Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Wildomar planning commission delays omnibus code update after residents protest animal‑keeping changes and notice
Loading...
Summary
After hours of public comment, the Wildomar Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue a broad municipal code omnibus update to allow staff to publish clearer redlines and address residents’ concerns—especially proposed animal‑keeping changes that many said would undermine the city’s equestrian character.
The Wildomar Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue consideration of a sweeping municipal code omnibus update after sustained public comment focused on proposed animal‑keeping changes and concern about short notice and the size of the packet.
Community Development Director Robert Flores told the commission the animal‑keeping revisions that prompted significant public feedback were removed from the ordinance before the hearing. “We heard the community, and determined that it was best to pull those specific changes from the ordinance to obtain community feedback,” Flores said at the meeting. He also summarized the city’s annual housing progress report and agreed staff would provide a clearer, redlined document for the commission and public.
Planner Abdul Leshkar, who presented the proposed 2026 biannual code updates, described several administrative changes staff proposes, including a new minor use permit (MUP) to replace some conditional use permit (CUP) requirements, streamlined major/minor development review, making extensions of time administrative, and other code cleanup to align with state law. “For example, a permanent farmers market previously could face a $24,000 conditional‑use cost; this change is intended to make that process far less expensive,” Leshkar said, explaining the intent behind the MUP.
Residents who spoke during the public comment period urged the commission to preserve Wildomar’s rural and equestrian identity and to slow the process. “Wildomar has three horses on our city seal — you were going to take away what makes us Wildomar,” said Gina Castanon, a longtime resident. Several speakers described lost trust caused by a large packet posted shortly before the meeting and urged a continuance so residents could review a focused list of redline changes.
Commissioners said they shared concerns about public notice and the volume of changes and asked staff to produce a concise redline that highlights only proposed edits. A motion to continue Municipal Code Amendment No. 2026‑03 to the June meeting (June 3) carried 5–0.
Staff said the proposal could be advanced in parts (for example, ADU changes driven by state law) while other sections are tabled. The commission recommended staff produce a more descriptive staff report and pared attachments focused on the amendments under consideration. The item will return to the commission with revised materials and later go to City Council for final action if recommended.
The commission also agreed to continue outreach and offer quarterly updates on administrative approvals (such as MUPs and extensions of time) so commissioners and the public can track which projects are being processed administratively.
