Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use Temescal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents' complaints lead Norco council to deny accessory building permit at Temescal Avenue

Norco City Council · March 5, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Neighbors told the council they observed commercial activity at 4077 Temescal Ave and raised concerns about impervious surface and drainage; after hearing staff analysis and neighbor testimony, the council voted unanimously to deny the accessory building use permit.

Planning staff Erica summarized the application and appeal for an accessory building use permit for 4077 Temescal Avenue: a proposed 1,000-square-foot large-vehicle garage with an attached 392-square-foot shop, existing hardscape estimated around 8,500 square feet, and two prior closed code cases on the site.

Multiple neighbors testified in opposition, describing repeated daytime arrivals of workers in white vans and storage of electrical materials on the property. Jamie McCauley told the council the property "is not zoned for commercial use" and that approval "would set a dangerous precedent" for residential neighborhoods. Pat Hednes, who lives next door and had recused from the planning commission hearing, said the property appears to be used as a dispatching location rather than a residence.

The applicant, who identified himself as a licensed contractor, said he is renovating the house, will add accessory dwelling units and intends the property to be residential; he also said some permits were pulled after prior citations. Staff and an engineer explained that projects exceeding 5,000 square feet of impervious surface trigger water-quality management requirements and that a grading/drainage analysis and additional conditions would likely be necessary.

After deliberation, Councilmember Newton moved to deny the project based primarily on finding number 2 (that the use would adversely affect surrounding properties and community welfare); the motion was seconded and passed unanimously, denying the accessory building use permit.