, and civility to our employees, customers, and the public they serve.

Thank you. Will Commissioner Mooney, good morning ma'am, lead us in the pledge?

thank you um and with that we will go ahead and open our general public comment public comment is now open for this item call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting to request to speak press star nine when called to speak press star six to one mute you can also join via zoom the meeting id can be found on the agenda

Just for clarification, for those who have joined us today, this is just for general public comment on any matters outside of the actual hearing items on any other matters that are under the jurisdiction of this body. I don't have any speaker cards for general public comment. callers no callers online and we do not need a motion to close the public comment session so we'll move on to our consent calendar our consent calendar is just to approve the minutes of our June 4th 2026 meeting may I have a motion to approve the consent calendar thank you we have a motion in a second any further comments if not please vote motion carries thank you I do want to acknowledge that we have a few of our fellow commissioners out today commissioners Montero and Tunison are out ill and Commissioner Alderette is out of town all right at this time the Planning Commission will open the public hearing to receive public input regarding planning case PC 2025 dash where are my glasses sorry pc 2025-00983 good morning good morning

Thank you. Honorable chair and members of the commission, Angela Coyabia assistant planner. The case before you this morning is a request for a tentative track map, minor plan, residential development permit, and design review to facilitate a 10 unit minor plan, residential development. The project is located at 2443 Mary Street, situated east of Mary Street between Francis Street and DeGrazia Road. Surrounding land uses include a variety of single family developments, including large lots, standard size single family subdivisions, condominiums, and planned residential developments. This slide shows the existing conditions of the project. The two-acre project site consists of a single parcel developed with a 2,404-square-foot single-family residence and detached two-car garage to remain as part of the project. Access to the property is provided from Mary Street. The project site is zoned R1-13000 single family residential. This zone is consistent with the general planned land use designation and allows for the approval of a minor plan residential development. The project involves a tentative track map to subdivide two acres into 10 single-family residential lots and lettered lots for water quality basins and a private street. Lots 1 through 9 range in size from 5,071 square feet to 6,165 square feet, and Lot 10, containing the existing single-family residence, is 20,098 square feet. The proposed project has an overall residential density of five dwelling units per acre, which is permitted with the approval of a minor plan residential development permit. The proposed new single-family residences range in size from 2,651 square feet to 3,121 square feet and will feature four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a loft, office space, a porch, and attached two or three car garage. Vehicle and pedestrian access are provided from a proposed private street. The project also proposes nine on-street guest parking spaces on the private street. Each residence features private open space. Lots 1 through 9 private open spaces range from 1,547 square feet to 2,263 square feet, while the existing residence, Lot 10, will have 16,513 square feet of private open space. The conceptual landscape plan provides an attractive and welcoming environment with the inclusion of shade trees, high quality landscaping, decorative pavement entry, and decorative lighting throughout. The project offers one floor plan in three different architectural styles, farmhouse, prairie, and Spanish. Lots that face Mary Street have an enhanced architectural design that include a wrapped porch, siding, and window shutters. Each resident will include at minimum a two-car attached garage and full-length driveway. Since the publication of the staff report, staff received 11 letters in opposition of the project, expressing concerns related to traffic, parking, solid waste collection, infrastructure capacity, and compliance with the Riverside Municipal Code development standards, including neighborhood compatibility, density, and lot size. The proposed project has been evaluated for potential impacts related to traffic, parking, public services, utilities, and infrastructure. Staff has concluded that the proposed development would not result in significant adverse impacts in these areas and that adequate public services and infrastructure are available to serve the project. In addition, staff has determined that the project complies with applicable zoning and development regulations, including standards related to density, lot size, setbacks, parking, neighborhood compatibility, and the intent, goals, and policies of the general plan and zoning code. With that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed tentative track map is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, subject to section 15061 and 15332 of the CEQA guidelines. as the project will not have significant effect on the environment and approve Planning Case PC-2025-00983 based on the findings outlined in the staff report and summarized in the attached findings and subject to the recommended conditions. This concludes staff's presentation. The applicant team is here to address any questions the Planning Commission may have.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your presentation. I broke my microphone. I'm having a hard morning. Thank you for your patience. All right, with that, thank you again for your presentation. Would the applicant please come forward and state your name? Good morning.

Hopefully I don't break this one. Good morning. My name is Andrew Woodard Thank You honorable chair Commission and city staff. I want to first off. Thank the city staff we worked long and hard with them to go through different iterations of the design and I think we landed on something that really Attempted to you know fit the neighborhood but also provide a quality development for the neighborhood and We don't have much else to add. City staff's been great to work with.

Do you agree with the staff's conditions and other recommendations?

We do. We accept all conditions.

Okay, perfect. Nothing else to add?

Nothing else to add. Just thank you.

Thank you so much. At this point, we will go ahead and open up public comment for this item.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Thank you. First up is Mr. Clark Taylor. Good morning.

Hello. Yeah, this will be a new experience for me, and it's something I've never done before.

We're glad you're here, sir. You have three minutes. Thank you.

You know, when Mr. Burke, a few weeks ago, walked up our garage, my wife and I were getting ready to take a trip, and he presented his plans and knocked us over. I live in a house that is, you know, directly next door to the planned development site, and When he talked about it, I was really upset because I thought, why haven't we heard about this before? Why didn't we have any input into the development of the plan? The original owner of the plan, of that property, who sold the property to Mr. Burke, said that Mr. Burke had planned for, and I knew this before, had planned to put four houses on the lot. Now it's 10. So what's changed? We live in Horden Hills, which is a very beautiful old traditional Riverside neighborhood. And all of a sudden, this high density tenement is coming into our property, right in our neighborhood. There will be traffic issues. There's going to be privacy issues. There's going to be noise issues. All sorts of different things are going to be happening because this is a high-density place. You've got large homes. They cost almost a million bucks apiece, $900,000 plus. And because of the tightness of the layout, what I see is these are not going to be homes attractive to single families who are capable of buying a million dollar or $900,000 house. They're going to be bought by developers and investors and then rented. And when you have people renting $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 a month homes, you're going to have multiple wage earners, families living in these houses. I see this all over in new developments in Riverside. So what happens is we end up with a lot of people, a lot of cars, a lot of pollution, A lot of noise. All these things are happening. And I'm living right next door to this, where it's been very quiet. My wife and I have been there for over 40 years. And we've developed a environment. Anybody who's ever seen my house knows our house has a very special place. And so we have this very beautiful environment. And now we're going to have these two-story houses Basically blocking our sunset views. And these houses are going to be huge. They'll be 2,700 square foot, two-story houses. And they'll be right up next to the property line. So to me, it's like, this is not a good fit for our neighborhood. I wish that the city planners will decide to oppose this. Because I think the main thing is this, what I see is there will be a lot of serious personal and safety issues that would be affected by this. Anyway, thank you for your time. You had to speak very quickly.

Thank you so much. I hope it was a good first experience. Next up, we have Steve Altboytis. Thank you for the phonetic pronunciation assistance. I really appreciate it.

I had to, yeah. Go ahead, please. Okay, real quick. I'd like to make it clear that we are staunch opponents of this development right here. And I really feel bad for the elderly community within my neighborhood. I'm on the corner of Mary and Francis. A lot of them can't make it here physically, and they don't really understand the technology to even get on the phone to oppose this. However, they're not happy, especially Louise, who lives directly in front of this development. So I want to speak on their behalf as well. From a technical aspect right here, I do notice that there is, and I also submitted that via email to the planning, that there is definitely an active red-tailed hawk nest and I don't know what the urban development buffer is however there is one and if that could be looked at by a biologist I would greatly appreciate it because it definitely falls within the protected species first and foremost secondly if the construction is my business this is what I do on a major level you know, multi-million dollar projects with the state of California and a utility, electrical utility. So I'm used to seeing these things. So I do understand withstanding are things like SWPPP, fugitive dust, track in, track out, OSHA, and all the things that come with it. So, you know, there are concerns with this. I know there's going to be outages, you know, that's going to have to happen if they're going to bring electrical in, which is going to impact us on the street. the utilities with water, you know, the wet and the plumbing as well. They're going to break up the road. It's going to definitely change that. And like he said, we do have a major issue. You can't even leave. I live right there on the corner. I have to wait quite a while if I leave past 7, because there's just a line literally from the canal, and even sometimes further, just to get through that stop if they stop. And I can tell you this, many people do not even pump the brakes. And I'm really surprised that there hasn't been a fatality yet. I don't wish this on anybody, but the fact is it is unpatrolled. I've talked to officers about it, and they say, well, how come we haven't seen anything? Call 311, whatever it is. And we have.

Nothing.

And I don't know what the reason is. Common sense will tell you, hey, someone take a look at this. It's dangerous. So we're going to go ahead and overpopulate the street with as many houses that there are there now in one little area. And my last question to the council here, the commission, pardon me, is that do we even have any legal rights to this? Or is this completely up to you? That's my last thing I have to ask. Do we have any rights at all or is this completely up to the, at the discretion of the commission?

We're not allowed to respond.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Jelani Bakari, please. Take your time. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you very much for providing me the opportunity. My name is Jelani Bakari. I live at 2465 Mary Street, which would buttress the homes that would be built, and it would be ingress, egress, the same area. Really, I have one main thing to say. in looking just at the map, in looking at the community, in looking at the whole map of the city for a public hearing, which you guys sent us, it would be so different than the whole community that You know, when they say reasonableness in law, this flies in the face of reasonableness. On that one block, Mary, where they're going to build 10 homes, there's only 8 to 11 homes on that street, on that one side. And so from eight, it's going to go to 18 homes in a flip of a switch. And if Ballard does the same thing, now that's 15 to 20 homes. If I do the same thing, that's 15 to 20 homes. And do we set a precedent to put 45 homes, homes, not condos, not little small homes, where there were eight on that street? Is it reasonable to the people on the other side that has nine houses? So in a place that has 20 houses on the whole street from Mary to the other corner, We're going to put 10 houses on two acres. What precedent does that set? And in my opinion, it absolutely destroys the community. It's almost setting the community up to fail. And your job is to hear us. and to understand that we came before you and asked. Don't set us up to fail. Don't do that. It's not reasonable.

Thank you for your comments. Next up is Martha Valentino. Good morning.

Good morning. Again, this is my first time doing this, so I'd appreciate your patience.

We're glad you're here.

And one of my neighbors actually brought this to our attention, and I appreciate that he went around and gave us the information. And I live on the corner as well of Mary and Francis across from my neighbor Steve. And one thing I will say that whatever assessments or evaluations have been done, the traffic and public safety is completely underestimated. He is correct, and when we need to leave for work or my children need to leave for school, I need to take them. The traffic is coming up from Overlook. We are usually used as a cut through of Alessandro, and we get backed up so much. Cars will not stop, and that's in the morning times typically when schools are. But I will tell you, my husband and I are outside. We garden. We keep our property up. We try to maintain the look of our home. And consistently, cars run the four-way stop. They don't even do a California roll. There are families that are constantly walking their children to school. There are constantly families that have their bikes. So if we already have a traffic issue as it is, where cars just roll by, or there's people on the other side of Overlook that maybe own sports cars. I see Lamborghinis, Ferraris. They take off from one speed bump. to the next one with no consideration of the four-way stop. So that's one thing. And I agree with all of the comments that my neighbors have made that this project will absolutely ruin what we have existing. i live on the corner and before we moved in there's a home track right across the street and it's tara lane that homes were built there too and those you can tell are track homes but there are only five or six track homes that were built they're spacious they don't need a private entry they don't need a private street so now as jelani pointed out we're going to put 10 homes where there's already Only eight homes were more than doubling. You know, one of the things I know, my neighbor mentioned he's a contractor. I work for a financial institution and have done so for 35 years. And looking at this, getting the information, there's a lot of things that are impacted besides the community, the traffic, the resources that are there. To me, the other thing that comes down is greed. It comes down to financial greed. You need to put 10 homes to maximize for what? To make more money. That's what it is. And maybe the project like this, it could be necessary. But can we modify the project? Can we look to see what can be done to fit more into the neighborhood? A crowding of 10 houses. on that amount of lot is absolutely going to impact the look of the home and the community itself. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Diane Whitney, please. Good morning.

I appreciate you hearing our comments today. As you can tell, we're all very passionate about this. I raised my kids for 30 years on Mary Street, right down the road from where this is happening. And for the past 14 years, I've lived on Marsha Court. My side block wall butts right up to these properties. We have that house number 10 right over the wall from us. We're already dealing with obnoxious loud neighbors who are blaring rap music that's very offensive. They're constantly yelling at their dog, Karma. This whole project is not cohesive with our area. We are all on larger lots. I had a half acre on Mary. I have almost a half acre on Marsha Court. And all the homes around me are similar to that. And to cram those 10 homes onto two acres, is absolutely absurd. It doesn't fit with the cohesiveness of our neighborhood. And I was going to state exactly what Martha did, that it comes down to greed. They want to put as many homes as they can. I have no objection to development. And if they want to put some maybe four, maybe five one-story homes on that area, My husband and I have no objection to that. The other issue is, and I know probably nobody cares about this, but I have a 25-year-old stepdaughter who is disabled and very childlike. I'm paid by the state to take care of her. And whenever work is done in our community, even if a lawnmower You know, someone has the lawn guys show up or someone's getting a new roof where we have to deal with something for a few hours or maybe a day. It really throws her into a frenzy. And I'm really concerned about our quality of life when all this is going on. I mean, she is going to... It's going to be a real problem for us. And like I said, I understand development. We have no problem with that. But this group of two-story homes crammed into two acres, it's absurd. And I appreciate you listening to all of us and all of our concerns. And also, I can vouch for what they're saying about everybody running that project. stop sign constantly. I walk my dogs every day and every single day people are just running right through it and the traffic on Mary is absurd. I could never get out of my driveway when I lived on Mary Street until someone kindly would stop and, you know, motion for me to go ahead and back out but it it is a real problem and um i hope you listen to all of us and our concerns and maybe make some changes to this development thank you thank you uh the last comment card that i have in chambers is uh colleen griggs

Good morning.

Hi. Good morning. I hope this finds you well. Our neighborhood that we're speaking on is delightful. Please, I really encourage you to keep it delightful. It's about keeping peace, right? Peace is so important in our lives. So thank you for the time. I do oppose this many homes, and I live in this neighborhood, just a couple of houses up onto Warden. I wasn't given notice of this, which I think, in my little opinion, you should be going a little bit further out, notifying other homeowners at least a few blocks away, because this impacts all of us. It creates noise and traffic, crowding, right? That's a big deal. While people in the city parts may enjoy that or in their youth or Even in their elder days, maybe they want to be in a tight parameter. But I bought that home for my family because of the peace and the serenity that's in our neighborhood. I paid extra, a lot extra. I pay a lot of taxes. And I pay a lot in inequity for that peace. When you crowd people, it causes stress and animosity and violence. It does. I have an extensive background in psychological development. I was an educator. And now I'm in real estate. And I know that people are willing to pay more for peace. If you don't help with... listening to the needs of our human behavior, you're going to create violence. I see it. I feel it. I listen to what people want out there in real estate. They want to be safe. And when everybody is too tight, it creates a big problem. So I liked the word that I think Diane used with cohesive. We have to be cohesive. We have to work together. But pushing that many homes together is too much. And that's coming from a real estate agent. I want to sell homes, but I most importantly want to create a feeling of peace and connectiveness with people.

God and maker and we can't do that when we're so scrunched we just can't thank you for your comments ma'am you're welcome thank you I have no other cards now is your last chance anybody else here to speak on item number three is there anybody online thank you everyone for your comments no callers All right. Seeing no other comments from the public on this item, may I please have a motion to close public comment? Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. All right. Motion carries. Now we'll bring it back to the commissioners. Commissioner Wilder, please.

Yeah, I have a few concerns regarding this project. On the entry to the project, there's no curb returns, which kind of flies in the face of being able to be ADA compliant. It looks like there's just a regular drive approach. Is that correct?

Can you turn the mics up? Because they're all seeming pretty low. They're on. Yeah, it's on. They are low.

Good morning, Commissioner. I'm Chris Nieto, engineer for Public Works. The current drive approach proposed is ADA compliant per our standard, and it's following our standard.

OK. the one of the other items that I noticed is there's no turnaround the the street dead ends into a private property and because it's a private street I understand that but the width of the street really doesn't allow for somebody to be able to turn around unless they back into somebody's private driveway. That's a big concern. There should be a turnaround, not only for local traffic, but also for trash trucks, any other emergency vehicles. That can be an issue.

uh sir if you look between lots uh eight and nine they actually fit in is there any way to put it up on the screen sorry to interrupt no no problem i'll give you a second so we can look at it while we're discussing So it's a little hard to see on the plan, but it is shown on the preliminary grading for sure. Between lots 8 and 9, they have a hammerhead turnaround for fire access, which will also be utilized for a city service trash truck pickup, meaning that trash services will be picked up along the private drive and not along Mary Street, which I know is a major concern with multiple parties. So they'll be using residential bins along their private drive to pick up trash and utilize that turnaround for not only fire and emergency access, but also for trash services. It is a little tough to see, but it's kind of drawn in there vaguely.

That's the area that was listed as turf block. Is that correct?

Believe so. I'm sorry my notes like I have to pull it up.

But if you notice it's a separate driveway kind of shown between the lots Yeah, the issue with turf block though is it's By the design it's made to blend in with these surrounding landscape Because grass grows up through it How is that going to be delineated? as a turnaround

That's a good concern. And we can look at it and even change the surface materials if it's something that we find is inadequate for all services. And maybe we can circle back with fire and our trash services to verify something like that is even visibly useful for the standard staff member.

Okay. And that still doesn't, you know, take care of the local traffic that needs to turn around without, you know, they're not going to be aware of this designated spot for emergency vehicles. They'd still, you know, need to pull into a private driveway in order to make a turnaround. unless they back out onto Mary Street.

So another option, we can work with our traffic division to kind of come up maybe with some more signage, even some painted curb with extra designation, if that's something that could be a major concern. Definitely, we can draw more attention to it with a few other items using traffic-related apprentices.

Yeah, I just have a hard time wrapping my arms around.

This type of design that with this many homes understood understood and given the the layout I'm The the Turnaround was necessary for multiple reasons so they did fit it in I can see where we could stare at as far as adding some visual cues for residents and the public to make it more useful and

We have the – just – Yeah, I was going to say if the applicant wants to respond to that as well.

Yeah, Commissioner Walliter, that's a great point. With the turnarounds, we always go back and forth between, obviously, public safety's first priority, but also with planning how to ensure that's not an eyesore, too. But I understand your concerns about the turf block. The project and the ownership and the applicant is important. is open to exploring different alternatives. We've used, like, a compacted decomposed granite in areas like this in the past, too, to kind of delineate it. It's still a fire-approved surface. We could also pave it. You know, at this stage, we want to make sure we're providing the public safety in the trash turnaround. The ultimate material, we're happy to explore those options.

Is this turnaround area, if it were to be paved, are you going to be providing an easement for public use?

Yes, so we can definitely incorporate that into an easement. The initial intent was to incorporate it into the CCNRs for the track, but an easement that records with the map has a lot of value.

I really do think something needs to be addressed on this issue because it could be a major issue.

I definitely think signage is a major factor in bringing up attention for local traffic. So it'll be something we'll definitely address.

The other concern I have is regarding the existing power poles that go along the boundaries on both sides. It looks like there's only a five-foot easement granted for public utilities along that. Are those city-owned power poles? Do you know?

Sorry, sir, that's out of my purview.

I'm happy to answer that one. So on the south side, it's a 10-foot easement that straddles the property line. On the north side, it is a 5-foot easement approved by RPU, and those are RPU poles.

Okay, but even on the 10-foot, you plan on putting a block wall down the middle of that, is that correct?

That is correct.

So that essentially means it's a five foot on your side.

On our side, yes.

Yeah. So, I mean, is that adequate access?

Commissioner, that's pretty standard for the public utilities easements. We'll see five feet on each side for access crews to get in and do any maintenance that needs to be done.

For aerial?

Correct.

Okay. Now, in between those lots, is that going to be block wall across that easement, or is it going to be a removable fence of some sort? Do you know?

Right now we're conditioned for a block wall.

Okay.

The requirement would be for a block wall along there for the codes. The applicant has proposed a block wall on both the north and the south sides.

So the utility companies are going to have to hop over the walls?

Maybe they can walk along the top. But utilities has reviewed this plan. They have accepted it and approved it.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. um i don't see anybody else on the commission with their hand up yet i'll get right with you commissioner mooney um i'll take a quick turn i want to make sure that we acknowledge um and once again thank the people from the community that came out to give us their opinions and feedback i think that is very important and very valuable so i would like either the applicant or members of the staff or both to talk with us about some of the things that we heard from the neighbors. I think my first question in that respect would be what sort of community outreach the applicant and his team did about this project in the neighborhood immediately surrounding I know that the city requires a mailer or postcard to go out to a certain radius, right? Please share. Good morning.

Commissioner Wilson, thank you for your time. Thank you for the questions. We did the required mailer. We provided the mailing labels that went out to 300 feet around the project. And then in addition to that, I walked around a couple different times over a few different days to try to knock on as many doors as I could to introduce myself before the mailers went out and get feedback. and incorporate as many of those concerns as we could. The biggest, obviously, the traffic that is not a whole lot we can do about, but the trash cans, that is something we can do about, and we're happy to accept the condition to pave that if planning approves as a turnaround.

Besides the feedback that you took into account related to the turnaround and the trash, were there any other comments or suggestions that you received that caused any sort of changes in the design or the makeup of the properties?

No, but the on-site parking, right now we're showing an optional third-car garage and an optional three-car driveway, and maybe that's something that we want to explore as more of those homes have the three-car garage from the get-go, so that way we've got additional on-site parking.

Okay.

And I don't know, this might be a question for staff. Several commenters mentioned that this is a high density. Doesn't feel like high density to me, but I'm a downtown person. I live downtown. So technically speaking, is this considered, based on city guidelines, high density? And yeah.

Commissioner, there's a number of different densities across the city, depending on kind of where you're located. Obviously, downtown being the most dense. This project has standards that it needs to fit within, including the maximum density. This project does meet those standards for that density. What are those standards? This would generally be considered a little bit lower, mid to lower density through our density standards in the city.

So it's not, the density is not greater than what the city allows for this particular area. Is that what you're saying?

For the minor planned residential development, it is not.

Okay. Another concern we talked about, and you just mentioned was traffic. Was there a traffic study required as part of this?

And good morning isn't on and they're from traffic and their commissioner so according to the this project size so no traffic study required for the study. This is based on the approved traffic impact analysis guideline for the for the city.

Thank you so much.

um i will turn it over to commissioner mooney at this point if i have other questions i'll chime in later go ahead commissioner thank you and commissioner wilson you did address that was the first thing that i was going to inquire about and i do also want to thank all of the neighborhood residents who did come to this meeting expressing their concerns we appreciate you coming out to do so. That was my question. What was the notification like? I know there is the required mailer of the 300 feet and it appears that someone from the company did go out. Was there enough feedback? I would imagine the applicant would make this decision where there were concerns where a community kind of a meeting would be necessary to address prior to coming here the concerns that the residents are bringing to us today. Was there anything that led you to feel that there would need to be some kind of a meeting with the residents to raise their concerns that they raised to us today?

Thank you for your question, Commissioner. For this project, this project is being brought forth by Riversiders. We understand this neighborhood. My kids go to school at Washington Elementary. I understand that the traffic getting to and from school is difficult. The intent behind this project is to fit in with homes that are similar to the neighborhood. We're not proposing 1,500 square foot homes. We're not proposing 20 units on this site. We are looking at this site as one that, yes, We're trying to build homes for people. People need homes. All the people that are scrounging and searching for a place to live right now need homes. So yes, wherever we're going to build homes, it's going to, you know, there's going to be a change in the neighborhood. But what we're trying to do with this project is a project that really does blend both of those opposing viewpoints.

If I may, I think basically what I was looking at was there that opportunity for the residents to voice their concerns regarding that. I do understand because the whole state has an issue with housing. I completely understand that. That was my question. And I guess one of the things that came up too was, was there an understanding? Maybe you can explain that if some of the residents thought four to five homes versus 10 homes. That would be my concern. Yeah.

I was offered this property by the family that built this home. And unfortunately, I think a little bit has been lost in translation. The reason that I was offered this property is because another builder turned it down. Because without putting a map on this, it does not pencil. You will not break even. You will lose money on each of the four homes that you build based on existing densities. That's how I ended up with the project. So, one of that has been lost in the kind of he said, she said telephone game that's happened since is unfortunate but not really relevant to the conversation. There wasn't a way to make the project viable without the density that we're at, which is not, as staff can speak to, is not the maximum density that we could have on the project. Correct. Understood that. But no, to specifically answer your question, we did not host a community meeting. It was not something that was required of us, and it was not something that I thought would be particularly productive.

So you weren't getting that kind of feedback from a number of residents where you felt, the company felt, that you needed to offer that? That's just what I was asking. Okay, I would like to move on since I've got the floor right now. Speaking, and this may be something for staff to answer, I know the study didn't need to be done based on the requirements, but You know, I'm just looking at the number of folks that apparently are allegedly running through stop signs and so forth. I would maybe suggest that that would be looked at in terms of a new development that would be placed in there. Maybe there would be something like a light. I don't know. but something that would slow that down and make it safer for the residents, especially if, you know, there are lots that are empty where they're going to be built, homes are going to be built. I have seen at peak times, although I don't live in the area, There's much more population there now, and that little stop on Victoria with folks coming down from Mary and Washington and going east and west on Victoria and folks going north and south, it's really congested. So I'm hoping that that would be looked at, especially as new homes are being built in the area. I think that would be it for now. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Singh?

Thank you, Madam Chair. My one concern is the community. Mr. Clark said he learned just one day before, and Steve, can you tell me, like, how long before did you know about the project before this became a reality?

Commissioner Singh? Commissioner Singh, we're not supposed to be addressing and asking questions to members of the public.

Okay. Well, I think in the interest of the project, it might be a good idea to... Because too many people are here complaining for this project compared to some of the other projects we have heard. Maybe it might be a good idea to get the community and then explain to them what you're trying to do. And I think my perspective is that people are generally more... reasonable if you explain to them what is going on, what you're going to do, for example. And I think we talked about on the phone that speed bumps might be a good idea to take care of the traffic. But I think explaining to the community this might make them feel a little better about the project and not really like somebody's imposing on them. This particular project. That's one concern I have is because it's not really common that we have so many people from the community. And an issue like community reach out, which means you really get together with them, talk to them, explain to them. And usually people understand this. So that's my recommendation for the applicant to talk about it. And maybe our city staff, too. Actually, they did a great job. This project looks really good from the perspective of how it looks and the housing we need. But community has to be involved in these kinds of projects. That's my perspective. Thank you, Commissioner Singh.

Commissioner Baird, go ahead.

Yes. First of all, thank you to the public who's come out. It's great to see your engagement on issues like this. It is disappointing to hear that you've learned about this just from the noticing and not more door-knocking. You know, so I would implore the applicant in future instances to engage the community in a more serious way. A couple questions, you know, going to what my fellow commissioners have said. Why isn't a cul-de-sac a proper cul-de-sac at the end of this development? Why was that not considered and proposed? This hammerhead turnaround is awkward. It seems like it has some real concerns. Can applicant or staff speak to that?

I'm happy to answer that and thank you. So there's a couple of different reasons for the Hammerhead. One is that because it's a dead end street that's only serving 10 homes, the anticipation here is that it's only local traffic. And so it's people pulling in, going to their driveways. In the event that somebody does need to turn around, there does need to be a way for them to turn around and so that's why the hammerhead is there the other reason that we propose hammerheads is a state mandate to limit the amount of impervious surfaces that we propose every square foot of impervious surface we need to you know collect and mitigate and the state really pushes us and the local water board really pushes us to come up with designs that are really smart with our use of impervious services.

Okay. I appreciate that. Just looking at the zoning map, and I see no hammerhead turns. I see cul-de-sacs everywhere. So as it relates to the compatibility of the neighborhood and, you know, access, I mean, there's houses and blocks here that have, you know, six or seven houses with a proper turnaround.

Yeah, I understand. And some of that is just the fact of this property was not one of the ones that was sold to the developer that built out the tracks to the west and the north. You know, it's a remnant parcel. It's an infill parcel. And so with many infill parcels, you have to come up with more creative solutions to meet all of the public safety and development standards.

okay listen i think i think it's a better development with the cul-de-sac than the hammerhead for all the reasons we've discussed i just want to put that out there i'm not i'm not a fan of that uh part of the project design here um we talked about community engagement and really the last question maybe for staff is right like i think this really is a you know mid-density kind of family neighborhood i grew up on a property very similar on sizes to this um You know, I can, I think it's appropriately sized for a single family home. But what is, you know, we've seen a lot of very dense projects come before us in infill projects. I'm just curious from staff or applicant, what is the sort of the density that could be proposed on this project? I'm just curious. Sometimes we see developers and applicants really pushing the limit on projects like this. And I think it's important to understand what that could potentially look like on this project.

We'll take a stab at this because it opens up a bit of can of worms here. Let's do it.

I think it's important for the public and the commission to hear the can of worms.

So the density right now, if you wanted to develop there, is 5.3 dwelling units an acre. The applicants have 4.8 dwelling units an acre, so they're a little bit below the maximum density. What hasn't been talked about here is that state law under SB 1123 allows for properties that are of at least an acre and a half to be subdivided for up to 10 homes on there. And that is by ministerial right. That means it does not come in for any type of public review, go out for any type of public comment.

Will you please repeat that?

I'll try the best that I can.

It's technical. I want to make sure I understood what you said.

So state law under SB 1123 allows for properties that are at least an acre and a half to be subdivided up to 10 parcels for a single family home on each one of those parcels. So in this case, in this property, you would get an additional home on the property. That by state law is ministerial by right. They could come in and file for a map. It would not require any type of public hearing. It would not require any type of general notice that would go out there. So they could bypass this entire project here or process. They have chosen to come in and work with staff through the minor PRD process, and we get a better project out of this rather than a ministerial project that is controlled by the state and those requirements.

Please don't interrupt. Don't do that. We heard you. Thank you.

Something that I would like to clarify is the state law for 1123 is a maximum of 1.5 acres. So what could happen on this site because it's two acres is the applicant could come in and subdivide their two-acre lot into two one-acre lots. And then through 1123, They could ministerially approve or apply for 10 units per lot. So you could have 20 and then they're allowed a remainder lot. So they could have 21 units on this site per 1123. There would be the added step of first having to do the parcel map. But state law consistently across the board, the state over the last several years have adopted numerous new laws that are encouraging infill development and specifically looking at areas with larger lots to find ways to add density where there's not large vacant areas. So that's the elephant in the room.

Thanks for pulling out the elephant.

Thank you. No further questions.

Are there any other questions or comments? I did have one last question just based on what staff brought up just a minute ago for the applicant. Understanding that under state law you could have done something completely different and not had to be here in front of us, what was it that motivated you all to take this route instead? As opposed to going the route that would seem a lot easier?

Because if you back up a little bit on the zoning map, you can see my house. I can walk to this project. I drive by it six times a day. So I completely agree with my neighbors that that stop sign is awful. And if I leave to drop my kid off at preschool at about 7.50, it'll take me 10 minutes to get out of the neighborhood.

Please stop talking, ma'am.

don't want to see more density if this project sold to somebody in Orange County that doesn't care about Riverside it could be 20 it could be 22 townhomes give or take guys roughly I think they're not gonna look up at me right now but I think that's true about 22 mixed-income townhomes would be another possibility for this site I think we as a community have bigger things to worry about right now, especially with the overlook connection coming back up on the collective hive mind. That's going to be much more detrimental to our neighborhood from a traffic perspective than a few single family homes.

Okay, thank you.

I don't want to see garbage in my neighborhood either.

I understand. Thank you so much. Oh, Commissioner Singh. I see you again. Go ahead, sir.

Brenton, can I ask a question? Yes, sir. Are you willing to go back to community and answer their questions in a lot more time than here? We don't have a lot of time. But can you go back and basically sell the project from your perspective? They can ask questions. Because I heard from one of them, well, I think it's a good project, but we don't like this or that. Are you willing to do that?

We still have time for that. And I think the conversation is going to continue. I think Commissioner Wilder had really good points about the turnaround. We need to talk about that. From a space and a permeable surface, I don't think there's a great way to incorporate a cul-de-sac. But I will ask them to look at that

as soon as we leave here.

It's not true. I did walk to almost everybody on Mary Street. Some folks weren't home. I walked it three times. I'm hearing their concerns. I don't feel personally that a community meeting would yield helpful fruits because I think the biggest concern here is density and the densities frankly, just not really up for conversation. If there's other constructive feedback that we can talk about, like the trash cans, like the parking, like traffic concerns, like ADA access, those are things that we can work with as a team. Angela, our planner, has been amazing. I know she'd be willing to work with us on incorporating some more of those concerns. But we still have eight months of work ahead of us. If this meeting goes well before, This map goes for recordation. I think there's plenty of time to incorporate those more nuanced concerns. But as we've heard, there's not the density. This is where the density needs to be for the project to pencil. It could be a lot worse. And I think we're at a happy medium. But I'm absolutely open. I left them with my business card and my cell phone number. So if they think of things in the middle of the night, shoot me a text. Let's talk. I'm open to it.

Yeah, just wondering if at least they're able to express what their concerns are. And you can explain to them the speed bumps and things like that you're trying to do. It's a good project. It's a really good project. But my concern is that when you impose something on the community, usually it's not a good result, right? So if you can have them express their ideas and frustrations on what, because we have to build houses. We have to deal with sometimes noise and all of that. But if they get to say their piece, I think there might be some peace, right? Absolutely. Between you and the community. That's really what I'm suggesting.

I absolutely agree. Yeah. And Clark did a really good job. And unfortunately, he sent me letters that I didn't get until Tuesday of this week. But again, they've got my contact info and I'm all ears.

Thank you. All right. Are there any other questions from the commission? All right, seeing none. Would anybody like to make a motion on this item?

It sounds like the applicant is more than willing to work with staff to try to take care of some of these issues. So would it be more appropriate to postpone and have them come back after a short period of time to be able to look at these issues before we actually vote?

What issues specifically, sir? Well, the turnarounds.

issue cul-de-sac versus a hammerhead I think is one of the main issues as well as working with the community

So that would be a continuance, basically.

CHRIS RODGERS- So thank you, Commissioner. At this point in time, we would accept a condition on the turnaround. But we would prefer for a vote today and not a continuance.

CHRIS RODGERS- What type of language are you willing to accept on a condition?

For the turnaround specifically? A proposed hammerhead turnaround with adequate signage and material as directed by city staff, something like that?

Commissioners, Engineer for Public Works here again. Just to kind of reiterate or open up a little bit to the question about cul-de-sac and layout, there's a few precedents that have already been set in the city. For one, this is a private development, so their standards for road widths and cul-de-sacs change compared to what it would be if it was going to be accepted by the city and maintained by the city. In that case, we would definitely have a full cul-de-sac. Two, the lot layout and constraints of how narrow it is kind of meet similar projects we've done and even allowed in this commission to utilize private drive with hammerhead turnaround. Additionally, there's a house in the back. Additionally, there's certain guidelines for zoning. All this was kind of looked at the very beginning because we immediately want a cul-de-sac. That's the first thing we stare at and ask for. So in cases like this, we stare at that from very early on to make sure that They're meeting zoning. They're allowing for proper safety layout for all services. And they're addressing all our concerns regarding turnaround and public access, which going into private residential development, you know, it kind of cuts out a lot of that stuff. I believe we did our best and followed precedents that we've had set and approved previously for a track like this and similar situations.

Thank you for that explanation. And given that, just seeing that the willingness on the applicant in working with staff, I would move to approve planning case PC 2025-00983.

Thank you, Commissioner Wilder. We have a motion. Is there a second? I will second that motion. We have a motion and a second on the table.

Chair, I'm sorry. Can you confirm that that was approving it as recommended by staff? Okay, thank you.

I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion or comments? Alright, time to vote.

Motion carries.

Thank you. There is a 10-day appeal period. Please contact the Planning Division for appeal information. Thank you, everyone.

Give me a minute.

Can we take three minutes, three to five minutes for folks to be able to clear out before we resume? Thank you.

Do you need any turn? Yes.

Okay, okay. Actually, one of them, he got a job already in Fremont.

Yeah.

No, he's... All right. Yeah, no, he just went to Fremont, moved there. Ready?

Yeah, he got a job already. Yeah.

Well, they told him to pay, they'll pay him $80,000 and six months to review his performance, maybe $100,000.

All right, thank you for your patience. We are ready to resume our meeting. At this time, the Planning Commission will open the public hearing to receive public input regarding planning case PR 2024-001711.

Good morning, Honorable Chair and members of the Commission. Judy Igues, Senior Planner. The case before you this morning is a tentative track map Planned residential development and desire review to facilitate a 56-unit planned residential development. The 9.88-acre project site consists of six contiguous parcels located on the southwest corner of La Sierra Avenue and Alhambra Avenue and is developed with three single-family residences. Surrounding land uses include semi-rural single-family residences that allow animal keeping to the north and south, a small lot PRD in Loma Linda, Loma Vista Middle School are located to the east across La Sierra Avenue, and to the south is a single-family residential subdivision. The slide here shows the existing conditions of the project site. Photos 1 and 4 show the site from La Sierra Avenue, and photos 2 and 3 show the site from Alhambra Avenue. The project site has split zoning. The northern portion of the site is zoned rural residential and the southern portion of the site is zoned single family residential and residential livestock overlay zones. The zones are consistent with the general plan land use designations. The project involves a tentative track map to subdivide 9.8 acres into 56 single-family residential lots and letter lots for private streets and common open space. Lots will range in size from 3,555 square feet to 20,064 square feet. The proposed project has an overall residential density of 5.7 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with a general plan land use designation and the density transfer permitted under the planned residential development standards. The project proposes two distinct residential types within the same subdivision. Four semi-rural residences on lots over 20,000 square feet are proposed along Alhambra Avenue. These lots facilitate single-story homes that are more consistent with the homes on the north side of Alhambra Avenue and also allow for animal keeping. Vehicle access to these four residences are from Alhambra Avenue. The remaining 52 lots will consist of typical residential lots ranging in size from 3,555 square feet to 7,397 square feet and include two-story detached homes. vehicle access to this portion portion of the subdivision will be provided from sierra avenue the development also provide proposes a six foot high raw iron fence and decorative masonry wall along la sierra avenue and a roughly three foot split rail fence along alehambra avenue the project will also provide 69 on-street guest parking spaces The proposed common open space consists of an 11,855 square foot park at the entrance of the subdivision with a children's play area, shade structures, a barbecue counter, and open turf areas. A bocce ball court and additional picnic areas are proposed along the west side of the subdivision. An internal pedestrian network of sidewalk connects four different fitness nodes throughout the subdivision. In addition, each lot will have private open space in the rear yards. The conceptual landscape plan provides an attractive and welcoming environment with inclusion of shade trees and high-quality landscaping and amenity areas. The semi-rural residential lots along Alhambra offers one floor plan in two different architectural styles, Santa Barbara and Coastal. And the remaining PRD lots provide three primary floor plans in three different architectural styles, which are Spanish, Santa Barbara, and coastal. Elevations visible from La Sierra Avenue will include enhanced architectural elements. Those are the other elevations. The developer is using the state density bonus law to achieve the density permitted by the general plan land use designation. Since the applicant is proposing to restrict 6% or three residences for very low income households, the project is eligible to receive waivers per the state density bonus law. A waiver is a reduction or modification of any development standard that would physically preclude the construction of the project at the permitted density under the general plan land use designation. And at this point, I wanted to read a correction into the record for this slide. The proposed open space on the far right column way at the bottom should be 278 square feet per unit, not 90 feet minimum. The waivers listed on the slide will not result in adverse public health safety or be contrary to state or federal law. They will not have an adverse impact on any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and granting the waivers will result in a project with three residences for very low-income households. After publication of the staff report, a comment letter was received by a resident raising concern that the project does not have a median break on La Sierra Avenue into the project and vehicles would have to make a U-turn on Alejandra Avenue. A median break was considered by Public Works Traffic Division. However, the request was not supported due to potential traffic conflicts with spacing to existing nearby intersections at Alejandra and La Sierra and Francisco Place and La Sierra. and also the residential development on the east side of La Sierra Avenue. The traffic study shows that all the study area intersections operate adequately with the existing median in place, and there would be no traffic intersection operational benefit to break the existing median. In summary, staff supports the proposed project consistent with intent, goals, policies of the general plan and the zoning code. The proposed housing development would contribute to the city's arena numbers as well. With that, staff recommends that the planning commission determine that the project proposed is exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15183 and section 15061 common sense rule and recommend approval of the project based on the findings outlined in the staff report and subject to the recommended conditions. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions, as is the applicant and their team. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much for your presentation. Is the applicant, oh, you said the applicant's here. Will the applicant please come forward and state your name? Good morning. Good morning. State your name, please. Good morning.

Good morning. My name is Louisa Folletto. I am the applicant with Marriage at Homes.

All right. And do you agree with staff's conditions and other recommendations? I do. Do you have anything else to add?

I do. I have a little slide presentation here that they're pulling up that I can walk through. So again good morning. My name is Louisa fletto. I'm with Meritage homes here representing the applicant First I want to give a big. Thank you to staff They have been efficient responsive professional really helping create a great project that you see before you tonight Additionally, I really want to thank Laura and the neighbors who have provided great feedback and and I think really helped make this a project that blends in with the neighborhood that you're gonna see before you. I'm gonna walk through a little bit about who Meritage is, share a little bit about how we build, where we build, and give some details about the project as well. So a bit about Meritage. We are the fifth largest publicly traded home builder based on home closings in the US. We have been around for 41 years. We operate in 12 states, 31 markets, and have built over 210,000 homes. Our Southern California division has been around since 2004. We currently have 13 actively selling communities, 10 under construction, 15 in various planning stages. We operate from LA County down into San Diego County, as well as the Inland Empire. And operationally, Meritage, we focus on a first-time home buyer, first-time move-up buyer, so we're really trying to target that missing middle housing and provide that opportunity of home ownership to first-time home buyers. A little bit more about Meritage. We are an 11-time recipient of the EPA's Energy Star Award. We've received numerous awards when it comes to customer service. One of the ones we're proudest of is the AVID Awards. So that is a third-party independent survey that goes out to new residents. It's a national organization that partners with multiple builders, both private and public, and they survey on a one month and a one year basis. And our division here in Southern California has actually won the award at a national level for best customer service three out of the last four years. So it's something that we're extremely proud of. Additionally, we do a lot of different types of philanthropic work. One of the ones that I really appreciate that Meritage does is that we partner with Operation Homefront, which actually works with... giving a mortgage-free home to veterans. So we do that a couple different homes per year in different areas throughout the U.S. A bit about how we build. This slide just focuses on some of our different features, but there's two that I really want to focus on. The first is spray foam insulation. So compared to traditional insulation, we use spray foam. So it basically expands and covers all the cracks and crevices in your wall space. This allows for better insulation thermal like thermal regulations so that your home stays cooler it also buffers on noise and then additionally we do conditioned attics so this means that there's no openings ventings anything like that in the attics which for this area it actually just got reclassified as a very high fire zone so that means there's not going to be any openings in our attics where embers might potentially be able to get in and start a fire in that attic space so it's a great thing especially in this area As I mentioned, Meritage, we focus on a missing middle housing. So what this means is on the far left, you see more of your traditional detached single family, maybe your larger 6,000, 8,000, 10,000 square foot lots. On the right, you see that very dense podium wrap type of housing type. And in the middle, you have various densities that span that area. And what this means is For us, we target a little higher density, which allows us to spread the development costs over more homes to keep that price point down for an attainable homeownership opportunity. We're really targeting people who are working individuals, so your teachers, your firefighters, your nurses who want to be able to live and work in the community. So as staff's presentation showed, the site is located to the western area of the city. We're right near the La Sierra Hills open space. Loma Vista Middle School is right across the street. and the conceptual site plan that we have before you is not where we started when we started this project we actually proposed a little over 90 small cluster homes and that was our initial pre-op and you know immediately we were hearing from the neighbors of hey this doesn't fit this is not what this neighborhood is and we came to the table with them and really heard their concerns and adjusted accordingly. And one of the things that they really wanted to have along Alhambra is you have those rural residential lots that want to be able to keep that environment, keep that animal keeping. So we knew that was a priority. How could we make that happen? So the introduction of the four minimum 20,000 square foot lots that would allow animal keeping was the first thing we really looked at to create that interface and transition. from there we have the remaining 52 lots which are approximately 45 by 78 foot lots there's some different uh grading conditions throughout the site they all have a minimum at least 15 foot deep usable yard area based on some of the topography there open space as staff mentioned is scattered throughout the project so we have the main central recreation area as well as some smaller open space areas with different amenities We have the single point of access off of La Sierra Avenue for the 52 small aunt homes, private streets within the tract that allow for parking on both sides of 69 guest spaces. And we do have that EVA that transitions from the internal private streets out to Alhambra Avenue with the fire code update that happened. That was one of the things we needed to look at and incorporate was that secondary parking form of egress because of the fire code requirements. And as I mentioned, just some enlargements of those main active open space areas. As staff mentioned, we have some turf lawn area, tot lot, shade structure with barbecues and seating, bocce ball, and then we have some different workout stations scattered throughout to really encourage the walkability and activation throughout the community. And I'm just going to walk through some project renderings now. So this would be the entry from La Sierra Avenue, textured paving, enhancements, solid block wall on one side and the tube steel fencing with planting on the other. This would be kind of a bird's eye view looking from above La Sierra and Alhambra. This would be a view along one of the internal streets, Street B. This would be a view from the northern end of the recreation area looking towards La Sierra. And then this would be a view kind of from the bend in Alhambra looking towards La Sierra. So with that, I again just want to say thank you to staff. My consultant team is here if there's any technical questions, or I'm available for questions as well.

Thank you so much. Appreciate your presentation. At this point, we will go ahead and open it up for public comment.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Thank you. First card that I have is Ms. Laura Densmore. Good morning.

Good morning. Happy to be here, sort of. Meritage was very receptive to my contact of them and telling me that The property owner never once contacted me, so I want to appreciate that. We had over six meetings with Meritage and staff, and we really worked through this, because I think it was 96 PRDs to start, and that was just too much. There's a middle school across the street. I should stick to my notes. Anyway, and every day, twice a day, kids are coming out. and their mom and dad are on this side or this side, because the school district doesn't have to provide parking for their students and parents. So we see this monstrosity happen twice a day. Luckily, one day they were there and they watched this and said, somebody's going to die. And they're right. As I'll point out, a long time ago, maybe three years now, over at Norwood and the school at Mitchell and Norwood, there was a fatal accident. And so a signal was put in there. Unfortunately, that had to happen before the city put a signal in there. We are encouraging you all to put a signal in. At this entrance, it will accommodate the PRD across the street. It'll be a signal that kids can walk to and cross the street rather than skipping across over the median. You know kids, middle school, they don't look at traffic. They look at the car that's going to take them away from school. So we would like to see that with the median open so the U-turns don't come up and have to go back down west on La Sierra. Additionally, so that's like really number one. I appreciate the four houses and what information we gave them along Alhambra because that whole property that's going to be rezoned and built on was all horse keeping, animal keeping for years and years and years and years. So the new site up the street that has 10 homes is zoned for animal keeping too. And so it fits in. So along Alhambra, this is going to look really nice. And I'm glad it's not two-story homes. Unfortunately, the school board really doesn't have much to say, but I'm hoping the police department will be talked to about the signal in and out of this. And then the median, so people can go left to get on La Sierra, and the people across the street can go left at a signal instead of coming up and doing a, U-turn. The elevations look great. I haven't seen the newest ones. I think I'll ask you the fire lane to get in and out has changed from the end of the four houses to the center. Okay. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I was wondering about that. All right, thank you. The reason we combined the driveways for the four houses is that there won't be as many curb cuts on a substandard street because Still, there's two houses that make the street substandard in front of these four houses. The curb designs should be like up on Lindy. From that area, you can get up into the Norco Hills and down to Hidden Valley Wildlife Area for hiking or riding your horse. Anyway, we're not opposed to this. We just like good planning rather than most you can get on a lot. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you for your comments.

Craig Bassam yeah Basham is correct so uh another first timer but anyhow I have a prepared statement so I'll be reading from it so I'm a 55 year resident of La Sierra 35 in the impacted area again we want to say we're not trying to block this development we're supportive of new homes in Riverside but just done responsibly and we're here today to advocate for the safe traffic environment and legal protections of our existing rural lifestyle. Two major points, our first is the pedestrian and student safety. The 56 unit project sits directly across from the rear entry to Loma Vista Middle School, where many parents drop off their kids and they pick them up there. Currently, La Sierra, lacks a crosswalk or any other pedestrian controls at that rear entry point yet the proposed development driveway is on the opposite side of la sierra this design will force pedestrians of students to cross la sierra without any safe infrastructure in place The city has indicated a full traffic signal is not necessary, so if denied, we request a designated crosswalk at that rear entry point be a mandatory condition of approval. The crosswalk should be paired with active traffic controls, such as a high visibility flashing beacons that will give drivers a visual cue to stop so that the students can safely cross La Sierra during the chaotic drop-offs in the morning and afternoon. The second concern that I have is the preservation of our rural lifestyle. This area is historically characterized by animal keeping lots. The PED buyers are buying a suburban lifestyle. They are not interested in keeping animals. So we propose that new residents must enter the neighborhood with a clear understanding that they are moving into a long-standing rural and equestrian area. Setting and managing the expectations of the new residents is essential to reducing conflicts and protecting our lifestyle and ensuring compatibility between new and established residents. To prevent the friction, we request a condition of approval requiring mandatory de-disclosures and CC&Rs. Prospective buyers must recognize and accept that neighborhood properties may legally maintain animals, resulting in the sights, sounds, odors, insects, and other effects that are inherent to an established rural environment.

further the development the developments new residents ability to challenge the surrounding okay thank you so much I don't have any additional cards are there any callers all right seeing no callers no additional cards in the chambers may I please ask for a motion to close public comment I second thank you we have a motion in a second please vote all right motion carries i'm bringing it back to the commission for questions and comments i'm going to take the liberty of starting um myself i because i skipped my morning run because of this item i'm going to pull rank on that so at 6 30 this morning i was sitting in my car on the corner of alhambra and la sierra i live right down the street from here so i'm not very familiar with that part of our city and so anytime that happens i like to get in my car and go over and take a look for myself so 6 30 i was right by your house um and i sat there for a little while because i wanted to see what the traffic looked like on la sierra at that time of morning um i went around to francisco i think is the name of the street yeah francisco francisco drive sat there for a little while um then went over to summervale drive which i think is the planned residential development that'll be directly whose entrance is directly across the street from where this one will be Sat there for a little while. I was there for total about 45 minutes. So not long enough to be a resident of that neighborhood, but I think long enough to, um, understand the concern that Mrs. Densmore brought up, um, related to safety, um, and, uh, school directly across the street. And I am extremely concerned because it was 7 15 in the morning and cars are flying by on La Sierra. And it wasn't even school time yet. So I can only imagine what the traffic is like. And I hate to see any kids in danger. It's clear that there has to be something with adding 56 additional homes to this community there's got to be a better or a way to make this part of the community more safe I believe there was a light there's a light down on Cypress is that correct and then the next light is back down over on Arlington So then in between, there's cars flying and there's a school. Anyway, I want to reiterate the concern and understand more clearly, I guess, from staff, why there is not a requirement or a need for, why it's been determined that there's not a need for a light there, because I would strongly advocate that there needs to be a light there and a median break.

Their commissioner isn't signed from traffic. So based on the traffic study this project related so And so if the medium open or you know without medium open no traffic Signal warrants is meet so so that's the you know regarding to the traffic studies So there's no traffic signal a warrant meet for for this area Okay And if we want one yeah so uh according to i'm only speaking for myself at this moment but yeah according to the to the city traffic division we have a signal unsignalized intersection signal priority list so now it's all needs to have like a 52 intersection on that priority list we definitely can add this one to that prior list and you know apply the fundings you know uh for the futures okay

So there's no way to mandate that as part of this particular project, it would be on go on a list with all the other ones that yes, okay, yes, want to make sure I understood. I also want to go on record and thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. I also want to go on record and thank the applicant for the strong level of community outreach that you did. As you heard, under the last item that is something that is extremely important to the Commission to make sure that applicants developers that are coming in to partner with our city and build in our city take the time to listen to reach out and to listen to the community and take their their comments and concerns into account so with that I will shut my mouth for a while and turn it over to Commissioner Wilder

Thank you, Chair. Actually, I believe that I understand the city's want list for the traffic signals, but I believe this project can be conditioned to install a traffic signal. Is that correct?

Dear Commissioner, so regarding to the traffic study, so this project did not warrant any signal, but we did add some safety improvements according to the La Sierra and Arlington. Sorry, so I'm sure. Oh, Alhambra and Alessandra. So we add the traffic division, as recommended, added a condition to install the high visibility crosswalk at that intersection to improve the safety across the street.

What condition is that?

It's the high visibility crosswalk.

What's the number?

It's number 62.

Thank you.

OK. I don't know if that answered my question, though, whether or not this project could be conditioned to install a traffic signal at either Alhambra in La Sierra or at the entrance to this project. That would require a median break.

For the medium break, from the traffic study shows that all the study area intersection operation acceptable with the existing medium in place. So therefore opening the medium would not provide a traffic operation benefit or improve the intersection performance. And the other thing is the proposed medium opening would introduce additional vehicle conflict and also create new turning moments at that area. According to the Federal Highway Administration's Safety Countermeasurement Guideline, the medium barrier helps reduce the risk of cross-medium crashes and improve roadway safety. So from the safety perspective, so that's why the traffic division, you know, denied the proposed medium break based on that reason.

Okay. Not really.

Could I give just a little bit of input? I think regarding the city standpoint, in general, when we're looking at these types of projects, once a study is done and reviewed and approved on all sides, we generally stick to those recommendations that are found in that study with regard to traffic. I think traffic's a very straight line, linear study that's understood and followed across the city boundary. So for us to follow the study, require the study, and then turn around and mandate and signalize intersection or something along those lines that is against the studies that was done, it wouldn't be something we typically do and we haven't done. So I guess I don't know what the precedent is as far as the city attorney goes to mandate it, but it's very straightforward as far as the study goes.

And I haven't pulled up the applicable municipal code, but the traffic engineer's requirements need to be supported by substantial evidence and usually that is a traffic evaluation. So it would need to be the traffic engineer that requires the signal is my recollection.

OK. Based on the traffic study that was done for this project, was consideration given for the school that's across the street? Was that part of that analysis?

Yes, we evaluate the scenarios. And also, back to your question on conditional weather for the traffic signal can be conditional or not. So based on the traffic study, it's not warrant a signal there. So that's why, unfortunately, we cannot condition that to the developer for that. And according to the request for a near-access connection to the Loma Vista Middle School, the existing access point is closer to the La Cedra and the Humbra intersection. And from the City's Civil Health to School Project Report, the preferred student crossing location is at the existing intersection of La Cedra and Humbra 2, So under traffic division, so as I mentioned, we have recommend to add that condition to restore the high visibility crosswalk at that intersection to improve. So that's based on the traffic study. Yeah, to improve the access.

Yeah. The opposition to put in a median break is a little confusing, only because over by La Sierra High School, a new development went in that's close to Spalding and also Collette, kind of in the middle there, that didn't have a median break. And when that project went in, they provided one And it's less homes than what's being proposed now. And it works great, even with the high school traffic. So I don't know why the opposition to put in a median break is so strong here.

To put a medium break, so we recommend to deny that for several reasons. So as we mentioned, the first one is no traffic operational benefits because the traffic study is showing that result, so all the level service running fine within the study area. The second one that I mentioned is for the potential safety concern. So the safety concern, based on the FHWA, and guidelines so the medium can help to improve the roadway safety and reduce the risk of cross medium crashes so that's from the safety void and the last but not least is the impact of the existing medium landscaping So, you know, in order to open the medium, the proposed, you know, about like two or four existing trees within the medium would need to be removed. This would reduce the existing landscape improvements and the city pierce investments in the La Cedra avenues.

Okay. Well... I think trees can be replanted easy enough along the side landscape. To me, that's not really an issue. You know, I see it as a bigger traffic concern with more people. Most of those residents that would live here are probably going to be coming from the freeway most of the time. That means they're going to have to do U-turns at Alhambra to get into the project. So is there a consideration to put in a secondary access into this project from Alhambra?

yet for the second or for the proposed medium opening, this will introduce some like additional vehicle conflict because it's located close to the two nearby intersections, La Cedra and Humbra. So, and La Cedra and the Francisco place. it would be also create new turning moments near the residential development access the La Cedra Avenue. So, you know, to open the medium, so that's where causing the risk to cross a medium crash. So that's why the traffic recommend to stay with the medium and to keep the, you know, the safety feature for the medium.

So it's my understanding that it's safer for people to make U-turns rather than just a turn in?

in order to reduce those kind of turning moments. So the answer is yes. And also based on those type of reason, the traffic division recommend and to, you know, peer research recommend to evaluate the Alhambra Avenue as the primary project access location. So we think that would also provide a safer and more appropriate connection and then to also reduce those kind of U-turn moments.

Commissioner Walter, can I expand on that response with regards to access on Alhambra? That definitely was considered early on in the stages. However, not only is there a great difference on portions of Alhambra, but also the residents, the neighborhood, didn't want access in Alhambra because that's where they have the horse trails and things like that. They didn't want traffic coming in through Alhambra, and Louisa might know more about that as well.

Yeah. Hello again. Sure is. So we When we were first evaluating this, that was one of the things that we looked at was, hey, could we have secondary access out to Alhambra? As was mentioned, the grading to go to the rear where we would not be impacting across Lindy and the homestead access directly across on Alhambra, the grading there makes it very, very challenging. If we were to go directly across Alhambra, where we have the four lots across, the concerns from the neighbors were around the additional traffic that would be driven there as a result when we were first uh doing this site plan concept we did intend the median break to allow left turn movements we aligned our entry intentionally with the summervale project for that so that summervale would be able to make left-term movements going south on la sierra as well however through the process with the traffic analysis Staff did request that we do a thorough analysis of the warrants for that median break because of the left turn at Francisco, the left turn at Alhambra, the short distance, would there be enough to warrant that additional median break? So we looked at, we did counts in April 24, so during school hours, all of that. For us, we think that the median break is a nice selling feature. We think it would be beneficial for this community. However, we understand that there are certain warrants that have to be met. And we did the thorough analysis in coordination with staff to look at both the median break, signalization, stop sign, any kind of traffic calming along La Sierra. And unfortunately, nothing was met. And so we had to remove the median break. so that's the the plan that is before you today however if the Commission wanted to add the medium break back and we're open to that is that something that the Commission would be able to do based on what our previous conversations were I believe

as a traffic control it needs to be it is the city's traffic engineer that makes that determination let me try and look real quick is that confirmed it's not confirmed please try to get that confirmed

Other questions?

Yeah, while she's making confirmation on that, the rear lots along 53 through 56, who's going to maintain those slopes? Because those are down slopes in the backyard, and I can guarantee you that the property owners aren't going to maintain those.

thanks for that question um those slopes are maintained by hoa i actually we did have an hoa um maybe it shows it right there so you can see it's called that as a lot on this screen here on the the rear portion it's a portion of the lettered lot c which wraps around to the frontage um

So on this exhibit where you see the green at the back of lots 53, 54, 55, 56, that would be maintained by the HOA because it is a downslope that would be hard for them to be accessing. But it would count towards the square footage of the lot to ensure the minimum 20,000 square feet.

Okay. Is the rear block wall going to go along the top of the slope?

It would be a top of slope, correct.

So that's unusable area for those property owners?

It would be a two-to-one slope that would be unusable in any condition, yes.

Okay. Along lots one through five, I think that's the one that staff was pointing to. The access through there, is that also going to be maintained by the HOA?

That would be maintained by the HOA. How the maps worked out, there is that gap there between the existing lots off of Francisco where it transitions in that extra depth. We looked at adding those to the lots one through five. However, with the grading and how it works with some drainage happening back there, we thought it would be better just to have that as a common lot that could be maintained by the HOA to ensure that there wasn't cross-lot drainage issues or anything like that.

Okay.

My main concern with that one is trash collection. It's kind of a narrow alleyway that

Yeah, so luckily, because it is almost 20 feet, there will be able to be regular access in there and maintenance to ensure that debris is removed, vegetation is maintained, that it isn't becoming an eyesore.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Baird?

Yeah, thank you for the presentation. It's wonderful to hear the community engaged with you early on to provide this proposal before us. I think it's a very neighborhood appropriate development and seems quite aesthetically pleasing. A couple comments. I think I heard twice that there's a condition for a crosswalk. on la sierra can you can we pull up that condition or read what that specific condition is i must have missed that but i like i think i think clarity on what that is it's like a high visibility crosswalk at alhambra is that what it condition number 62b says a high visibility crosswalk per standard plan number 640 at the west leg of the intersection of alhambra avenue and la sierra avenue Okay. That does not exist today. So this high-visibility crosswalk for the public across Adelhambo.

Okay.

uh so it doesn't address the traffic concerns the u-turns right that we've been discussing but does address the both public comment and you know uh chair your concern of of pedestrians crossing the street there right so um glad to see that condition thank you for pointing that out i'm glad that came through um can we pull up the bonus waiver uh slide if you don't mind second questions Just for clarity, right, so the common open space, the standard is 500, and you said it's now 278, is that correct? That's correct. Okay, so not 90. And then the six-foot-high wall, which the standard's no walls within 25 feet, what is that wall's location now within that normally required setback?

So with the waiver, the wall would be at the zero setback right on the property line, which is probably more like a regular track map that we would see, not a PRD.

How far is that setback from the sidewalk or curb? There's some distance here, right? This is a quick street. Those standards exist for a reason.

The street would be improved with a new parkway sidewalk, and then there would be a landscape lot between sidewalk and the back of wall. But because, as staff mentioned, we're not loading, we're not fronting onto La Sierra with these homes. We're having rare yards, and so that's why the block wall is requested at PL. It's zero. Yeah.

Commissioner to specifically answer your question is noted 8 feet on the plans from the sidewalk to the wall. It's enough space to provide about 3 rows of tiered landscape like that there.

OK yeah, listen, it's it's a high court or in the city right want to look you can certainly please in on a block wall on a immediately Jason to a sidewalk for example, so thank you for the clarification. Those are my comments really appreciate it.

Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from the commission commissioner Mooney.

Just, Judy, one clarifying question. Would the high visibility crosswalk, is that the flashing red lights one when there's somebody? Which one does, what is that?

Sorry. So that's for the pedestrian crossing. There's no flashlight. But we did add another condition to add the solar power speed feedback sign at the neighborhood traffic on the existing street light located to the 50 feet south of the existing school driveway along the La Sierra Avenue. So that's the light related. But for the crosswalk, it's just striping on the pavement.

Just wasn't sure what that meant on that.

Thank you.

All right. Any further questions or comments from the commission?

Chair, I can get back to you on that. Oh, we have an answer. I do have an answer. Okay. Yes, so I apologize. The traffic controls are the signals. A median break can be conditioned by the Planning Commission. Just not the signaling.

Not the signaling.

Not installing a traffic signal. But the median break can. And the crosswalk has been recommended by traffic.

We have new information.

And it's my understanding they're not recommending the median break, but the commission can require it as a condition.

Commissioner Singh, please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank the staff for doing an excellent presentation and preparation. Thanks for the explanation because all my questions have been answered. But I also want to thank the applicant for the, as Commissioner Bayer said about community engagement. So thank you so much for doing that. All the awards you received, I think you deserve it, you know, in your initial presentation. So thanks for being here. Thanks for presentation. I think it's a great project. Thank you. All right.

Commissioners with the additional information that we just received is would can we talk first quick second about possibly conditioning a medium break? Are y'all

go ahead Commissioner Wilder yeah I would certainly support putting in a median break and having the applicant work closely with city staff on how that's going to be configured as far as how it ties in with Alhambra as well I think that's going to be an important issue but think this project would be very beneficial not only to the the public at at-large but also to the individuals who end up living there thank you Commissioner Baird is the applicant supportive of that condition

yes we are supportive of uh adding on condition to require the median break they had it as a as an original part that's what i heard yeah i just want to double check that you you wanted that initially the recommendation didn't come so it is today okay seems like a favorable thing to add to the project thank you all right with that thank you very much for getting that additional information for us and clarity um do we have a motion anybody like to make a motion about this project

Sure. I'll move to approve planning case PR2024-001711 with the additional condition that a median break be installed on La Sierra Avenue at the entry point of the project.

Thank you. I second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? all right thank you everybody please vote motion carries thank you very much there's a 10-day appeal period please contact the planning division for appeal information thank you all so much for your time now we'll move on to our discussion calendar with the lovely city clerk donisia gauss thank you so much for your patience

Good morning, Madam Chair Wilson and Commissioners. Denise Seagal, City Clerk. The matter before you today is the annual review of the City's Code of Ethics and Conduct as required by the Riverside Municipal Code. The purpose of the review today is to evaluate whether the code continues to effectively promote ethical conduct, accountability, transparency, and public trust in local government. At the conclusion of this presentation, I ask that the commissioners discuss the code's effectiveness and to determine whether any recommendations should be forwarded to the Board of Ethics for consideration. I don't have a clicker. Next slide. The Code of Ethics and Conduct establishes the ethical standards expected by Riverside public officials. Its purpose is to promote the fair, ethical, and accountable local government. The Code is not simply about enforcement. It is intended to foster public trust and to guide decision-making. Public officials are expected to not only comply with the Code, but to also aspire to the values that the Code promotes. The code applies broadly to elected and appointed officials. This includes the mayor, city council members, the members, and the members and city boards, commissions, and committees. As commissioners, each of you are subject to these provisions. The intent is to ensure consistent ethical standards across all decision-making bodies. Upon appointment or reappointment of any commissioner or board member, officials receive a copy of the Code of Ethics, and you must acknowledge the receipt of the code. Ethics training is required within 90 days of taking office, and the city attorney's office serves as a resource to help officials understand and comply with the code. Boards and commissions are also required to incorporate these ethical standards into their procedures in January 2026 the City Council expanded who may file complaints. Individuals who live work attend school or conduct business in Riverside may now file a complaint. This change was intended to increase accessibility and public accountability. The code is built around several guiding principles, which we call the core values, building public trust in government, making decisions that are fair, unbiased, and honest, treating everyone with dignity and respect, valuing diversity and inclusion, making decisions that are informed and in the best interest of Riverside, maintaining a nonpartisan local government, ensuring officials are prepared to serve effectively, and encouraging attendance and participation in public meetings. In May 2026, the City Council added language regarding digital communications. Public officials are expected to conduct themselves online in a manner that reflects impartiality, fairness, and integrity. Online activity should not create an appearance of bias, particularly when matters may come before the official in a quasi-judicial capacity. The code identifies specific conduct that is prohibited, including using one's position for personal gain, misusing confidential information, using city resources for personal purposes, improperly advocating for private interests, accepting compensation for endorsements, Violating conflict of interest codes. Certain political activities involving city resources. Improper campaign-related activities involving city property. And last, well, not lastly, assisting others in violating the codes. And improper employment negotiations, ex parte communications in quasi-judicial matters, coercing others in the performance of official duties, violating laws connected to official duties. And then lastly, the council recently, again, like I mentioned, added the digital misconduct as a prohibited conduct. The prohibitive conduct, oh, recognizes that conduct as occurring online can have the same impact on public trust as conduct occurring in person. Only alleged violations identified in the code as a prohibited conduct may be the basis to bring forth a complaint. It is also important to note that individuals who file a complaint in good faith are protected under the city's whistleblower policies. The city prohibits retaliation against anyone who reports suspected fraud, waste, or abuse and who participates in an investigation of a suspected violation. Complaints must be submitted in writing using the city form. Complaints are filed with the city clerk's office. And then the complaints must be filed within one year of the alleged violation as part of the code. Upon submission of the complaint, the City Clerk reviews the complaint for completeness before proceeding. In some areas, the City Clerk may administratively reject a complaint with the concurrence of the Chair of the Board of Ethics. For example, a complaint may be submitted against a public official serving the County of Riverside In such case, the individual is not a City of Riverside public official and therefore is not subject to the City's Code of Ethics and Conduct as set forth in the Riverside Municipal Code. Because the Board of Ethics jurisdiction is limited to public officials covered by the Code, the Board would not have the authority to review or adjudicate the matter and the complaint would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The pre-conference serves as a screening process before any formal hearing is to take place. This slide identifies the timing consideration for scheduling the pre-conference. During the pre-conference, the Board of Ethics role is to determine whether the complaint meets procedural requirements, whether the complaint falls within the Board's jurisdiction, whether the complaint alleges prohibited conduct, and if there's sufficient evidence exists to warrant a hearing. If the board determines that their complaint complies with the provisions of the code, the chair will facilitate settlement discussions with the parties. If no settlement is reached, then the pre-conference continues. The board will review the evidence for relevance, then determine whether the evidence suggests a potential violation may have occurred. Language was added recently to clarify that evidence should be considered in its totality and that equal weight should be given to both parties during the pre-conference review. And the city council adopted that language in January of this year. At this stage, the Board of Ethics determines whether the evidence presented demonstrates that it is more likely than not that a potential violation of the code may have occurred. If the Board reaches that determination, a hearing panel consisting of five members and one alternate is selected by random draw, and then the city clerk schedules a formal hearing within 45 city business days. Conversely, if the Board determines that the complainant has not met this threshold, the complaint does not proceed to a hearing. Instead, the Board of Ethics will direct the City Clerk to prepare a statement of findings documenting the decision by the Board. Once adopted by the Board of Ethics, that determination becomes the Board's final decision on the matter. If a complaint advances beyond the pre-conference, a hearing panel is selected. Both parties have the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses. The complainant bears the burden of proof. The hearing panel deliberates and adopts findings. Findings are documented and provided to all parties, and the process is intended to be fair, accessible, and less formal than a court proceeding. The next few slides provide an overview of the nuanced hearing procedures and rather than walk you through each procedural detail, I'll move ahead to slide 26 where we will continue with the next key topic. Related to appeal procedures, decisions may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals are limited primarily to procedural errors and abuses of discretion by the Board of Ethics. The City Council reviews the record created during the hearing within 30 city business days. from the day of the Board of Ethics recommendation. No new evidence is accepted during the appeal process. The City Council's determination is final at that point. If no appeal is submitted, the hearing panel decision becomes final. At that point, if a violation has been filed, the city council is responsible for determining whether sanctions are appropriate and if so, what sanctions would be imposed. Again, the next few slides details the appeal procedures and rather than walk you through each procedural detail, I'll just move on to slide 30 and we'll continue with the next key topic on this matter. If a violation is filed and the City Council may impose a sanction, the purpose of sanctions is to promote accountability and uphold ethical standards and maintain the public trust in the process. The sanctions vary depending on the person subject of the sanction. In the case of elected officials, sanctions may include public apology, additional training, removal from regional committees, removal from mayor pro tem rotation, public censure, and restrictions on certain travel. Now moving on to appointed officials of boards, commissions, and committees. It can look like a public apology, training recommendations, public censor, removing from leadership positions, and removal from office as authorized by the charter. Moving on to monitoring and oversight, the code requires an annual review process, which is what we're here to do today. This process begins with all of the boards and commissions, and then the final review process follows a three-step cadence. Recommendations from the boards and commissions are first considered by the Board of Ethics, which will take place in August. and then move to the Governmental Processes Committee for review in September, and ultimately advance to the City Council for final consideration in December. This annual review helps to ensure that the code remains effective and responsive to emerging issues in the community. At this time, staff recommends that the Commission discuss the effectiveness of the Code in conduct, consider whether any provisions should be revised, clarified, added, or removed, forward any recommendations to the Board of Ethics for consideration as part of an annual review process. And in closing, Madam Chair, I would like to open the discussion by asking commissioners, based on your experience serving the city, do you believe that the Code of Ethics and Conduct remains effective in promoting ethical conduct, transparency, and accountability in public trust? Or are there areas where you believe improvements should be considered? Madam Chair, this concludes my presentation. I'm open to questions after public comment.

thank you clerk madam clerk slash soror appreciate your presentation um i have in my notes that i need to open this up for public comment is that accurate all right let's go ahead and do that

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

All right. I don't see any cards here, nobody online. Any questions or comments regarding this presentation from the commissioners?

Nobody? I think it's a great presentation, right? Now, I have a question, though. So, for example, one of the items says that political activity, certain kind of political, can you give examples of that?

Can you repeat that? I'm sorry. I believe you're referring to the prohibitive conduct? Yeah. Okay, we'll go back to those slides.

Certain political activity.

Yeah. So which one?

The one that says certain political activity, G. Yeah.

Okay, so G, one example of G could be, say you are running for public office, you're running for city council, and you serve as the planning commissioner. You use your authority as a planning commissioner, such as this dais, to promote your campaign activities when you're on the dais serving as a commissioner. That could be a prohibitive conduct related to political activity. You can also do that not just in the dais, you can do that in the community. You present yourself as a planning commissioner while also conflating running for public office at the same time. It is a very fine line when you do that. That's just one example.

I've seen people who run for elections, they do write that they have been members of this commission, that commission, right? So I'm not really sure where the line is drawn.

That's a very good point. So in a statement of qualifications, the law does allow a candidate to refer to their community activism, their appointments. As a matter of fact, the law allows them to use their title as planning commissioner, for example, on their ballot designation. The law allows you to do that. But what the law does not allow you to do The best example would be when you're in your official capacity as a planning commissioner, that is your role. Your role is not a candidate. Your role is not a resident. You are a planning commissioner, so you should conduct yourself as such. So if you conflate that in that moment and you're a candidate running for office and you're presenting yourself as a candidate, then that may be an issue. Now there are certain examples where that would be an issue. you're at a candidate forum and someone asked you about a matter that came before the Planning Commission but you're in a candidate forum so obviously you're going to address the comments made by the commenter asking about a project that came before the Planning Commission but you would only discuss that that that matter, you wouldn't talk about anything that's before you future or establish any position of a matter before the commission on that platform, during that platform.

So no campaigning from the dais.

Right. And I'm sure there's other examples. I just don't have one right with me. I don't want to put Madam City Attorney on the spot, but if you have one, feel free to throw it out there. But that's just one example.

I mean, I'm thinking of a situation where somebody could be running for city council and say, well, I'm a planning commissioner, I'm running for city council, I ask for your vote. So is that, I don't think there's a conflict there.

There's no conflict there. It would be more of, say, you're on the dais and you're doing this meeting. At the end of your comments, you say, by the way, I'm running for Ward 7, please vote for me. That would be inappropriate. Right. OK.

Thank you. Thanks for your question, though, Commissioner Singh. I would just say that I appreciate that our city council is actively paying attention to what's in the code of ethics. And you pointed out a few very recent updates that they made. I think overall, it's a strong code. And I'm hoping and assuming that all of my fellow commissioners abide by it to the best of our ability. Yes. With that, any other comments? Yeah, so I have another question. Yes, go ahead.

The question is, let's say, who do we consult in case there is a doubt in our mind? Who do we talk to?

So the code references the city attorney's office. They are the guiding post in terms of the code of ethics of conduct. And if there's ever, in your capacity as a commissioner, if there's ever a concern or a question about the code, you would refer to them via email or I guess that would be the best approach because they don't have access to your city services, right?

Right, yeah, you can contact our office. We also do advise that you reach out to the Fair Elections, and I'm, yeah. The Fair Political Practices Commission?

That's a reference to certain prohibitive conducts, but yes.

But you can reach out to the city attorney's office.

You guys are nice.

We try to be.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Any further questions or comments, Commissioner Singh? No, no questions. All my questions are answered to fullest satisfaction. This is an excellent quote. Thank you. Is this an action item?

It is an action item. If you had an action, if you wanted to submit forth any recommendations to be considered by the Board of Ethics, later the City Council. And if we don't? That's fine. No recommendations. All right.

Thank you again for your presentation and for making sure that we remain up to date.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right. Moving forward, do we have any items for future consideration?

Yes, we do. So our next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July 30th will be canceled. However, the following meeting on August 13th will be two items on the agenda, one of which is going to be a general planned amendment for the public safety element. And this is to ensure that the public safety element remains compliant with AB 2140. And then the next item will be a presentation by the city attorney's office, by Taryn, on the ex parte communications and the Robertson's Rules of Order.

Thank you.

and then just as an update as well an item worth noting is while it's not a planning commission agenda item i wanted to give you an update that we are bringing a amendment to title five of the municipal code that's the portion of the code that pertains to entertainment permits that is scheduled to go before the city council on July 28th. And that is the amendment that we need to proceed with issuing entertainment permits.

So we didn't need six months. We jumped right on it. Thank you so much. Anybody have anything else for the good of the order friends? All right. We are adjourned. Thank you so much.