The Riverside County planning director, acting as hearing officer, approved Plot Plan Wireless (PPW) 220005 on Sept. 15, 2025, authorizing a 70-foot tall disguised mono eucalyptus wireless facility on a 10-acre parcel in the Lake Matthews/Woodcrest area subject to the conditions and findings in the staff report.

Planning staff said the unmanned facility would sit within a roughly 900-square-foot lease area on property owned by the Peltzer family and that landscaping would be provided around the lease area to buffer the site.

The decision matters because the facility is within a rural residential general-plan designation and a light agriculture zoning district (A-1-10). Staff recommended the hearing officer find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3: new construction of small structures) and approve the plot plan with the attached advisory notifications and conditions.

Jake Roberts, project planner for PPW 220005, told the hearing the site is northerly of Blackburn Road, easterly of Vista Del Lago Drive, southerly of Greenview Drive and westerly of Mockingbird Canyon Road. Roberts said the parcel is used currently as a plant nursery and described surrounding land uses and zones.

Roberts said photo simulations were provided showing the proposed mono eucalyptus in context. He also reported that the project was advertised in the Press Enterprise and that planning staff had not received written communications or phone calls indicating support or opposition as of the hearing.

An applicant representative identified in staff materials as Alicia Strausman participated online and confirmed she was available to answer questions. When asked whether the design or site plan would preclude future colocation of another provider, the representative replied there was nothing that would preclude it. She also described a maintenance practice in which the site is reviewed during routine upgrades (typically every one to two years) and said the applicant coordinates with the property owner to address any issues that arise between reviews. The applicant agreed to the proposed conditions of approval.

Hearing officer John Hildebrand opened and closed the public portion of the item with no speakers and then moved to approve the item “subject to the conditions of approval, and findings written in the staff report.” The record does not show a roll-call vote or a second on the motion; the motion was entered on the record and the hearing proceeded to the next agenda item.

No written opposition, formal appeals or requests for continuance were reported at the hearing.

A copy of the staff report and the advisory notification with conditions of approval is the official record of what was approved; the action does not itself authorize any uses beyond those described in the approved plot plan and the project remains subject to the conditions and any future required permits.