A proposed zoning rule change sparked heated remarks between concerned land-use activists and Riverside County planning commissioners last week.

Initially, the widespread concern that a countywide change could impact communities caught the commission off guard. But surprise turned to frustration as some commissioners accused activists of sowing misinformation and orchestrating a backlash.

"There’s no conspiracy going on here," Commissioner John Petty told the audience of about 30 people. "I don’t know who has gotten you all riled up here."

Later in the hearing, Petty urged audience members "who are being manipulated by this process" to further research the issues they were raising.

Some audience members were gaveled down during the spirited 75-minute hearing held in Romoland.

At one point, Petty – a 10-year commission veteran who represents Temecula, Murrieta, Menifee, Hemet and other areas – advised a speaker not to rely on activists who voiced suspicion of county actions.

In the end, the commission voted 5-0 in favor of a wording change aimed at clarifying the zoning categories in which schools, city buildings and other public agency structures may be constructed.

The proposed change is expected to go before county supervisors next month for review and possible approval.

Concerns over the proposed general plan amendment surfaced among several community groups that have opposed development plans in their areas. E-mail alerts were used to contact group leaders and urge them to attend the commission meeting.

The hearing attracted about 30 people. About 15 audience members – who traveled from Corona, Nuevo, San Diego, Los Angeles and other areas – commented on the proposed change. No audience members spoke in favor of the amendment.

The activists feared that the change would make it easier for the county to approve undesirable projects that have a public benefit – such as jails, sewage treatment plants or trash dumps – in or near their communities.

They also feared the change might help cement past or potential future approvals of key projects they oppose.

Staff members said they sought the change as a way to eliminate uncertainties that exist in the county’s 6-year-old general plan, a blueprint for future growth, road construction and ecological habitat protection.

The proposed change would make it clear that public buildings – which include county, state, federal and special district facilities – are allowed in any zoning designation except for open space categories, said Tamara Harrison, a county project planner.

But a volley of advance concerns, including qualms cited by one commissioner, prompted county staff to modify the amendment’s wording prior to the Romoland hearing.

In doing so, staff recommended removing a sentence that said privately owned projects that benefit public agencies could also be covered by the amendment.

Based on that recommendation, some planning commissioners thought community concerns would fade and the amendment would be unopposed.

But activists’ concerns weren’t eased and a steady stream of speakers expressed suspicion and questioned county’s motives for the proposed change.

One of the harshest critics was Robert Eppers, a leader of a group opposed to plans to operate a natural gas power plant near French Valley Airport.

Eppers and other foes of that project have spoken before the Temecula City Council and other agencies.

He called the amendment change "disgraceful" and said information about the power plant proposal has been withheld from area residents.

"This is something you’d see in a communist government," Eppers told planning commissioners in his remarks.

A leader of a group fighting a proposed quarry south of Temecula submitted a letter citing concerns over the amendment change.

Led by Ann Weston of Menifee, several speakers noted that a hotly debated project in that area was mentioned in a staff report on the proposed general plan change.

Weston said she feared the amendment change was aimed at blunting growing criticism of a project planned by Procinctu Groups Inc.

That plan calls for the construction of a police, military and private security training center on 194 acres near Briggs Road and Norden Dr.

The company plans to build and operate shooting ranges, a tactical driving course, dormitories, a gym, classrooms and other training-related structures.

Weston and a growing cadre of activists claim the county provided insufficient notice and environmental review and improperly placed the project in its fast-track review process before it was approved in January 2008.

She and other foes of the project have repeatedly criticized the plan and protested at the County Administrative Center in Riverside.

County planners said Procinctu was cited in the staff report simply as an example that such a project would not be considered a public use even though government agencies might contract to train personnel there.

Petty, along with county legal staff and other officials, tried to convince Weston and others that the amendment change had nothing to do with the Procinctu project.

They also defended the processing of the Procinctu plan and noted that further jousting against the project is pointless because the appeal period and litigation deadline have expired.

"It’s all water under the bridge," Petty said.

Be the first to share your opinion on this article!