Planning commission backs Wildomar code cleanup but keeps review for most time extensions

The Wildomar Planning Commission voted unanimously June 3 to recommend a biannual update to the city’s development code, approving technical corrections and state-law alignments while carving out an exception that preserves elected-panel review of extensions of time previously approved by the Planning Commission.

Principal Planner Abdu Leshkar told the commission the package “mainly addresses kind of corrections, updates based on state law, and some minor changes to text and definitions,” including revisions to pre-application checklists, renaming development-review categories to reduce confusion, and updating temporary-use rules. Staff proposed allowing certain extensions of time (EOTs) to be handled administratively, while keeping a 600-foot public-notification radius and retaining appeal rights to the Planning Commission and City Council.

Why it matters: the changes are intended to streamline permit processing and keep Wildomar’s Title 17 zoning code consistent with state requirements for ADUs and other laws. But residents and some commissioners warned that administrative approvals could reduce transparency for projects that materially change over time.

What changed and why: Leshkar said the update would clarify and correct references across Title 17 and Title 16, make extensions of time administrative in some cases, update temporary-event rules to allow up to 12 events a year (up from six), permit certified farmers markets to operate without a temporary-event permit where appropriate, and reintroduce and update SB 9 provisions that were inadvertently removed in a prior rewrite.

Public pushback and staff clarifications: Multiple residents said moving EOT authority out of the public eye would limit accountability. Gina Testanon told commissioners, “If we take away the middle man, you guys, and then the accountability of City Council, where does a community come in?” Staff and the community development director responded that administrative EOTs would still require notification and could be appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council; staff also said they would defer controversial or changed projects back to the Planning Commission.

Compromise and vote: The chair proposed a compromise that would permit a first, routine extension to be handled ministerially when there are no significant changes or public interest, but would keep second and third extensions and any projects that originally came to the Planning Commission under commission review. Commissioner Campero moved to recommend the ordinance to City Council with clerical corrections and that modification; Commissioner Filar seconded. The motion passed 3-0.

Next steps: The Planning Commission will forward the amended MCA (Municipal Code Amendment 2026-03), along with a staff recommendation that the ordinance be found exempt under CEQA, to the City Council for consideration. Staff will also incorporate additional technical corrections identified in public comments and an email submitted to the commission.

Ending: The commission directed staff to return with any follow-up and indicated willingness to convene workshops or a public meeting for deeper line-by-line review if City Council desires an ad hoc subcommittee or additional public engagement.