Condo density opposed by Jeffries is OK’d

(Published June 15, 2018)

The county’s Board of Supervisors at the June 5 meeting approved the zone change and tract map that allows the controversial Temescal Village 80-unit condominium project to be constructed on Temescal Canyon Road just north of Campbell Ranch Road.

The 4-1 vote, with Supervisor Kevin Jeffries dissenting, ends seven months of debate and hearing continuances before the county Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

The board in April continued the hearing until June to allow the developer time to revise the tract map which Jeffries said was too dense for the location. Developer representative Mike Naggar was told the revision should address Jeffries’ density concerns, including that 36 of the condo garages did not have driveways.

Other supervisors at the April meeting found nothing wrong with the plan as presented and disagreed with Jeffries, commenting in favor of the project. Jeffries told them that he or his staff had met with the developer nine times – each time expressing their concerns with the development and receiving no response to their concerns from Naggar. It wasn’t until he reminded his colleagues that the project was in his district, did they agree to the request for a revision and the continuance.

The project when first presented to the planners in November called for 83 condos but eventually was whittled to 80 units. Two homes, to be built closest to the freeway, were removed at the request of Commissioner Aaron Hake who voiced concerns about emissions data cited in cancer infant mortality rates. Commissioners told Naggar that the two lots should be used for recreation area instead.

While Naggar’s revised plan presented to the board earlier this month added additional driveways for most of the condos, he also had put back in two of the condos removed by the Planning Commission, placing them where the additional recreation area had been designated.

Jeffries told the board he had never experienced a developer who refused to negotiate in good faith and Naggar left him no alternative but to deny the project. Seconded by Supervisor Manuel Perez, Jeffries motion was defeated on a 3-2 vote.

Following discussion led by Supervisor John Tavaglione, who noted the cost to date incurred by the project’s investors, and that “This is a good project,” a motion was made, and the development was approved on a 4-1 vote.

Basically, 80 homes were approved – not 82; 72 of the 80 garages will have driveways; the recreation area Naggar wanted to remove was added back, and 13 parking spaces on the east side of the main entrance street were removed. The developer also will be required to construct a crosswalk and 5-foot wide sidewalk on the west side of Campbell Ranch Road to connect with the existing sidewalk, and to pay for any necessary traffic signal modifications.

Jeffries after the meeting posted on the We Are Temescal Valley Facebook page: “Thank you for coming out today to witness that! I don’t consider myself to be a NIMBY no-growther or an anything goes pro-growther, and when it comes down to it, my primary goal is to support new or expanded local businesses with good paying jobs, and to try to keep development compatible with its neighbors and mitigate its impacts.

“So today when my fellow Board members decided to override my motion to deny an 80 unit condo project (largely because the density was too high for the location) in my district, it was both humbling and frustrating. It appeared that the politically connected developer team had masterfully lined up the support needed to get what they wanted, and it was sad to watch my fellow Board members openly side with the developer’s desires over my concerns for the community.”

Residents had attended the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings to voice concerns that the project was too dense for the acreage, the roads too narrow for fire-fighting equipment and that there is only one road for access to and from the development. The safety of children walking to and from school was questioned, as well as the proximity to adjacent mines and the I-15, and the creation of more traffic on area streets.

No decision on condos; hearing continued

(Published May 1, 2018)
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors at its April 24 meeting made no decision on a proposed 80-unit condo project and instead voted to continue the hearing to the Tuesday, June 5 meeting.

The owner of the 14.81-acre property, located on Temescal Canyon Road just north of Campbell Ranch Road, is seeking a zone change from commercial office to medium-density residential.

Also being sought is approval for the project’s tract map that would place 80 condominiums on nine acres of usable property by utilizing a motor court layout with eight units on each of the narrow motor court streets.

While all supervisors agreed that a residential use for the property was better than the current commercial office zoning, 1^st District Supervisor Kevin Jeffries voiced concern about the density of the project.

Jeffries told Mike Naggar, the developer’s representative, that he counted 36 condos without driveways and because fire regulations prevented parking on the motor courts, the only place a resident could park a vehicle was in the garage. Jeffries said this would be an inconvenience to the owners of those 36 condos.

He said that after several meetings with Naggar, he had never received a response to his concerns about the lack of driveways. He asked Naggar to reduce the number of condos to 55.

Naggar said the requested reduction would essentially “kill” the project. Other supervisors attempted to defend Naggar’s position and appeared to be ready to approve the development until Jeffries reminded them that the project was in his district.

Jeffries asked for the continuance to June 5 to give Naggar time to show how he will provide additional parking for the 36 units without driveways. The Board agreed to the continuance.

Jeffries wrote in his May newsletter, “The April 24th meeting contained an agenda item regarding a relatively small but controversial new condominium development proposal along I-15. In the little over five years I’ve served on the Board, this was one of those tense meetings that you hope never to repeat, as we discussed not just the merits of the project, but the rights of a Supervisor to set standards for development within their own district.”

Many Temescal Valley residents have opposed the project, emailing comments prior to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor hearings, as well as attending the meetings and speaking publicly against the development.

Residents’ concerns have been that all commercial zoning must be preserved in Temescal Valley, that the project was too dense for the acreage and the roads too narrow for fire-fighting equipment to maneuver. Additionally, there is only one road for access to and from the project. The safety of children walking to and from school along Temescal Canyon and Campbell Ranch roads has been questioned, as well as the proximity of the project to adjacent mines and the I-15 freeway, and more early-morning school traffic on Temescal Canyon Road.

Condo hearing is April 24

(Published April 17, 2018)
A Board of Supervisors public hearing will be held 9 a.m., Tuesday, April 24 at the county Administrative Center for the 80 condominiums proposed at Temescal Canyon and Campbell Ranch roads.

The We Are Temescal Valley Development Committee asks that comments opposing the project immediately be sent to county planner Russell Brady: rbrady@rivco.org. Note “Temescal Valley condo project” in the subject line. Public comments also can be made at the hearing.

Planners to recommend OK of condo project

(Published Feb. 14, 2018)
The Riverside County Planning Commission at the Feb. 7 meeting voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the approval of a zone change from commercial office to residential for property located at Temescal Canyon and Campbell Ranch roads.

While two commissioners had concerns with some elements of the 83-condominium project’s design, all commissioners thought a residential use was better than commercial office.

The hearing for the project and the final vote had been continued from the Nov. 20 meeting when commissioners asked developer consultant Michael Naggar to submit a redesign of the project’s tract map.

Concerns voiced at that time included all streets ending in cul-de-sacs, and no way to navigate through the community without dead-ending at a cul-de-sac.

A commissioner said he felt eight homes per motor court was excessive and if residents didn’t park vehicles in their garages, firefighters would have difficulty gaining access because of vehicles parked curbside on the motor courts.

The same commissioner asked for a group of homes built closest to the freeway to be relocated because of emissions data cited in cancer infant mortality rates.
Naggar agreed to their suggestion for a tract map redesign and a request that he again contact the Butterfield Estates HOA board about its concerns. He said continuing the meeting would be sufficient time for him to comply with their requests.

At the Feb. 7 meeting, Naggar told commissioners that the proposed Temescal Village Homeowners Association’s covenants, conditions and restrictions will include verbiage stating that vehicles must be parked in residents’ garages and not on the motor courts. Cul-de-sacs will be designated fire lanes with no parking allowed. Additionally, the project’s streets will be widened by four feet to meet county fire requirements, and a left-turn acceleration lane from the project to Temescal Canyon Road will be constructed. Naggar told commissioners he also again met with the Butterfield HOA and homeowners.

The changes did not offset earlier concerns of commissioners Carl Shaffer and Aaron Hake about motor court density and the cancer mortality rates. Shaffer noted that beyond the changes made, Naggar had not submitted a project redesign.

Naggar countered that a redesign would essentially “kill” the project, forcing the developer, after 3.5 years, to start over. He said a redesign would take months and months to accomplish and cost “tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars” to do.

Facing the possibility of another continuance, Naggar suggested allowing him and his engineering team to be given time during the meeting to make changes to the tract map to address the motor courts and cancer rates.

Following a recess, Naggar returned and proposed eliminating two homes closest to the freeway. He also eliminated one residence in a nine-home motor court, and moved a residence in another nine-home motor court to add “breathing space.” Eliminating three homes brings the number to be constructed to 80. Ten additional homes were rotated so they faced the street instead of the eight-home motor court on which they were located.

With these changes, and conditions that all homes contain air filters and that a children’s play area be designated where the two homes were eliminated, commissioners unanimously voted to recommend approval of the zone change and tract map.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation now advances to the Board of Supervisors. A hearing will be scheduled and the public will have the opportunity to comment on the project. The date of that board meeting has not yet been announced.

Decision on condo project continued again

(Published Dec. 21, 2017)
The Planning Commission’s decision to recommend approval of or deny a developer’s request for a zone change to build 83 condominiums was continued from Dec. 20 to the Wednesday, Feb. 7 meeting. The continuance was requested by the developer.

The project, to be built on 14.81 acres on Temescal Canyon Road just north of Campbell Ranch Road, has been opposed by residents who believe the current commercial office zoning would better serve the community.

Decision on condo project continued

(Published Nov. 7, 2017)
County planning commissioners at their Nov. 1 meeting made no decision on a proposed condominium project, but instead set a new meeting date to give additional time to the developer’s consultant to address concerns they have with the project.

Michael Naggar, a consultant representing the property owner, agreed to the meeting’s continuance to Wednesday, Dec. 20 when he will submit redesigned plans for the 83-condominium community his client wants to build on Temescal Canyon Road just north of Campbell Ranch Road.

The 14.81-acre property, of which only nine acres are usable for the project, currently is zoned for commercial office and the property owner is requesting a zone change to medium-density residential. The property was originally zoned residential, but in 2011 the same owner sought a zone change to commercial office which was granted by county.

About two dozen concerned citizens attended the three-hour public hearing — 11 speaking against the project and seven speaking in favor. A primary objection raised was the earlymorning traffic congestion on Temescal Canyon Road and that the estimated 838 daily vehicle trips generated by the project would add to the gridlock.

A traffic engineer representing the project said that future county improvements scheduled for Temescal Canyon Road would mitigate the current traffic congestion. The completion of the road’s first widening project, planned on the east side of the freeway north of Dawson Canyon Road, is expected in Fall 2019.

Other concerns included public safety and the possible necessity of an evacuation in case of a fire or other natural disaster. Plans call for one road as an entrance into the project and the same road serving as an exit from the project.

Other speakers said that the best use of the property was the current commercial office zoning because Temescal Valley has enough homes, but residents lack services such as medical and dental offices, child care, and assisted senior care.

HOA OPPOSES PROJECT

The project was opposed in a letter submitted to the Planning Commission and signed by all board members of the Butterfield Estates Homeowner’s Association, the closest neighborhood to the proposed project. The primary concern was the traffic congestion and current mountain views to the east that would be obstructed by the two-story condos.

Paula Hook, president of the Butterfield Estates HOA, also questioned agreements that were being made with each of the 14 Butterfield property owners whose homes back up to the condo property. She questioned whether the agreements would require adjustments to the homeowners’ back yards that would require HOA approval and, if so, that the developer work with the HOA board and not each homeowner.

The majority of those speaking in favor of the project were Butterfield residents involved in the agreements.

After the public comment portion of the hearing was closed, Naggar refuted some of the comments made by speakers opposing the project.

He said the commercial office use of the property was not a viable alternative for the owner as that market had declined during the recession and has not recovered. He also said there were too few “rooftops” in Temescal Valley to support services offered by commercial office tenants.

He questioned why the Butterfield HOA would have any involvement in improvements made to the back yards of the 14 residents closest to the project. He said what he was offering these residents in each of the agreements was a “good neighbor” gesture on behalf of his client.

PLANNERS EXPRESS CONCERNS

Commissioners, reviewing the project tract map, had concerns about the streets ending in cul-de-sacs and no way to navigate through the community without dead-ending at a cul-de-sac. Another concern was the number of homes built on each of the narrow motor courts.
A commissioner said he felt eight homes per motor court was excessive and if residents didn’t park vehicles in their garages, firefighters would have difficulty gaining access because of vehicles parked curbside on the motor courts.

The same commissioner asked for a group of homes built closest to the freeway to be relocated because of emissions data cited in cancer infant mortality rates. 

Another commissioner asked for a wider buffer between the condos and the 14 Butterfield homes that backed up to the project.

Naggar agreed to their suggestion for a tract map redesign and a request that he again contact the Butterfield HOA board about its concerns. He said continuing the meeting until Dec. 20 would be sufficient time for him to comply with their requests.