A real estate developer who was the primary donor to Ricky Estrada’s mayoral campaign was at the center of discussion during a public hearing at Wednesday’s City Council meeting.
At issue was an appeal of the Planning Commission’s April 8 approval of the Menifee Boardwalk project, a proposed commercial center to include restaurants and drive-thru dining establishments near the southwest corner of Newport Road and Menifee Road. The project site is adjacent to Archibald’s restaurant, which was developed and owned by Andy Sehremelis.
Sehremelis is the founder of Parkcrest Construction, Inc, which developed the Archibald’s in addition to the ARCO service station and car wash on the northeast corner of that intersection. He also is manager of Foothill Arch, LLC, which filed the appeal against the proposed project adjacent to his property.
At the public hearing, the appeal by Foothill Arch was denied by the City Council by a 3-0 vote. Council member Ben Diederich was absent from the meeting. Estrada recused himself for what he called “a prior relationship”, with no further explanation.
Campaign donation documents show that Sehremelis donated $5,500 – the maximum amount allowed – to Estrada’s campaign for mayor in 2024. At the time, one of Estrada’s campaign statements was that he was the only candidate who signed a pledge not to take money from developers.
However, as was made clear at Wednesday’s meeting, Sehremelis is indeed a developer. The website for Parkcrest Construction, Inc., refers to it as a Real Estate Development Company. Moreover, the attorney for Parkcrest confirmed when questioned by Mayor Pro Tem Bob Karwin that Parkcrest is a development firm.
Asked by a reporter in a text exchange last week whether he lied in his pledge, Estrada replied, “I’m not admitting that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that.” Asked again whether Sehremelis is a developer, Estrada did not respond.
Earlier in the conversation, he said, “The restaurant and car wash were years ago.”
While Estrada waited outside council chambers, Karwin asked Foothill Arch attorney Joseph Cardella about a proposed Sehremelis development that Karwin believes indicates his personal interest in the property in question. Karwin showed an image from the “Our Developments” section of the Parkcrest website that shows plans for a senior living development on the property next to Archibald’s.
Cardella replied that the plans shown were from a project planned “before COVID” and were only left up on the website “to show the types of projects he does.”
Cardella said that “Parkcrest has absolutely no interest in this site whatsoever”, calling Karwin’s implications “absurd.”
As stated by city planner Ryan Fowler in presenting Foothill Arch’s appeal to the council, the main concerns listed in the appeal were traffic impacts and other environmental concerns. The appeal contests the Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by engineering firm LLG for the City. In addition to the increased traffic the project would bring to Newport Road, the appeal questions the placement of a driveway for the project near the Archibald’s driveway.
Karwin continued to press Cardella on the previous Parkcrest proposed project, which Cardella said included meetings with the City and plans developed before it was decided that the economy was not conducive to the senior living project at the time. Karwin pointed to two sets of plans on the website for the same location and asked if Cardella was aware of those two.
“I am,” Cardella said. “One of them was a senior living project that would’ve been perfect there, but at the time, the economy didn’t support it.” But when asked about the other plans shown on the website for the same location, Cardella said, “I’m not sure,” then added, “There’s only one project.”
Continuing his questioning, Karwin said, “I’m saying this because I think this is the development they (Parkcrest) want to see there instead of the one being proposed,” Karwin said.
“This project didn’t get underway,” Cardella replied. “At the end of the day, the project did not make viable sense … This is the ultimate red herring and an absurd comparison. The level of parking that would’ve served a senior center would’ve been vastly less than the current project proposed.”
After hearing testimony from the project applicant and an engineer who worked on the traffic study, council members voted to deny the appeal and allow the project to move forward.
The five proposed elements of the project are as follows:
— Building 1: A 6,000-square-foot multi-tenant building designed to accommodate restaurant uses, featuring an outdoor patio and 59 dedicated parking spaces.
— Building 2: A 10,850-square-foot multi-tenant retail and restaurant building, with an end-cap tenant drive-thru, two outdoor patios, 90 parking spaces.
— Building 3: A 1,000-square-foot drive-thru coffee shop with 11 parking spaces.
— Building 4: A 10,800-square-foot multi-tenant mixed-use building to include medical offices, retail, and restaurant spaces, supported by 62 parking spaces.
— Building 5: A 10,000-square-foot childcare facility with a 12,500-square-foot outdoor play yard and 52 parking spaces.
