Moreno Valley — More than a dozen residents used public comment at the Oct. 7 council meeting to oppose a proposed small‑lot subdivision near Ironwood Avenue and to ask the council to preserve large‑lot zoning and the principal animal‑keeping overlay for the Northeast and East ends of the city.

Denise Intermule, who said she has lived in Moreno Valley since 1968, told the council she bought property in the Northeast for its rural character and raised horses on nearby acreage. “Can you imagine 900 more cars?” she asked, urging the council to examine infrastructure capacity before approving small lots that she said would change the area’s character and create gridlock.

Lindsey Robinson, who said she was speaking about the city’s general plan update, said the city’s municipal code used to protect large‑lot uses and principal animal keeping in the Northeast and that recent maps and the proposed general plan update remove that protection. “General plan updates are supposed to protect community character,” Robinson said, and she asked the council to restore municipal code Section 9.07.0.08 that defines the animal‑keeping overlay.

Several other residents echoed traffic and infrastructure concerns. Jennifer Cordova, who said she has lived 35 years off Darlene Drive, near the proposed site, told the council she and neighbors bought their homes for larger lots and asked the city to “get rid of the small lots” because they do not fit the area and would bring too much traffic. Marcia Narrows and Barbara Baxter described flooding, earthquake faults, and topography in the Northeast that they said make high‑density housing inappropriate and said the area should retain half‑acre and larger lots.

Deborah Johnson said a professional real‑estate appraiser she consulted estimated that bringing small‑lot development adjacent to existing large lots could reduce property values by an estimated $150,000 to $200,000 for affected homes; Johnson asked the council to withdraw the proposal regardless of cost.

Why it matters: The remarks highlight community resistance to proposed changes in land‑use designations and the sensitivity of transitions from rural/large‑lot neighborhoods to denser subdivisions. Councilmembers did not take action on these public comments during the Oct. 7 meeting; they were heard during the public comment period and will be available to staff and council as the general plan and project reviews continue.

What the city said: The meeting included reminders from staff about public outreach processes and translation services; several speakers said they had not received direct notice about scoping sessions and criticized the timing or outreach for recent scoping meetings.

Provenance: Public comments on non‑agenda items began at the start of the meeting and included the speakers cited above.