Additional motel or apartments planned for Idyllwild

Editor’s note: The Planning Commission hearing was Wednesday, Feb. 2, which was after this edition of the Town Crier was published. Although the planning staff did recommend approval of the project, we will report the commission’s decision in the following issue.

Wednesday, Feb. 2, the Riverside County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to build another 25 units on the back of the Pine Woods Resorts, formerly the Tahquitz Inn and the Apple Blossom Inn.

The current motel structure fronts Highway 243 and the parcel is about 1.5 acres. Most of the new construction would occur on an adjacent parcel of about 0.9 acres along Oakwood Street.

While several residents nearby have voiced objections to the construction and other Idyllwild residents have signed petitions opposing new development, the commission’s staff is recommending approval of the necessary CUP, subject to conditions, and the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of Environmental Assessment.

Both documents are in the materials submitted to the Planning Commission. Also, the Initial Environment Study and draft MND were circulated to the public, according to the staff report, and no comments were submitted. Consequently, no more mitigation measures were added to the ones the staff recommended.

Project

The existing 18-unit motel is on about 1.5 acres. This plan proposes to build another 25 units, of which 11 would be on this parcel and 14 would be on the 0.9 acre parcel behind it along Oakwood Street. The units would be two stories and have about 1,200 square feet of living space. Primary access would be from Oakwood.

Local developer Shane Stewart owns the two properties, although indications are that he has already put the land and proposed project on the market.

Staff Comments

Planning staff is recommending approval because current zoning supports this type of commercial activity. Current capacity limit would be 15 units per acre. Since the 43-unit proposal is on the combined 2.9 acres, its ratio of units to land is 14.8 units per acre.

The Idyllwild Water District agreed to provide water and sewer for the larger facility. The planning staff also recommended “… the plan for the proposed use shall consider the location and need for dedication and improvement of necessary streets and sidewalks, including the avoidance of traffic congestion.”

The recommendation was based on the staff’s overall assessment: “The proposed use conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property, as noted previously the project is consistent with the General Plan’s and Zoning’s planned land uses and densities.”

The list of conditions the staff is recommending is 21 pages long.

Opposition

Included in the package of materials to the commission was the “Save Idyllwild Petition” with nearly 500 signatures. The petition signatories support ending all “… new conversions of existing commercial or residential structures into high density housing, including all new condominiums, town houses, apartment buildings, hotels and tenement construction.”

The petition pleads to “stop high density development in the Idyllwild area.” It further proposes that future development be first reviewed and approved by a board composed of local residents.

Residents, such as Gene Schneider, who live near the proposed development are worried about several issues — Oakwood’s capacity, water and sewer.

“I am also vehemently opposed to this project,” Schneider, who has in Idyllwild since 1949. “Already, the traffic going up Oakwood is very busy and noisy. It’s just a single lane. The big issues are water supply, sewer line capacity (it’s a 10-inch lateral going up Oakwood), and road width.”

Since it is not a county-maintained road, according to Schneider, he is concerned that it is not adequate for the increased traffic.

In a Jan. 27 letter to the planning staff, Robin Miller, a neighbor, also described the road as “inaccessible” with a single-lane access and dangerous for emergency vehicles in inclement weather. Miller also questioned the adequacy of the water and sewer elements.

Another view in opposition considers the potential growth of all future development affecting the local ecosystem and Idyllwild’s long-term attraction. “I generally am not in favor of unnecessary destruction of natural habitat. When we start paving over forests with concrete, we begin the cruel and destructive cycle to starve the wildlife that live in that area, not to mention the habitat assault as a whole from fires and air pollution … Sadly, the plans for Idyllwild are clearly to make it into a high-population metropolitan environment. At some point, Idyllwild as an attraction to nature and outdoor lovers will be minimal,” opined Jeff Taylor.

Decision

The Planning Commission decision Wednesday is not necessarily the final step.

“The Planning Commission’s decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Such appeals shall be submitted in writing to the Clerk of the Board, with the required fee as set forth in Ordinance No. 671 (Consolidated Fees for Land Use and Related Functions), within 10 days after the Planning Commission’s decision,” provided at the end of the staff report.