Meeting Time: October 22, 2026 at 6:30pm PDT

Disclaimer:

Thank you for participating in our upcoming meeting by submitting your written comment. eComments will be enabled until 3:00 pm. and are delivered to the meeting body in real time. Written comments will not be read aloud during the meeting.

Please review the Social Media Customer Use Policy for public engagement guidelines.


Agenda Item

4.) Amended: Public Hearing for a Minor Amendment to the Watson Ranch Specific Plan, and Major Modification to the Promontory Subdivision Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. 

This meeting is open for public comment. By registering to speak, you agree to be present during the meeting time. You will be called to speak by your name.

   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
2500 of 2500 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    Jeff Rayos at October 19, 2026 at 8:48pm PDT

    Dear Chair Plummer,

    I’m writing respectfully for you to question item 4 on 10/22 Planning Agenda, I’m a resident in Watson Ranch and have been following the Watson Ranch project , after reading the staff report I’m unclear on the tradeoffs and rationale behind this action , and I ask you respectfully to bring more clarity for the community:

    1. How is the City benefitting for this arrangement ? It’s clear the Developer is gaining , what is the city getting?

    2. Will the residents then be asked to fund the Newell Rd and associated future costs if the developer isn’t?

    3. Has a Traffic Study or updated engineering study been conducted to determine the traffic flow and road impacts on Mallen ?

    4. Has an engineering study been updated on the impacts of storm water drainage after removing the catch basin?

    5. Since we’re discussing Watson Ranch , what is the Status on the Parks , trails , and City Center that’s been identified in the specific plan ?

    Overall , I can’t tell from the document what the City is gaining from this ? I ask that you truly investigate this item and make it clear to the public , as you can tell from question 5, we’ve seen next to nothing from the developer in regards to community benefits, and myself like many others in the community do not trust the developers word, and therefore l ask this Committee to throughly review the impacts and shed light on this proposal, to restore trust that staff have done their due diligence in recommending this because after reading it on face value I wouldn’t .