Moreno Valley planning commission recommends denial of 37‑lot Bradshaw Circle subdivision

Moreno Valley Planning Commission on Thursday recommended denial of a developer’s proposal to amend the general plan and rezone a 4.81‑acre site at the northeast corner of Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle for a 37‑lot single‑family planned unit development.

Associate Planner Grace Espino Salcedo told the commission the project would subdivide the vacant site into 37 lots ranging from 3,047 to 5,016 square feet, provide two bio‑retention drainage basins, a three‑foot drainage ditch, a central common recreation lot with playground and basketball court, and 25 on‑street guest parking spaces. Staff recommended adoption of a mitigated negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act and resolutions 2025‑19 through 2025‑22 supporting approval.

The nut graf: Commissioners split over whether the proposal — which would change the site’s designation from R‑5 to RS‑10 to allow an effective density of roughly 7–7.9 units per net acre — was consistent with the city’s general plan and respectful of long‑time residents’ expectations. After public testimony from neighbors who opposed the change and explanations from the developer and staff, the commission voted to recommend denial of the general plan amendment and zone change; that recommendation, under municipal code and state law, is final unless appealed to the city council within 10 calendar days.

Residents and speakers at the public hearing voiced concerns about private‑street liability, traffic onto Cactus Avenue and notice about parcel changes. Veronica Outland, who said her lot was reduced by about 6,000 square feet on city records, told commissioners, “I felt like I was robbed,” and said she received no notice from the city about the change. Bill Redden said petitions opposing the change collected more than 100 signatures.

Developer Roger Hobbs and his team argued the project would provide needed homes and infrastructure improvements. Hobbs said the firm targets first‑time buyers and that the design — two‑story homes with driveways and backyards — was intended to “fit within the neighborhoods” while adding sidewalks, curb and gutter and turning Bradshaw Circle into a public street. “I personally guarantee the loans,” Hobbs said, stressing his financial stake and commitment to build a product he described as achievable for buyers in the mid‑$500,000 range.

Commissioners who opposed the change said altering the site from R‑5 to R‑10 now, while the city’s comprehensive general plan update is under way, would set a precedent and could increase traffic and emergency‑access risk on Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle. The city attorney read recommended findings for denial, citing inconsistency with the general plan update, potential impacts to adjacent low‑density residential development and that the added units would likely count toward moderate or above‑moderate income categories rather than lower‑income RHNA targets.

Motion and vote: Commissioner Zietz moved to deny the general plan amendment and change of zone and Commissioner Taylor seconded. The roll call was Zietz — yes; Terrell — yes; Taylor — yes; Stefan — yes; Vice Chairperson Baker — no; Chairperson DeJaunette — yes. The motion carried 5–1, which the city attorney recorded as the commission’s formal recommendation to deny the land‑use changes; the denial also de facto rejects the conditional use permit, planned development permit and tentative tract map associated with the proposal.

What’s next: Staff stated the commission’s action is appealable to the city council; anyone wishing to appeal must file an appeal application with the Community Development Department and pay the applicable fee within 10 calendar days of the action. The developer and residents may pursue further meetings or changes through that avenue.

Context: Staff said the proposed project’s public comment period for the mitigated negative declaration ran Oct. 17–Nov. 17, 2025. Assistant City Manager Sean Kelleher told the commission that units only count toward RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) when a certificate of occupancy is issued, not at permit issuance. The project team said site constraints, required basins and an included park limit achievable density to about 7–7.7 units per acre, which the developer said balances market feasibility with neighborhood compatibility.