Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Commission considers general plan amendment to allow medium‑density housing near Mountain View Road; neighbors raise infrastructure and wildlife concerns

July 16, 2025 | Riverside County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Commission considers general plan amendment to allow medium‑density housing near Mountain View Road; neighbors raise infrastructure and wildlife concerns
An applicant asked the Riverside County Planning Commission on July 16 to initiate a foundation component general plan amendment, FGPA 240040, proposing to change a parcel south of Eighteenth Avenue and north of Twentieth Avenue from rural residential to community development medium‑density residential.
Elizabeth Mora Rodriguez, planning staff, said the site sits east of Bubbling Wells Road and west of Mountain View Road in the Western Coachella Valley area plan. The applicant’s representative described a conceptual plan calling for typical single‑family lots — roughly 9,000‑square‑foot parcels in earlier outreach — consistent with surrounding tracts and intended to serve first‑time buyers.
Resident speakers urged caution. Ronald Goldman said much of the surrounding county land is vacant but argued the area has working ranches and horse ownership; he warned the proposal could enable short‑term‑rental or second‑home uses rather than full‑time residency. Anna Miller, who said she lives on the historic B Bar H Ranch, told commissioners the neighborhood’s roads, water pressure and county services are already strained and asked the commission to “deny this rezoning request and protect our quality of life.” Tim LaBonge (online) asked whether the change would permit short‑term rentals and said he wants protections so businesses and Airbnbs don’t locate adjacent to residences.
Planning staff and commissioners reiterated that the FGPA initiation does not change land‑use entitlements or authorize construction. John (planning staff) explained the initiation would allow the applicant to pursue a formal project submittal, after which the proposal would be subject to CEQA review, traffic studies, utility analysis, community outreach and subsequent hearings before the commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Commissioners weighed competing considerations: several said they favor more housing in the region but want clear commitments on affordability, neighborhood outreach and design. Commissioner (first reference) said she was “inclined to support” but wanted a future price commitment to ensure the homes target first‑time buyers. The commission chair summarized a tally of support: three commissioners voiced support with design and outreach conditions and one registered a neutral stance.
The initiative vote to move the item forward as a concept was not recorded as a final action in the transcript; commissioners instructed staff and the applicant to continue public outreach and to return with a formal project and technical studies if the item proceeds.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep California articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI
Family Portal
Family Portal