For all of the reasons set forth below, the City strongly urges the County to cease further work on this project until such time as the County can consult with the City on the Cooperative Agreement, and until proper environmental review is conducted.
FAILURE OF THE COUNTY TO FULFILL ITS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND TRAFFIC
MITIGATION OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE
CITY OF TEMECULA
On April 12, 2005 the City and County entered into the Cooperative Agreement that imposes upon the County very specific and profound obligations for the mitigation of traffic impacts in the Western Riverside County.
In developing the Winchester Community Plan and the Draft PEIR the County has completely ignored its obligations under the Cooperative Agreement that will directly result in adverse traffic impacts upon the City, the Winchester Community Plan Area and the cities surrounding the Winchester Community Plan Area. There is no plan to finance the remaining Major Arterial Roads described in the Cooperative Agreement that are needed to mitigate the traffic impacts of residential units in the area under the existing General Plan. The County has not conducted a Freeway Study nor come up with a traffic mitigation plan for the additional 33,000 residential units in the new Winchester Community Plan in violation of the Cooperative Agreement.
Amendment No. 1 to the Cooperative Agreement was approved on January 30, 2007. Copies of the Cooperative Agreement and Amendment No. 1 are attached as Exhibits A and B.
The County Failed to Fulfill its Obligation Under the Cooperative Agreement to Work Cooperatively with the City to Improve the Highway Infrastructure and Traffic Impacts of Existing and Future Development in Western Riverside County On November 5, 2003, the City filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in Riverside Superior Court challenging the legality and validity of the County's General Plan and the DEIR. The action is entitled "City of Temecula v. County of Riverside; Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, " Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 402766 ("Litigation").
Sections 1.6 and 1.7 of the Cooperative Agreement express in clear and unequivocal terms the obligations of the County and the City to cooperate in the development of infrastructure in Western Riverside County:
"1.6 Despite their differences in the Litigation, the City and County desire to cooperatively work together in an effort to improve the highway infrastructure in Western Riverside County for the benefit of all current and future residents of the County. The City and County acknowledge that providing adequate traffic infrastructure for Western Riverside County involves complex engineering, environmental and financial challenges requiring the full cooperation of all federal, state and local governmental agencies, but will provide substantial public benefits for the City, County and the people living and working in the City and the County."
"1.7 This Agreement sets forth the framework for a major cooperative effort by the City and the County to provide the traffic infrastructure required for new housing development in Western Riverside County before the creation of actual traffic impacts."
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
Despite its legal commitment to cooperate with the City in the development of traffic infrastructure in Western Riverside County, the County has completely ignored the cities in Western Riverside County in its development of the Winchester Community Plan or the traffic infrastructure necessary to support the Winchester Community Plan.
The County has failed to consult and cooperate with the City in developing the Winchester Community Plan as required by Section 15086 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 2.3.6 of the Cooperative Agreement. The County failed to provide even the most minimal notice of its proposal in violation Section 15086 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 2.3.6 of the Cooperative Agreement.
Despite three years of work on the Winchester Community Plan, the County never solicited input or comments from the City on traffic impact or invited the City to participate in the development of the Winchester Community Plan. Section 1.7 of the Cooperative Agreement clearly requires the provision of traffic infrastructure before the traffic impacts are created. This has not been done. The County is now required to start the process over and provide meaningful opportunities in good faith for the City and the other cities to comment on the Winchester Community Plan and develop traffic mitigation for the Winchester Community Plan's proposed 33,000 additional residential units.
The Cooperative Agreement Provides that the County May Not Issue Building Permits Under the Proposed_ Winchester Community Plan Until Such Time as it has Identified Road and Freeway Improvements to Mitigate the Traffic Impacts Resulting from the Additional 36,000 Residential Units Within the Winchester Community Plan Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.3 of the Cooperative Agreement require the County to amend its General Plan to condition all Land Use Applications, including General Plan Amendments, to prohibit the issuance of building permits until such time as there is in place an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the Major Arterial Roads :
"2.1 The County shall use its best efforts to amend the General Plan so that it contains:
(1) a policy indicating that the Major Arterial Roads within the 1-215 Policy Area shall be constructed and completed concurrently with the construction of the dwelling units creating the demand for the Major Arterial Roads; and (2) a requirement that all land use applications approved by the County within the 1-215 Policy Area ("County Land Use Applications") shall contain a condition, in addition to all other appropriate conditions, that building permits shall not be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the County in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the County otherwise funds or constructs
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
the required improvements using money from other sources. The General Plan Amendments described in this section shall be known as the "County General Plan Amendment."" "2.2 All County Land Use Applications approved by the County after the effective date of this Agreement shall contain a condition of approval requiring that building permits shall not be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays his/her/its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the County in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the County otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources.
"2.3.3 As used in this Agreement, County Land Use Applications shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which would authorize, or conditionally authorize, the construction of dwelling units within the 1-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. County Land Use Applications shall not include any applications for parcel maps that would result in the creation of four or fewer parcels, provided that the parcels created could not be further subdivided without a General Plan amendment. County Land Use Applications shall also not include any applications for minor changes to approved tentative tract maps that would add only one residential unit to the maps."
The County does not have a fully funded financing mechanism to fund the construction of Major Arterial Roads within the 1-215 Policy Area. In developing the Winchester Community Plan and the Draft PEIR, the County has completely ignored its obligations under the Cooperative Agreement that will directly result in adverse traffic impacts upon the City, the Winchester Community Plan Area and the cities surrounding the Winchester Community Plan Area as the County has not planned for, or financed, the Major Arterial Roads that will need to be constructed and/or widened to move the significant number of new residents that are expected to live in the Winchester Community Plan Area in and out of the Winchester Community Plan Area.
The County Failed to Initiate and Fulfill its Obligation to Develop the Freeway Strategic Study and Action Plan
The County has failed to fulfill its obligation under the Cooperative Agreement to cooperate with the City, other Western Riverside County Cities and private and public stakeholders to request the preparation of a Freeway Strategic Study and develop a Freeway Action Plan. Sections 4.1 to 4.4 of the Cooperative Agreement provide:
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
"4.1 The City and the County shall jointly request that the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") prepare a Freeway Strategic Study for the Western Riverside County Area which shall examine the freeway capacity, set specific goals for the development of the freeway capacity necessary to accommodate the trips generated by new housing development and establish the framework for the joint efforts of the City, County and other federal, state and local agencies to implement the goals and establish the necessary freeway capacity. The Joint Request for the Freeway Strategic Study shall ask that the Freeway Strategic Study be completed within four (4) months of the date of submittal of the Joint Request. The Joint Request shall be submitted to RCTC within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Agreement. The parties authorize the Mayor of the City and the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors to execute the Joint Request on behalf of their respective agencies."
"4.2 The Freeway Strategic Study shall specifically study and analyze the following issues: (1) the current capacities of the freeways within Western Riverside County Area ("Freeways"); (2) the projected traffic growth projections for the Freeways as of January 1 in the years 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030, based upon assumptions concerning the build -out of new housing as described in Exhibit E; (3) the percentage of traffic growth for the Freeways in those years attributable to new housing development in the Western Riverside County Area; (4) the currently proposed improvements for the Freeways; (5) the current funding options for the currently proposed improvements for the Freeways; and (6) the potential funding sources for improvements necessary to meet the projected traffic growth for the Freeways at build -out of the Western Riverside County Area."
"4.3 The City and the County shall share equally in the costs incurred by RCTC in preparing the Freeway Strategic Study.
4.3.1 The County shall invoice the City for the City's share of the RCTC costs and the City shall pay such invoice within thirty (30) days of the date the invoice is deemed given under Section 6.7 of this. Agreement.
4.3.2 During the course of RCTC's work on the Freeway Strategic Study, the City, the County and RCTC staff shall meet monthly to discuss the progress of the work and to review any additional work which may need to be undertaken by the consultant." - "4.4 Following completion of the Freeway Strategic Study, the City and County shall meet and negotiate in good faith to develop a Freeway Action Plan for funding the freeway improvements necessary to meet the expected demand as determined by the Freeway Strategic Study. As part of the development of the Freeway Action Plan, the City and the County shall also form a Freeway Task Force composed of private and public stakeholders to build consensus and secure participation of other Western Riverside County Area Cities in the Freeway Action Plan. The Freeway Task Force shall specifically include, but shall not be limited to, a representative from each of the following: the City and the County, RCTC, the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG"), the development community and the environmental community."
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
In these sections, the County committed itself, with the assistance of the City, to initiate a Freeway Strategic Study to evaluate expected freeway traffic demands through 2030. Significantly, in Section
4.4 the County agreed to:
"... meet and negotiate in good faith to develop a Freeway Action Plan for funding the freeway improvements necessary to meet the expected demand as determined by the Freeway Strategic Study. As part of the development of the Freeway Action Plan, the City and the County shall also form a Freeway Task Force composed of private and public stakeholders to build consensus and secure participation of other Western Riverside County Area Cities in the Freeway Action Plan."
Once again, the County has failed to fulfill its obligation under the Cooperative Agreement to cooperate with the City, other Western Riverside County Cities and private and public stakeholders for the Freeway Strategic Study and the development of the Freeway Action Plan.
Despite having over seventeen years to undertake the Freeway Strategic Study and the Freeway Action Plan, the County failed to undertake any study, let alone cooperate with Temecula and the other cities.
Moreover, the County did not even undertake a study to determine the traffic impacts upon the freeways in Western Riverside County resulting from the Winchester Community Plan's addition of 33,000 residential units. The DEIR simply does not analyze the significant and severe traffic impacts resulting from the addition of 33,000 new residential units in the Winchester Community Plan Area upon the roads and freeways in Western Riverside County.
The County's failure to fulfill these obligations will directly result in adverse traffic impacts upon the City, the Winchester Community Plan Area and the cities surrounding the Winchester Community Plan Area.
CEQA Noticing Failure
• The City of Temecula has only recently been made aware of the Draft PEIR for the Winchester Community Plan, and has not received any of the required CEQA notices (such as Notice of Preparation (NOP) or Notice of Availability (NOA)/Notice of Completion (NOC)), nor any notices for the scoping meetings. Section 15086(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the lead agency consult with local municipalities adjacent to the proposed project area. The Draft PEIR acknowledges the fact that the City is immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed community plan. Yet, there is no evidence that the County even attempted to comply in any respect with its obligations to include the City in this process.
Executive Summary/Introduction
Project Objectives
• Page 1-3: The PEIR lists a variety of project objectives for the Winchester Community Plan. Most of the objectives are noble, but lack enough specificity to allow the reader to
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
understand what the actual objectives entail. Much more specificity is needed. The project objectives are repeated again in Section 3.0.
• Page 1-3: The project objectives do not explain why the Winchester Community Plan is being proposed now when there are several existing area plans and specialized policy area overlays covering the entire proposed plan area that would achieve the same planning outcome. There is no mention in the PEIR objectives of consolidating aging planning documents into a comprehensive and cohesive community plan, which should be the primary objective of the Community Plan. Please add a description of this objective. ■ Page 1-3: Several of the project objectives are irrelevant, and do not relate to the creation of a Riverside County Area or Community Plan. This is particularly true given that there is no land use plan provided against which the objectives can be reviewed. For example, it is unclear, and there is no explanation, as to how the objective of "providing better access to fresh healthy foods" relates to the formulation of community plan policies and land use designations. Please clarify.
Project Description
designations within the proposed Winchester Community Plan, but it does not include any mention of the actual proposed Winchester Community Plan policies, or include the proposed land use and circulation plan. This is the most basic project information that must be included as part of the project description for any meaningful environmental analysis to occur. In the absence of this critical information, there is no way to conduct the required environmental analysis. Please revise the project description and associated environmental analysis to include this critical base information.
Project Alternatives
• Page 1-3: The PEIR proposes four alternatives to the proposed project. CEQA requires a reasonable range of alternatives that meet most of the basic project objectives be proposed to reduce or eliminate identified environmental impacts. No explanation is provided for how the number of residents, dwelling units and non-residential square footages are calculated for each alternative. It is difficult to understand how each alternative's anticipated number of residents, dwelling units and non-residential square footages were determined since the Winchester Community Plan project description itself does not contain a proposed land use plan or a proposed land use summary table. As a result, it is impossible to determine if an alternative would reduce environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project and/or the other alternatives.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
Project Description
• Page 3-1: CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires a stable, clear, and concise project description, upon which the environmental impact analysis, required mitigation measures, and project alternatives are based. The project description is neither stable, clear, nor concise, and as a result needs to be revised to accurately reflect the proposed project. There is no way to determine the actual proposed land use distribution based upon the confusing information provided in the PEIR.
■ Page 3-1: The Riverside County General Plan is apportioned into land use Foundation designations and individual Area Plans. It is unclear why the proposed plan is referred to as a "Community Plan" instead of matching the exiting county Area Plan nomenclature.
Please explain.
• The project description is unclear. There are numerous existing planning documents that are located within the proposed Community Plan area. These include:
o Southwest Area Plan
o Harvest Valley/Winchester Area Plan
o Highway 79 Policy Area
o Interstate 15 Policy Area
o Interstate 215 Policy Area
o Winchester Policy Area
o Winchester Land Use Study
o Winchester Policy Area Design Guidelines
o Riverside County Housing Element (2021-2029)
o Caltrans Record of Decision — Highway 79 Realignment EIS o Cooperative Agreement and Settlement Agreement between the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula
The PEIR makes no effort to synthesize the relationships and overlapping planning policies between the above documents that all apparently factor into the development of the proposed Winchester Community Plan. The project description needs to be rewritten to clarify how the above documents relate to the proposed Community Plan. There appears to be substantial confusion between the Winchester Policy Area and the Winchester Community Plan, which is the actual proposed project.
• Page 3-1: The project description includes a discussion of existing land uses and land use designations within the proposed Winchester Community Plan, but it does not include any mention of the actual proposed Winchester Community Plan policies, or include the proposed land use and circulation plan. This is the most basic project information that must be included as part of the project description for any meaningful environmental analysis to occur. In the absence of this critical information, there is no way to conduct the required environmental analysis. Please revise the project description and associated environmental analysis to include this critical base information.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
• Page 3-2: The PEIR uses both "project site", "project area" and "PA" to describe the area within the boundary of the proposed Winchester Community Plan, which creates confusion. There are several figures with differing planning area boundaries, which need to be consolidated into one understandable proposed land use plan. • Page 3-2: The PEIR indicates that "most of the Winchester PA" is comprised of agricultural and undeveloped lands, without defining the actual acreage or what is meant by "most". Please clarify.
• Page 3-4: The project characteristics section indicates that the existing Winchester Policy Area will be expanded from 287 acres to 23,153 acres within the Harvest Valley/Winchester Area Plan, without any reasoning provided for why this massive change is proposed. To implement this change, the boundaries and land uses of the surrounding Area Plans (Sun City/Menifee and Southwest Area Plan) are proposed to be modified, although acreage statistics and graphic depictions of these changes are not provided. The project description does not document the requirements or schedule for amending the surrounding Area Plans required to create the proposed Winchester Community Plan.
Please include this information.
• Page 3-4: The PEIR describes 227 parcels (1,480 acres) that are proposed for General Plan Foundation Component amendments from Rural and Rural Community to Community Development without any explanation of why the change is proposed that will result in additional development intensity. The section goes on to state that 921 parcels will require future zone changes as a result of the foundation component changes, and that these future unknown zone changes are somehow evaluated in the PEIR. This analysis is not actually included in the PEIR, nor is there any commitment for future environmental review as would be required if the environmental review is not occurring at this time. • Page 3-4, #4: The PEIR now inserts a new Area plan (San Jacinto Valley Area Plan ) and the Highway 79 Policy Area into the mix, but these were not previously mentioned as requiring amendment to accommodate the proposed Winchester Community Plan. The PEIR goes on to state that the revisions to the Highway 79 Policy Area include removing the "9% density reduction for residential projects", without any context for why that is proposed or justified, and what that means in terms of the proposed Winchester Community Plan land use plan. Please explain where this 9% reduction came from and why is it required to accommodate the proposed Winchester Area Plan.
In addition, the 9% residential intensity reduction is part of the Cooperative Agreement, which was a settlement agreement between the City and the County to mitigate environmental impacts associated with future residential development within the Highway 79 Policy Area, and it cannot be unilaterally removed from the Highway 79 Policy Area.
The County is in violation of the Cooperative Agreement by proposing to remove the 9% residential intensity reduction from the Policy Area document.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
The PEIR claims that the removal of the 9% reduction requirement from the Highway 79 Policy Area will be replaced by a new "fee" on newly entitled dwelling units to mitigate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts and fund mobility improvements within the downtown Winchester core area. A proposed fee for improvements within the downtown Winchester area has nothing to do with the basis of the Cooperative Agreement, and was not what either the County or the City agreed to in order to mitigate impacts to the City.
The entire discussion regarding the 9% reduction in residential density in the Highway 79 Policy Area needs to be removed from the PEIR and must be factored into the ultimate Winchester Area Plan land use plan densities and unit totals. Without the consideration of the 9% reduction in the formulation of the Winchester Community Plan land use plan, the entire land use plan must be revised. The PEIR goes on to state that the Highway 79 Policy Area is 50,061 acres, without any explanation of how that acreage relates to the other Area Plan and Policy acreages, or its relevance.
• Page 3-5: The PEIR now introduces several new components of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 1207, including design guidelines, an amended General Plan Circulation Element, and "administrative and implementation programs" without defining what those programs are or how they fit in with the proposed Winchester Community Plan. Please revise and clarify.
■ The County proposes to expand the existing Winchester Policy Area to include 23,143 acres. Page 3-4 indicates that the Policy Area is 23,153 acres. Please provide the correct acreage and make consistent throughout the PEIR. In addition, please confirm which number was used throughout the PEIR's analysis.
• Page 3-6: The PEIR attempts to explain the required acreage and land use changes to the individual surrounding Area Plans required to create the new Winchester Community Plan, and this information is purportedly summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, and shown in Exhibits 3-1 through 3-11. Table 3-1 lists the General Plan Foundation changes without any reference to where the changes are located or with which of the four Area Plans the acreages are being exchanged. As a result, it is impossible to understand the location of the proposed land use changes. Table 3-2 summarizes the land use acreage changes to the Winchester Policy Area and the Highway 79 Policy area, and totals both, but does not quantify any of the underlying Area Plan land use acreage changes. As a result, it is again impossible to tell what the ultimate proposed Winchester Area Plan land use acreages, density or units (increases or decreases) are and how they will be used to determine environmental impacts and required mitigation measures. • Page 3-8: The description of the General Plan Circulation Element amendment is lacking a description of what is being proposed, and also contains incorrect information. Revising the Highway 79 Policy Area language (which is incorrect) does not in and of itself result in an amendment to the Circulation Element. The Circulation Element amendment should describe the proposed changes to the existing circulation system and policies as a result of
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
the proposed Winchester Community Plan, including (for example) the realignment of Highway 79, as approved by Caltrans. The PEIR text states that the 9% residential density reduction requirement contained within the Highway 79 Policy area would be amended to allow for full development within the policy area and the proposed Winchester Community Plan. This statement is incorrect and the 9% reduction in residential density has no relationship to the realignment of Highway 79. The residential reduction included in the Highway 79 policy area was required to ensure that a variety of transportation and circulation facilities were constructed in a timely manner to accommodate the growth associated within the policy area. These facilities have not been constructed to date. • Page 3-8: The text goes on to state that "No land use designation changes are proposed and the amendment is limited to removing the development restrictions on residential uses." This is false. There are numerous General Plan Foundation and Area Plan land use changes proposed as part of the Winchester Community Plan, and removal of the 9% reduction in residential development intensity is not applicable to the Circulation Element amendment, as it is part of the Cooperation Agreement.
• Page 3-10: The PEIR lists a variety of project objectives for the Winchester Community Plan, but fails to explain why the Winchester Community Plan is being proposed now.
Most of the objectives are noble, but lack enough specificity to allow the reader to understand what the actual objectives entail. Much more specificity is needed. Please revise.
• The objective to promote higher density housing to achieve the County's 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goal and to eliminate the 9% residential unit intensity reduction is in direct opposition to the Cooperative Agreement which mandates a 9% reduction in residential densities.
• Page 3-11: The Discretionary Approvals section includes the adoption of GPA No. 1207, but fails to mention the Circulation Element amendment. Please include and explain what the required Circulation Element amendment includes.
• Exhibit 3-1 and 3-2: Why does the proposed Community Plan boundary cut through Lake Skinner?
■ Exhibit 3-3: The graphic line work/legend is difficult to understand and it is impossible to tell which boundary line applies to which Area Plan or Policy Area. There is nothing in the legend to explain what the red numbers signify. Please revise. ■ Exhibit 3-1 through 3-11: None of the figures show the proposed Winchester Community Plan land use plan. The proposed Community Plan land uses are the most basic component of the Community Plan and PEIR project description and they are missing from the PEIR project description.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
• The PEIR references a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Nexus Study and fee. It is unclear if the 33,000 + residential units are included in the RIVTAM model. The Nexus Study includes $11 million for a transit center and Park & Ride facility with no analysis of the mandated reduced VMT or trips. The VMT Nexus Study should be included in the PEIR Appendix and revised to reflect the actual number of units proposed in the Community Plan.
PEIR Section 4.0 Topical Environmental Issue Areas
• The PEIR includes an evaluation of 20 topical environmental issue areas including:
Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise and Vibration, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems and Wildfire.
Detailed comments are provided below.
■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in Section 4.0 of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. ■ Much of the analysis in PEIR Section 4.0 avoids the evaluation of all feasible mitigation measures and jumps to the conclusion that the impacts are either less than significant without mitigation or are significant and unavoidable without the application of feasible mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines Section 15041(a) requires that a lead agency for a project require feasible changes in the project, or impose feasible mitigation, to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards established by case law. The PEIR has not done this.
Aesthetics
■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the aesthetics section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of aesthetic impacts cannot be completed without and accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
Air Quality
■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in air quality section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of air quality impacts cannot be completed without and accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
• Impact Statement AQ-1: The Project Would Conflict With or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan (PEIR pp. 4.3-22 to 4.3-24) The PEIR analysis of consistency with the 2016 AQMP is inadequate, and should be revised in the following ways:
(1) To determine whether proposed project construction would result in increases in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or new violations or delays in timely attainment of air quality standards, the County should perform modeling of daily construction emissions based on buildout of the proposed project's development potential and compare those emissions to SCAQMD's construction thresholds (presented in PEIR Table 4.3-4).
(2) Similarly, the determination of whether proposed project operations would result in increases in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or new violations or delays in timely attainment of air quality standards should be based on modeled operational emissions presented under Impact Statement AQ-2 (PEIR Table 4.3-6) compared to SCAQMD operational thresholds.
(3) The County's contradictory statements that the proposed project would exceed the SCAG population projections used in the 2016 AQMP by 35,139 persons, and yet would be "within SCAG's forecasted population for the County" need to be clarified and corrected. The County's assertion later in this section that the increase in population and housing growth "is not considered substantial in the context of the County overall" (p. 4.3-24) needs to be supported with substantial evidence, and connected to the consistency criterion of the SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook to analyze "(w)hether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP." (4) Several assertions need to be revised to be supported with substantial evidence, including claims of proposed project consistency with RTP/SCS goals to reduce VMT and air pollution, and that "implementation of all SCAQMD rules, regulations, and control measures may not be feasible for future developments." (PEIR p. 4.3-24) Which rules, regulations, and control measures may not be feasible, and why? (5) CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be identified for significant environmental impacts. The PEIR's conclusion that "(n)o mitigation measures are required" for this "significant and unavoidable" impact violates CEQA because the
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
County has not even attempted to determine what mitigation is feasible or enforceable for an impact that exists, as discussed above.
• Impact Statement AQ-2: Project Implementation Result in a Cumulative Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant for Which the Project Region is Non -Attainment Under an Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard
The PEIR's claim that it is infeasible to estimate construction emissions of the proposed project is not supported by substantial evidence. Modeling of construction air pollutant emissions is routinely included in programmatic CEQA analysis for plans similar to the proposed project, such as general plans, regional plans, area plans, and community plans.
The PEIR should be revised to estimate future daily construction emissions under buildout of the proposed project's development potential. This analysis should be based on reasonably foreseeable estimates for the rate of future development and timing of ultimate buildout under the proposed project. This additional information is needed so that the PEIR discloses the potential magnitude of pollutant emissions relative to SCAQMD thresholds under the proposed project and the associated health effects, which in turn will inform the development of mitigation measures and project alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen the impacts.
The PEIR's unsupported assertions about how General Plan policies affect proposed project air emissions need to be supported by substantial evidence explaining the effects of the policies on emissions -generating activities of the proposed project.
The PEIR should be revised to provide an explanation of the assumptions and inputs used to model the proposed project's operational emissions, which are shown in Table 4.3-6.
The PEIR should also be revised to provide additional detail correlating the proposed project's emissions, which would greatly exceed SCAQMD thresholds, with potential health effects. For example, the PEIR shows that PM 10 emissions would be 85 times higher than the threshold amount; PM2.5 emissions would be over 100 times higher than the threshold. An adequate air quality analysis requires a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences, or a meaningful detailed explanation of why it is not feasible to provide such an analysis. (See Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502.)
• Air Quality Mitigation Measures Do Not Meet CEQA Requirements The PEIR air quality mitigation measures violate CEQA requirements by improperly deferring important details until a future time, without providing sufficient benchmark standards. To meet CEQA's requirements for adequate mitigation, the PEIR air quality mitigation measures need to be revised to include:
o A commitment to the mitigation.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
o Adopted performance standards for what the mitigation must achieve. o A menu of potential actions that can feasibly achieve the performance standard and that will be considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measures.
Biological Resources
The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the biological resources section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of biological resources impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
Cultural Resources
• The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in cultural resources section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of cultural resources impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
Energy
The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the energy section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of energy impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
Geology and Soils
■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in geology and soils section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of geology and soils impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in greenhouse gas emissions section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description.
An adequate analysis of greenhouse gas impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. • Section 4.8.3 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria On page 4.8-25, the PEIR references the Environmental Checklist form provided in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, and states that, "a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would: (g)enerate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (refer to Impact Statement GHG-1); and (c)onflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas (refer to Impact Statement GHG-2)"
• Impact Statement GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generated by the Project Could Have a Significant Impact on Global Climate Change The analysis provided for Impact Statement GHG-1 is inadequate on several fronts. For one, the PEIR fails to clearly explain how it uses the GHG-1 "impact statement" to determine the significance of the proposed project's GHG emissions impacts. It only offers that "the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a `less than significant impact' or `potentially significant impact"' based on the language of Impact Statement GHG-1 (PEIR page 4.8-25). At a minimum, the PEIR should be revised to clearly describe the criteria used by the County to measure compliance with this impact statement and determine the significance of the proposed project's GHG emissions impacts. The PEIR should be revised to provide a clear, internally consistent description of the thresholds of significance for GHG emissions impacts. The PEIR should also explain how compliance with the threshold(s) used means that the proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)(2). As part of this explanation, the PEIR should clarify its statement that, "the impact analysis for this project relies on guidelines, analyses, policy, and plans for reducing GHG emissions established by the California Air Resources Board (CARE)." (PEIR pp. 4.8-1 to 4.8-2). Which guidelines, analyses, policies and plans? Please explan.
Without understanding the County's criteria for determining significance, it is not possible for the reader to understand the nature or severity of the significant GHG emissions impacts identified for the proposed project, and therefore, also not possible to evaluate the adequacy of the mitigation measures identified in the PEIR for avoiding or substantially lessening the significant impacts.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
The analysis presented under Impact Statement GHG-1 is divided into two sections, one addressing construction -related impacts and the other addressing operational impacts.
These two components of the GHG-1 impact analysis are addressed separately below. ■ The Inadequate Analysis of Construction -Related GHG Emissions Impacts Needs to be Revised
The analysis of construction impacts provides a high-level description of generic types of construction activities that generate GHG emissions; there is no attempt to qualitatively analyze the timing or magnitude of construction -related GHG emissions that would result from the substantial amount of development allowed to occur under the proposed project.
The PEIR goes on to assert, in back-to-back sentences, that quantifying construction related GHG emissions is both "not possible" and that precise quantification is "impractical." It concludes by asserting, without evidence or explanation, that although certain "current policies" and mitigation measures recommended for Impact Statement AQ-2 in PEIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, would minimize construction -related GHG emissions, the proposed project could result in future development that exceeds South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds of significance, which are not named or identified.
The PEIR analysis of construction -related GHG emissions impacts must be revised in several ways. First, the County must make a good -faith effort to quantify and disclose estimated construction -related GHG emissions that would result from the proposed project.
The PEIR's assertion that "quantifying precisely" is "impractical" is not a basis to exclude this information from the PEIR. Moreover, the PEIR's assertion that is "not possible" to quantify the proposed project's GHG emissions is not supported by substantial evidence.
In fact, the County's own Climate Action Plan, with its modeling of off -road equipment GHG emissions for all of the unincorporated County areas for decades into the future, shows that it is possible, and indeed feasible, to prepare a programmatic estimate of GHG emissions from construction equipment without knowing site- or project -specific information (County CAP). In addition, any discussion of current policies that minimize the construction -related GHG emissions of the proposed project must be supported with substantial evidence showing how such policies would reduce emissions. Also, the impact analysis should first determine the significance of the proposed project's GHG emissions under the threshold being used, before analyzing the effect of air quality mitigation measures identified elsewhere in the PEIR on the proposed project's GHG emissions impacts. And finally, if the PEIR is evaluating construction -related GHG emissions against certain "SCAQMD thresholds of significance" as it implies, then the PEIR needs to clearly describe what those thresholds are, explain why they are appropriate to use for the proposed project, and provide an analysis, supported by substantial evidence, that compares the proposed project's GHG emissions to those thresholds. The PEIR also needs to clearly identify feasible mitigation measures that address the construction -related GHG emissions that would be generated by the proposed project.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
• The Inadequate Analysis of Operational GHG Emissions Impacts Needs to be Revised Initially, the PEIR explains that the proposed project's operational GHG emissions are "qualitatively evaluated" based on "compliance with the long-term State reduction targets." (PEIR page 4.8-26) The PEIR does not offer a description of how this qualitative evaluation of target compliance will be performed, and does not identify the State reduction targets used in the analysis. The PEIR also appears to describe an additional method used to evaluate operational GHG emissions, explaining that, "future development that would occur under project buildout (new development) was assessed based on the capacity to effectively reduce GHG emissions sources from project -specific operations within the project area." (PEIR page 4.8-26) The PEIR offers no explanation of what it means for future development to have "capacity to effectively reduces GHG emissions sources from project -specific operations."
The impact analysis for GHG-1 presents a comparative analysis of annual GHG emissions under the proposed project as compared to development under the current County General Plan, which shows that the proposed project would increase annual GHG emissions by 68,588 MTCO2e relative to development allowed under the current General Plan (PEIR Table 4.8-1). The PEIR provides no interpretation or analysis of how the annual GHG emissions increase relates to the proposed project's GHG emissions impact being analyzed.
It also does not provide any information about the timing of when such annual rates of GHG emissions would be expected to occur. Moreover, on page 4.8-24, the PEIR explains that "this EIR quantifies total annual GHG emissions for informational purposes," although it does not clearly explain what this means, and it does not explain why total annual emissions are included in the impact analysis for GHG-I. This wording suggests that the GHG emissions are not intended to be reliable, thereby undercutting the value of the data for CEQA purposes.
The PEIR then provides a high-level description, asserting that certain objectives of the proposed project would generally "reduce GHG emissions" although it is not clear to what the asserted reduction in emissions is being compared. The PEIR also asserts that several County General Plan policies would "minimize GHG impacts" but does not provide substantial evidence explaining how the policies would affect the proposed project's emissions.
The analysis then presents two mitigation measures, GHG-1 and GHG-2, and describes their purported effect on the proposed project's GHG emissions. The PEIR presents these mitigation measures without first determining the significance of the proposed project's impacts, thereby skipping a critical step. The analysis concludes by asserting that it is not feasible to analyze future development under the proposed project because timing and project -specific details are unknown, and therefore, the County's thresholds could be exceeded, but it does not identify or describe the "County thresholds" being referenced.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
Moreover, the conclusion that future development cannot be analyzed in any regard is incorrect; even a programmatic EIR still must contain a certain level of information.
The PEIR analysis of operational GHG emissions impacts should be revised in several ways. First, it needs to clearly identify the criteria being used to evaluate the proposed project's GHG emissions under Impact Statement GHG-1. Similarly, the PEIR needs to clearly address whether estimates of annual GHG emissions resulting from the proposed project, including comparisons of estimated annual GHG emissions under the current General Plan, are used in the evaluation of the significance of the proposed project's GHG emissions, and if so, how. If the proposed project's total annual GHG emissions are in fact presented only for "informational purposes" as stated in the PEIR, then the PEIR must explain what this means and why the estimates are not used in the impact analysis.
Moreover, before any discussion of mitigation measures, the impact analysis must first clearly analyze whether the GHG emission impacts would be potentially significant, i.e., address whether or not the threshold being applied would be exceeded or not. If the threshold would be exceeded and the impact would be potentially significant, then all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant must be identified and proposed to be imposed. Also see below for comments on PEIR Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2.
■ Impact Statement GHG-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project Could Conflict with an Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, Policy, or Regulation The analysis provided for Impact Statement GHG-2 is inadequate on several fronts. For one, the PEIR does not clearly identify the criteria being used to evaluate the proposed project under this threshold of significance. For example, the PEIR discussion of impact thresholds and significance criteria explains that "The project's GHG impacts are evaluated by assessing the project's consistency with applicable local, regional, and statewide GHG reduction plans and strategies." (PEIR p. 4.8-24) It then identifies the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the 2017 Scoping Plan as the two GHG reduction plans applicable to the project. The County's Climate Action Plan (CAP) is not identified as an applicable plan, or even referenced in this section. Later, in the impact analysis for GHG-2 (PEIR p. 4.8-30), a discussion of the County's CAP is provided, but the proposed project is not analyzed for potential conflicts with the County's CAP, and the relevance of the discussion provided to the PEIR impact analysis and significance conclusion for Impact Statement GHG-2 is unclear. The PEIR does assert that the proposed project would be "consistent with the emissions reductions targets set by the (County's) CAP" (p. 4.8-36), but offers only unsubstantiated statements that the proposed project would not conflict with growth projections and would reduce VMT and be "consistent with appropriate CAP measures" (which are addressed later in this comment letter).
The PEIR must be revised to include an analysis of the proposed project for consistency or conflicts with the County's Climate Action Plan. It must provide the criteria used to evaluate the proposed project for consistency or conflicts with the County's CAP, and
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
support its analysis with substantial evidence. In addition, the PEIR needs to assess the significance of the proposed project's GHG emissions impact under Impact Statement GHG-2 before considering the role of mitigation measures in reducing a potentially significant impact. (PEIR p. 4.8-39) As part of this revised analysis, the PEIR should clarify statements, like the one on page 4.8-29, asserting that all future development under the proposed project "would demonstrate compliance with the State's GHG reduction targets." Substantial evidence is needed to support this assertion, including the regulatory requirements and other processes that would achieve this outcome, as well as the specific GHG reduction targets being referenced.
Consistency with the Coun 's Climate Action Plan
The County's CAP is based on anticipated growth using the County's 2015 General Plan, including the number of residential households and commercial/industrial jobs (County CAP Table 3-3). The PEIR explains that the proposed project would allow development that decreases the number of jobs in the project area by 10,055, and increases the number of residential dwelling units by 12,329, when compared to the existing General Plan Land Use Designations (PEIR Table 3-2). The PEIR fails to directly analyze whether the increase in residential development potential resulting from the proposed project would conflict with the County's ability to meet its GHG reduction targets through the measures set forth in its CAP. Similarly, the PEIR does not explain how it is that future development under the proposed project could be found to be consistent with the County's CAP under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, when the anticipated growth of the proposed project is not accounted for in the County's CAP. As the County admits later in the GHG section, "Project consistency with population growth projections is one of the criteria for determining consistency with GHG reduction plans." (PEIR p. 4.8-36) Consistency with SCAG's Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS The analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (PEIR pp. 4.8-30 to 4.8-33) must be revised to analyze whether the changes in development potential under the proposed project, including an increase of over 12,000 residential dwellings and reduction of over 10,000 jobs, would adversely affect SCAG's ability to meet its passenger vehicle GHG reduction target for 2035. The analysis should also be revised to provide additional details and evidence supporting assertions that the proposed project would reduce VMT by "facilitating development opportunities for greater housing variety and density" and "facilitat(ing) a sustainable multi -modal transportation network that includes walkable, bicycle -friendly environments with increased accessibility via transit." (PEIR p. 4.8-31) The PEIR contends that, "(T)he County has no control over vehicle emissions," which ignores the many strategies within the County's control and influence to reduce vehicle emissions, including its ability to support conversion of the vehicle fleet to zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs), installation of charging and fueling infrastructure for ZEVs, and its ability to reduce VMT through regulation of land use patterns and circulation improvements.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
In addition, the analysis of proposed project consistency with the five key SCS strategies of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Table 4.8-2, PEIR p. 4.8-31) must be revised to fully evaluate the proposed project's consistency with each of the strategies; the current analysis is incomplete in that it does not address several components of the five key SCS strategies.
Moreover, the analysis must be revised to include support and evidence for the conclusions of consistency with SCS strategies.
Consistency with Growth Projections
In Table 4.8-3: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures (PEIR p. 4.8-34), the County asserts that development under the proposed project would be "consistent with the growth projections in the RTP/SCS." Given that the PEIR reports elsewhere (e.g., PEIR Table 3-2) that the proposed project would allow development that decreases the number of jobs in the project area by 10,055, and increases the number of residential dwelling units by 12,329 when compared to the existing General Plan Land Use Designations, the County must provide additional information and explanation supporting its conclusion that the growth resulting under the proposed project is consistent with growth projections used in the RTP/SCS, which was adopted in September 2020. As the County itself states in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, "General Plan growth projections form the basis of SCAG's planning and policy documents, including regional growth forecasts." (PEIR p. 4.14-9)
The PEIR also references Section 3.14 to conclude that the project would not conflict with County or regional growth projections because "although it would directly increase population through housing development, it would also directly decrease population through development of less -employment generating land uses." (PEIR p. 4.8-36) It is unclear how the County reached the conclusion that the proposed project's increase of 12,329 residential units and decrease of 10,055 jobs, relative to the adopted General Plan, is consistent with the growth projections used in the County's CAP and in SCAG's 2020- 2045 RTP-SCS. PEIR Section 3.14 (p. 4.14-9) attempts several arguments to support this conclusion, which are summarized below, but none of these contentions actually supports the conclusion of proposed project consistency with 2020-2045 RTP/SCS growth projections (which, according to the County, are based on the County General Plan) or the County's CAP (which are based on the County's 2015 General Plan).
The GHG analysis includes these flawed assumptions:
- The PEIR asserts that the proposed project would not exceed planned growth projections because the rate of population increase between the proposed project and adopted General Plan, 21%, is lower than the 33% rate of population growth that SCAG has projected for Riverside County between 2021 and 2045.
- The PEIR references the County -wide residential vacancy rate of 13%.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
- The PEIR asserts that growth under the proposed project "would occur incrementally through 2045," housing under the proposed project would be "dispersed... over approximately 50,000 acres," and that some unspecified amount of population would decrease the proposed project would allow for fewer additional jobs than the adopted General Plan. Please identify the number of units, and projected population.
GHG Mitigation Measures
• PEIR Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would require that new discretionary developments under the proposed project implement CAP measures equivalent to at least 100 points (according to the CAP's Screening Tables). It asserts that the mitigation would "ensure GHG emissions from new development are reduced to levels necessary to meet California State targets." (PEIR p. 4.8-29) This statement is inadequate for the following reasons.
First, as described in the above comments, the PEIR does not provide substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that the development potential of the proposed project, which results in substantial changes to development potential of residential and employment land uses under the adopted General Plan, is accounted for in the growth projections of the County's CAP. Because the proposed project's development potential differs substantially from the General Plan growth projections on which the CAP is based, additional analysis is needed to determine whether the County could still meet its CAP targets when requiring development under the proposed project to "garnish at least 100 points" of CAP measures.
Moreover, Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 have been crafted to only apply to new "discretionary development" that results from the proposed project. Additional analysis is needed to understand the degree to which development under the proposed project would be processed through ministerial instead of discretionary processes, and by extension, not required to implement CAP measures that reduce GHG emissions.
Disclosure of this information is needed to understand the effectiveness of mitigation measures GHG-1 and GHG-2.
In addition, the County must revise the PEIR to reconcile the conflicting statements that the GHG emissions impacts of future development "would be analyzed on a project -by - project basis" (p. 4.8-28) and "would be required to undergo project -specific CEQA review, including analysis of potential operational GHG emissions" (p. 4.8-29), with the language in mitigation measure GHG-2 that projects will be required to implement CAP measures that achieve at least 100 points "in lieu of a project -specific analysis." If future environmental review will is not anticipated, then significantly more detailed review is required at this juncture. Alternately, if the County intends to tier off of this document for future review, then the County must clearly state that future, project -level analysis will occur.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in hazards and hazardous waste section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of hazard and hazardous material impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the hydrology and water quality section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description An adequate analysis of hydrology and water quality impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
Land Use and Planning
• The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in land use and planning section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of aesthetic impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description.
Please revise the project description.
• Page 4-11-1: The Land Use and Planning Section is entirely inadequate. It does not mention the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) as the regional planning agency for the project area, let alone provide any analysis of regional impact within Western Riverside County, or WRCOGs subregional Climate Action Plan GHG reduction measures. Further, the Land Use and Planning section does not acknowledge the proposed Winchester Community Plan and simply refers to all of the existing Area Plans and overlays that will be modified to create the proposed plan.
Mineral Resources
The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in mineral resources section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of mineral resource impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
Noise and Vibration
■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in noise and vibration section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of noise and vibration impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
Population and Housing
The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in population and housing section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of population and housing impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
Public Services
■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the public services section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of public services impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
Recreation
• The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the recreation section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of recreation impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description.
Please revise the project description.
Transportation
• The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the transportation section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
analysis of transportation impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
Regulatory Setting
■ Page 4.17-7 and 4.17-8: The regulatory setting includes LOS-based policies and programs.
CEQA documents can no longer base a significance determination on an automobile delay — based analysis, such as LOS; it is therefore unclear why this information is included in the regulatory settings. The document is not precluded from including a LOS analysis for disclosure purposes, such as General Plan Circulation Element or Congestion Management Plan consistency, but the analysis cannot be used as a basis for determining a significant environmental impact. Please clarify the County's approach here.
Impact Analysis
TRA-1 (Construction Impacts): This impact notes that "site -specific Traffic Management Plans (TMPs) would be required to be implemented for each individual implementing project." However, there is no implementation mechanism mentioned or cross-referenced that would ensure implementation of such plans. How does the County intend to ensure that this implementation occurs?
■ TRA-2: TRA-1 (Operational Impacts) notes that the project would result in modifications to Caltrans facilities and other roadways but does not state what those changes would be.
If there would be any roadway widening associated with the project, consistent with guidance in the OPR Technical Advisory, induced demandNMT needs to be analyzed within impact TRA-2.
■ TRA-2: The VMT thresholds for retail and other customer land uses shown in Table 4.17- 1 are listed as "net regional change." That is not a threshold, which is a metric. The analysis needs to be revised to state what the threshold is for both of these land uses (e.g., no net increase in regional VMT).
• TRA-2: The impact states that "the RIVTAM Model maintains a base year condition of 2012 which, for purposes of this analysis, is considered to be representative of existing conditions." There is no explanation given as to why or how this is representative of existing conditions. Additionally, an updated version of RIVTAM has been released since the completion of this analysis and includes a base year of 2018. Use of the updated and refined model should be considered. The updated RIVTAM model needs to be used for the PEIR traffic analysis, or an explanation included as to why the current version of RIVTAM was not used.
■ TRA-2: The impact analysis shows a very high level VMT evaluation in Tables 4.17-2 and
4.17-3, but there is no discussion or disclosure of what land use assumptions were included for any of the modeling. Please provide this.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
• TRA-2 (Mitigation): The statement that, "Although many of the VMT reducing design principles, policies, and improvements that are described above may ultimately mitigate and/or potentially reduce the VMT impacts outlined..." is speculative and misrepresents the VMT analysis findings. With the level of VMT increases across the board, it is highly unlikely that any of the VMT impacts would be able to be mitigated to a less than significant level.
• TRA-2 (Mitigation): VMT-reducing design principles incorporated in the Draft Winchester Design Principles are incorrectly presented as mitigation. If these are part of the proposed project, they should be incorporated into the analysis and not included as mitigation. Generally, it is unclear what portion of that which is presented as mitigation is actually part of the project as opposed to being true mitigation. • TRA-2 (Mitigation): There is no quantification of the proposed VMT mitigation. It is also unclear if all feasible VMT mitigation has been proposed. Please revise and provide the quantification, as well as a more robust discussion of VMT mitigation. • TRA-3 : If there are no existing requirements for construction traffic management, it cannot be assumed that a temporary traffic control plan would be implemented, and associated impacts reduced to a LTS level.
Draft VMT Mitigation Fee Ordinance/Nexus Study
• The County has indicated that the draft VMT Mitigation Fee Ordinance/Nexus Study has been prepared to mitigate traffic impacts in the Winchester Community Plan Area through the development and implementation of a VMT mitigation fee. The draft Ordinance /nNexus study is purportedly required by PEIR mitigation measure TRA-1. The fee appears to be based upon an assumption that two measures (Park and Ride facility and a Metrolink multi -modal facility) will mitigate all VMT impacts associated with the proposed Winchester Community Plan. A total of $11,000,000 is arbitrarily assigned to the cost of facility construction, without consideration of current and ongoing supply chain issues and inflation. Then, a total of 33,569 residential units is assumed (without any basis or support) to be developed within the proposed Winchester Community Plan area, divided by the unrealistically low cost of $11,000,000 to come up with a per unit VMT mitigation fee of $328/unit. In short, there is no support for the conclusions that are reached. The VMT Mitigation Fee Ordinance and Nexus Study incorrectly assumes that the 9% residential intensity reduction policy can be eliminated and an unsupported and overstated residential unit count is assumed for analysis purposes.
The VMT Mitigation Fee Ordinance/Nexus Study is purportedly evaluated in the PEIR, although no mention if it can be found in the body of the PEIR text. In addition, there is no mention of 33,569 residential units anywhere in the PEIR. The conclusion of the VMT Mitigation Fee Ordinance/Nexus Study, namely, that the proposed VMT mitigation fee
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
will mitigate all proposed Winchester Community Plan VMT impacts, is not supported by any substantial evidence or analysis in the PEIR. Please provide an adequate analysis of VMT impacts and a realistic mitigation program, supported by evidence, to demonstrate how proposed Winchester Community Plan VMT impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Tribal Cultural Resources
• The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in tribal and cultural resources section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description.
An adequate analysis of tribal cultural resources impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description.
Utilities and Service Systems
■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in utilities and service systems section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of utilities and service systems impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. A Water Supply Assessment is required to evaluate the long term viability of water supplies to serve the proposed community plan, especially as relates to worsening drought conditions. Please provide.
Wildfire
+ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the wildfire section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of wildfire impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description.
Please revise the project description.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
• Section 4.21 lists 10 environmental issue areas that cannot be reduced to less than significant and remain significant and unavoidable. This section summarizes the findings of the purported "analysis" contained Section 4.0 of the PEIR, which is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of impacts cannot be
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description, and address all other comments accordingly.
Cumulative Impacts
Table 5-1 (Cumulative Projects List) contains a grand total of 10 projects (1,187 residential units and 10,283,987 square feet of non-residential uses that embody the entirety of cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed Winchester Community Plan. The cumulative projects map (Exhibit 5-3) in the PEIR is blank. It is incomprehensible that only those 10 projects comprise the entire cumulative project list, given the size of the project area and the fact that the project area is one of the fastest developing areas within Riverside County and the State of California.
Throughout the cumulative impact section, level of significance statements are made without any supporting analysis.
Other CEQA Considerations
The conclusion of the growth inducing impacts section is that the proposed Winchester Community Plan would not induce growth. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the Plan proposes to eliminate the 9% cap on residential units and proposes numerous general plan amendments to increase residential density within the Plan area. The conclusion is not just incorrect, it is contradicted by the Cooperative Agreement to which the County is a party. This discussion and conclusion must be revised to accurately state what the County is attempting to do.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
• The PEIR proposes four alternatives to the proposed project. CEQA requires a reasonable range of alternatives that meet most of the basic project objectives be proposed to reduce or eliminate identified environmental impacts. No explanation is provided for how the number of residents, dwelling units and non-residential square footages are calculated for each alternative. It is difficult to understand how each alternative's number of residents, dwelling units and non-residential square footages were determined since the Winchester Community Plan project description does not contain a proposed land use plan or a proposed land use summary table. As a result, it is impossible to determine if an alternative would reduce environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project and/or the other alternatives. Under the existing analysis, it is impossible to identify the environmentally preferred alternative. Again — the project description needs to be adequately prepared to properly understand the formulation of alternatives.
Ms. Harper
September 23, 2022
Conclusion and Written Request for Notices
Based on these defects and inadequacies in the Draft PEIR, the City requests that the County suspend any further consideration of the project until a Draft PEIR that fully complies with CEQA is prepared and recirculated for public review and comment. The City objects to any further County action on the project until the necessary environmental review has been completed.
The City requests that written responses to each of the following comments be provided in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.2(a), the City intends that this letter serve as a written request for a copy of all notices that may be issued or filed related to this project or any part or component thereof. Please direct all such notices to me at the address on this letter. 4ncer,
son
Deputy City Manager
cc: Chuck Washington, County Supervisor
Jeffrey Van Wagenen, Riverside County Administrator
Juan Perez, Chief Operating Officer
John Hildebrand, Planning Director County of Riverside
Evan Langan, Project Planner County of Riverside
Aaron Adams, City Manager
Kevin Hawkins, Assistant City Manager
Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works
Matthew Bassi, City of Wildomar
Karen Brindley, City of Lake Elsinore
Cheryl Kitzerow, City of Menifee
Jim Morrissey, City of Canyon Lake
Jarrett Ramaiya, City of Murrieta
Attachments: Exhibit A, Cooperative Agreement
Exhibit B, Amendment No.1 to the Cooperative Agreement
Exhibit C, Settlement Agreement
Exhibit A:
Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside to Mitigate Traffic Impacts in Western Riverside County
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO
MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS IN WESTERN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
This Agreement is made and entered into as of April 1a, 2005 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), and the County of Riverside, a public subdivision of the State of California ("County"). In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the City and County agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
RECITALS
This Agreement is made for the following purposes and with respect to the following facts, which the City and County agree to be true and correct:
1.1 Since 1999, the County has been engaged in a project known as the Riverside County Integrated Project (the "RCIP"), which initially consisted of proposals for the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (the "CETAP"), the Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"), and an updated general plan to replace the County general plan adopted in 1984. The CETAP has not yet been adopted. The MSHCP has been adopted by the County and the member agencies. The State and Federal agencies have also approved the MSHCP and issued the necessary permits for the MSHCP.
1.2 On October 7, 2003, the County adopted its Resolution No. 2003-487, approving a new General Plan (the "General Plan") to replace the prior general plan approved in 1984 and adopted Resolution No. 2003-488 adopting and certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan ('FEW). The General Plan designates land uses for the unincorporated areas of the County. The General Plan also describes the infrastructure necessary to serve the designated land uses.
1.3 The City is located in southwestern Riverside County. Two major highways traverse the City, State Route 79 North (Winchester Road) and State Route 79 South, and connect to Interstate 15. The City has improved these roads from two lanes to six lanes in order to accommodate the growth within the City. These roads also serve the unincorporated areas of the County surrounding the City.
1.4 During the public hearing process, the City commented extensively on the proposed General Plan. The City contends, among other things, that the General Plan fails to adequately provide for construction of the traffic improvements required to serve the dwelling units proposed by the General Plan and, therefore, fails to mitigate the traffic impacts created by the General Plan; that the General Plan deficiencies are of particular concern to the City because traffic generated in the Southwest area of the County will severely impact the City unless certain 779861.6 April 1, 2005
i
traffic improvements are built concurrently with the .proposed dwelling units; and that no adequate mechanism exists in the General Plan to ensure that traffic mitigation measures identified in the General Plan and the FEIR are in place before the dwelling units creating the need for the mitigation measures are constructed. The County disputes the City's contentions.
1.5 On November 5, 2003, the City filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in Riverside Superior Court challenging the legality and validity of the General Plan and the FEIR. The action is entitled "City of Temecula v. County of Riverside; Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside," Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 402766 t"Litigation"). The County disputes the City's contention that the General Plan and FEIR are invalid.
1.6 Despite their differences in the Litigation, the City and County desire to cooperatively work together in an effort to improve the highway infrastructure in Western Riverside County for the benefit of all current and future residents of the County. The City and County acknowledge that providing adequate traffic infrastructure for Western Riverside County involves complex engineering, environmental and financial challenges requiring the full cooperation of all federal, state and local governmental agencies, but will provide substantial public benefits for the City, County and the people living and working in the City and the County.
1.7 This Agreement sets forth the framework for a major cooperative effort by the City and the County to provide the traffic infrastructure required for new housing development in Western Riverside County before the creation of actual traffic impacts.
1.8 This Agreement specifically addresses impacts of the General Plan on Major Arterial Roads in Southwest Riverside County in the specific area to be known as the 1-215 Policy Area." This Agreement also specifically addresses impacts of the General Plan on freeways in the "Western Riverside County Area". For the purposes of this Agreement, the 1- 215 Policy Area" shall be the area described in and shown on Exhibit A and the "Western Riverside County Area" shall be the area described in and shown on Exhibit D.
1.9 The terms described below shall have the following meanings unless otherwise noted in the Agreement:
1.9.1 "Appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism" is defined in Section 2.3.4 and Section 3.3.4 and shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed and which is fully funded to provide for the immediate construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts. "'ApRroRriately formed financing mechanism" is defined in Section 2.3.4 and Section 3.3.4 and shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed to provide for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts.
1.9.2 "Best efforts" County is defined in Section 2.3.2 and Section 2.3.7. As used in Section 2.3.2, "best efforts" shall mean that the County shall initiate proceedings to amend the General Plan as described in Section 2.1 and shall diligently process the proposed 779861.6 April 1, 2005 2
General Plan Amendment to completion in accordance with all applicable laws, subject to the County's legislative discretion as more particularly described in Section 2.3.5. As used in Section 2.3.7, "best efforts" shall mean that the County shall, at the time an appropriately formed financing mechanism is in place and sufficient funds are available, diligently undertake, without unnecessary delay, all the actions required to enable construction of the Major Arterial Roads, including, but not limited to, preparing and processing the required environmental documentation, design documentation and plans and specifications. As used in Section 2.3.7, "best efforts" shall further mean that the County shall, at the time an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism is in place, diligently initiate and complete construction of the Major Arterial Roads.
1.9.3 "Best _efforts",.City is defined in Section 3.3.2, and shall mean that the City shall initiate proceedings to amend the General Plan as described in Section 3.1 and shall diligently process the proposed General Plan Amendment to completion in accordance with all applicable laws, subject to the City's legislative discretion as more particularly described in Section 3.3.6.
1.9.4 "City" shall mean the City of Temecula.
1.9.5 "City General Plan Amendment" shall mean the proposed amendment to the Temecula General Plan described in Section 3.1.
1.9.6 "City Land Use Applications" is defined in Section 3.3.3 and shall mean any applications on which the City Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which, would authorize or conditionally authorize the construction of dwelling units within the City, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits.
1.9.7 "Co_ unto" shall mean the County of Riverside.
1.9.8 "Cou= General Plan Amendment" shall mean the proposed amendment to the Riverside County General Plan described in Section 2.1.
1.9.9 "County Land Use Applications" is defined in Section 2.3.3 and shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which, would authorize or conditionally authorize the construction of dwelling units within the I-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits.
1.9.10 "Effective date of this Agreement" shall mean the date described in Section 6.11.
779861.6 April 1, 2005
1.9.11 "General Plan" shall mean the Riverside County General Plan approved by Resolution No. 2003-487 of the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County on October 7, 2003.
1.9.12 "Freeways" shall mean the I-15 Freeway and the I-215 Freeway within the Western Riverside County Area.
1.9.13 "Freeway Action Plan" shall mean the action plan described in Section
4.4 which shall be negotiated by the City and County following receipt of the Freeway Strategic Study.
1.9.14 "Freeway Strategic Study" shall mean the study described in Section
4.1 to set specific goals for the development of the freeway capacity necessary to meet the traffic generated by new housing development in the Western Riverside County Area and to establish the framework for the joint efforts of the City, County, and other federal, state and local agencies to implement the goals and establish the necessary freeway capacity.
1.9.15 " I-215_Polic_y_ Area' is defined in Section 1.8 and shall mean the area in Southwest Riverside County described in and shown on Exhibit A.
1.9.16 "Litigation" shall mean the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by the City on November 5, 2003 in Riverside Superior Court, entitled "City of Temecula v. County of Riverside; Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside," Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 402766, challenging the legality and validity of the General Plan and the FEIR.
1.9.17 a'or Arterial-R.Qadg7 is defined in Section 2.3.1 and Section 3.3.1 and shall mean those roadway projects identified in Exhibit B.
1.9.18 " PdorityPhasing Program" shall mean the program described in Exhibit C.
1.9.19 "Western Riverside County Area" shall mean the area described in and shown on Exhibit D.
ARTICLE 2
MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF NEW HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ON COUNTY ARTERIAL ROADS AND HIGHWAYS
2.1 The County shall use its best efforts to amend the General Plan so that it contains: (1) a policy indicating that the Major Arterial Roads within the 1-215 Policy Area shall be constructed and completed concurrently with the construction of the dwelling units creating the demand for the Major Arterial Roads; and (2) a requirement that all land use applications approved by the County within the I-215 Policy Area ("County Land Use Applications") shall contain a condition, in addition to all other appropriate conditions, that building permits shall not 779861.6 April 1, 2005 4
be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the County in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the County otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources. The General Plan Amendments described in this section shall be known as the "County General Plan Amendment."
2.2 All County Land Use Applications approved by the County after the effective date of this Agreement shall contain a condition of approval requiring that building permits shall not be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays his/her/its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the County in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the County otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources.
2.3 The County, to the extent allowed by law, shall facilitate and promote the proceedings necessary to complete processing of the County General Plan Amendment as set forth in Section 2.1 and the County shall diligently process the County General Plan Amendment, including necessary environmental actions without unnecessary delay.
2.3.1 As used in this Agreement, "Major Arterial Roads" shall mean those roadway projects identified in Exhibit B.
2.3.2 As used in Sections 2.1, "best efforts" shall mean that the County shall initiate proceedings to amend the County General Plan as described in Section 2.1 and shall diligently process the proposed Amendment to completion in accordance with all applicable laws, subject to the County's legislative discretion as more particularly described in Section
2.3.5. 2.3.3 As used in this Agreement, County Land Use Applications shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which, would authorize or conditionally authorize the construction of dwelling units within the I-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits.
2.3.4 As used in this Agreement, "appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism" shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed and which is fully funded to provide 779861.6 April 1, 2005
.6 i
for the immediate construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts.. As used in this Agreement, "appropriately formed financing mechanism" shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed to provide for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts..
2.3.5 The Parties understand and acknowledge that, in the context of processing the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications, the County cannot guarantee the ultimate outcome of any public hearings before the County Planning Commission or the County Board of Supervisors or other public bodies of the County, nor prevent any opposition thereto by members of the public or other agencies affected by or interested in the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications. The Parties further understand and acknowledge that land use regulations involve the exercise of the County's police power and, at the time of executing this Agreement, it is settled California law that government may not contract away its right to exercise its police power in the future. Avco Community Develol2ers Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com., 17 Cal.3d 785, 800 (1976); City of Glendale v. Superior Court,, t8 Cal.App.4th 1768 (1993). The parties further understand and acknowledge that the approval of the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications may be subject to procedural or substantive obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Planning and Zoning Law, or other laws potentially applicable to such approvals. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to constrain the County's consideration of the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications in light of the information obtained or developed pursuant to these laws and the County retains the discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications in light of such information. Subject to the foregoing, the County, to the extent allowed by law, shall facilitate and promote the proceedings necessary to complete processing of the County General Plan Amendment as set forth in this section, and the County shall diligently process the County General Plan Amendment, including all necessary environmental actions without unnecessary delay.
2.3.6 The County shall send to the City a public hearing notice for all County Land Use Applications that require a hearing before the County Planning Commission or the County Board of Supervisors.
2.3.7 The County shall use its best efforts to complete the Major Arterial Roads pursuant to the Priority Phasing Program, attached hereto as Exhibit C. As used in this section, "best efforts" shall mean that County shall, at the time an appropriately formed financing mechanism is in place and sufficient funds are available, diligently undertake, without unnecessary delay, all the actions required to enable construction of the Major Arterial Roads, including, but not limited to, preparing and processing the required environmental documentation, design documentation and plans and specifications. As used in this, section "best efforts" shall further mean that the County shall, at the time an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism is in place, diligently initiate and complete construction of the Major Arterial Roads.
779861.6 April 1, 2005 6
ARTICLE 3
MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF NEW HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ON CITY ARTERIAL ROADS AND HIGHWAYS
3.1 The City shall use its best efforts to amend the City's General Plan so that it contains: (1) a policy indicating that the Major Arterial Roads within the City shall be constructed and completed concurrently with the construction of the dwelling units creating the demand for the Major Arterial Roads; and (2) a requirement that land use applications approved by the City within the City ("City Land Use Applications") shall contain a condition, in addition to all other appropriate conditions, that building permits shall not be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the City in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the City otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources. The City General Plan Amendments described in this section shall be known as the "City General Plan Amendment."
3.2 All City Land Use Applications approved by the City after the effective date of this Agreement shall contain a condition of approval which requires that building permits shall not be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays his/her/its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the City in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the City otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources.
3.3 The City, to the extent allowed by law, shall facilitate and promote the proceedings necessary to complete processing of the City General Plan Amendment as set forth in Section 3.1, and the City shall diligently process the City General Plan Amendment, including necessary environmental actions without unnecessary delay.
3.3.1 As used in this Agreement, `Major Arterial Roads" shall mean those roadway projects identified in Exhibit B.
3.3.2 As used in Sections 3.1, "best efforts" shall mean that the City shall initiate proceedings to amend the City General Plan as described in Section 3.1 and shall diligently process the proposed Amendment to completion in accordance with all applicable laws, subject to the City's legislative discretion as more particularly described in Section 3.3.5. 779861.6 April 1, 2005
3.3.3 As used in this Agreement, City Land Use Applications shall mean any applications on which the City Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which, would authorize or conditionally authorize the construction of dwelling units within the City, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits.
3.3.4 As used in this Agreement, "appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism" shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed and which is fully funded to provide for the immediate construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts. As used in this Agreement, "appropriately formed financing mechanism" shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed to provide for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts..
3.3.5 The Parties understand and acknowledge that, in the context of processing the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications, the City cannot guarantee the ultimate outcome of any public hearings before the City Planning Commission or the City Council or other public bodies of the City, nor prevent any opposition thereto by members of the public or other public agencies affected by or interested in the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications. The Parties further understand and acknowledge that land use regulations involve the exercise of the City's police power and, at the time of executing this Agreement, it is settled California law that government may not contract away its right to exercise its police power in the future. Arco Community Developers Inc. V.
South Coast Regional_Com.. 17 Ca1.3d 785, 800 (1976); City of Glendale v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.App.4th 1768 (1993). The parties further understand and acknowledge that the approval of the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications may be subject to procedural or substantive obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Planning and Zoning Law, or other laws potentially applicable to such approvals. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to constrain the City's consideration of the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications in light of the information obtained or developed pursuant to these laws and the City retains the discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications in light of such information. Subject to the foregoing, the City, to the extent allowed by law, shall facilitate and promote the proceedings necessary to complete processing of the City General PIan Amendment as set forth in this section, and the City shall diligently process the City General Plan Amendment, including all necessary environmental actions without unnecessary delay.
3.3.6 The City shall send to the County a public hearing notice for all City Land Use Applications that require a hearing before the City Planning Commission or the City Council.
779861.6 April 1, 2005 8
ARTICLE 4
MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF NEW HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ON WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA FREEWAYS
4.1 The City and the County shall jointly request that the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") prepare a Freeway Strategic Study for the Western Riverside County Area which shall examine the freeway capacity, set specific goals for the development of the freeway capacity necessary to accommodate the trips generated by new housing development and establish the framework for the joint efforts of the City, County and other federal, state and local agencies to implement the goals and establish the necessary freeway capacity. The Joint Request for the Freeway Strategic Study shall ask that the Freeway Strategic Study be completed within four (4) months of the date of submittal of the Joint Request. The Joint Request shall be submitted to RCTC within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Agreement. The parties authorize the Mayor of the City and the Chairperson of the Hoard of Supervisors to execute the Joint Request on behalf of their respective agencies.
4.2 The Freeway Strategic Study shall specifically study and analyze the following issues: (1) the current capacities of the freeways within Western Riverside County Area ("Freeways"); (2) the projected traffic growth projections for the Freeways as of January 1 in the years 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030, based upon assumptions concerning the build -out of new housing as described in Exhibit E; (3) the percentage of traffic growth for the Freeways in those years attributable to new housing development in the Western Riverside County Area; (4) the currently proposed improvements for the Freeways; (5) the current funding options for the currently proposed improvements for the Freeways; and (6) the potential funding sources for improvements necessary to meet the projected traffic growth for the Freeways at build -out of the Western Riverside County Area.
4.3 The City and the County shall share equally in the costs incurred by RCTC in preparing the Freeway Strategic Study.
4.3.1 The County shall invoice the City for the City's share of the RCTC costs and the City shall pay such invoice within thirty (30) days of the date the invoice is deemed given under Section 6.7 of this Agreement.
4.3.2 During the course of RCTC's work on the Freeway Strategic Study, the City, the County and RCTC staff shall meet monthly to discuss the progress of the work and to review any additional work which may need to be undertaken by the consultant.
4.4 Following completion of the Freeway Strategic Study, the City and County shall meet and negotiate in good faith to develop a Freeway Action Plan for funding the freeway improvements necessary to meet the expected demand as determined by the Freeway Strategic Study. As part of the development of the Freeway Action Plan, the City and the County shall also form a Freeway Task Force composed of private and public stakeholders to build consensus 779861.6 April 1, 2005
and secure participation of other Western Riverside County Area Cities in the Freeway Action Plan. The Freeway Task Force shall specifically include, but shall not be limited to, a representative from each of the following: the City and the County, RCTC, the Western Riverside Council of Governments C'WRCOG"), the development community and the environmental community.
4.5 In the event a third party files litigation concerning the Freeway Strategic Study or the Freeway Action Plan, or any portion thereof, the City and the County shall share equally in the costs of defending the litigation, provided the City's share shall not exceed the maximum sum of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00).
4.6 Ad hoc subcommittees of the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors, along with their staffs, shall meet monthly to review the progress of the proposed General Plan Amendment (Section 2.1), the conditions of approval for the County and City Land Use Applications (Section 2.2 and Section 3.2) and the Freeway Strategic Study (Section 4.1).
ARTICLE 5
SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION
5.1 The City shall dismiss without prejudice the Litigation within twenty- five (25) days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the City's right to refile the Litigation as provided in this Agreement.
5.2 The City shall have the right to refile the Litigation, subject to the provisions of Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.6, inclusive, in the event that: (1) the County does not, within three (3) months of the effective date of this Agreement, complete the staff work required for the County General Plan Amendment, including necessary environmental documentation, and set a public hearing date before the Planning Commission; (2) the County does not, for any reason, adopt the County General Plan Amendment within nine (9) months of the effective date of this Agreement; or (3) the County does not adopt the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan described in Section
4.4 within one (1) year after completion of the Freeway Strategic Study described in Section 4.2.
5.2.1 The City's right to refile the Litigation shall expire one (1) year and thirty (30) days after completion of the Freeway Strategic Study. As used in this Agreement, "completion of the Freeway Strategic Study" shall mean the date RCTC transmits the final version of the Freeway Strategic Study to the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors.
5.2.2 In the event the City exercises its right to refile the Litigation, the refiled lawsuit shall not challenge the General Plan except with respect to the analysis of traffic impacts, including mitigation measures associated with such impacts, within the Third Supervisorial District of the County, as that District was configured on the effective date of this Agreement.
5.2.3 The prayer clause in the refiled Litigation shall request relief only with respect to the General Plan as it applies and relates to traffic impacts within the Third 779861.6 April 1, 2005 10
Supervisorial District. The prayer clause shall specifically state that the City does not request that the Court set aside the General Plan in its entirety. All pleadings, briefs, arguments and proposed orders Fled by the City addressing the scope of relief, including proceedings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21168.9, shall be consistent with this provision.
5.2.4 The County specifically agrees that the City shall have the right to refile the Litigation pursuant to the terms of this Agreement notwithstanding the applicable statute of limitations governing legal challenges to the General Plan and agrees to toll the statute of limitations for a legal challenge to the General Plan so as to enable the City to exercise its rights under this Agreement. Pursuant to this Agreement, the County does not toll or waive the defense of the statute of limitations as to any persons, agencies or entities other than the City.
5.2.5 The County further agrees, on behalf of itself and any successors or assigns, that in the event the Litigation is refiled the County will not raise any applicable statute of limitations as a defense to the refiled Litigation and will allow the City to proceed with prosecution of the refiled Litigation subject to the restrictions set forth in this Agreement.
5.2.6 Subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 5.2.2 and Section 5.2.3, nothing herein is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, prohibit the City from challenging a Project approved by the County on the grounds that the project fails to comply with the California Environment Quality Act, or other laws.
5.3 1f the County adopts the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan, then, and only then, shall Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.6 become operative. As used in this Agreement, "adopts the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan" shall mean the County adopts a resolution approving the Freeway Action Plan. The County is 'not required to adopt or otherwise implement the specific measures described in the Freeway Action Plan in order to obtain the benefits conferred by Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.6.
5.3.1 Within twenty (20) days after the County adopts the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan, the City shall file with the Court a request for dismissal, with prejudice, of the Litigation.
5.3.2 Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and expenses in the Litigation.
5.3.3 In consideration of the promises of the parties specified in this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions for settlement, the parties shall fully and forever release, acquit, and discharge each other, their officers, elected officials, attorneys, sureties, agents, servants, representatives, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, predecessors, successors - in -interest, assigns, and all persons acting by, through, under or in concert with them of and from any and all past, present, or future claims, demands, obligations, actions, causes of action, including those for damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, or for relief by way of writ of mandate, for costs, losses of service, expenses, liability, suits, and compensation of any nature whatsoever, whether based on tort, contract, or other theory of recovery, known or unknown, that they now have, have had, asserted or could have asserted in the Litigation or otherwise relate to the alleged actions or inactions of the County with respect to the Litigation. Nothing contained 779861.6 April 1, 2005 11
herein shall relieve any party hereto of its continuing obligations imposed by law or by the provisions of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the Judgment in the case of Endangered Habitats League v. County of Riverside (Domenigoni-Barton Properties), Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 369801, consolidated with City of Temecula v. County of Riverside (Domenigoni-Barton Properties) Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 369989.
5.3.4 The parties hereto acknowledge that they are familiar with Section 1542 of the California Civil Code which provides:
"A general release does not extend to claims which a creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor."
The parties being aware of the aforesaid code section, each hereby expressly waives any rights they might have hereunder. This release shall not operate to release any claims the parties may later have for the enforcement of the obligations created by this Agreement.
5.3.5 The City warrants and represents to the County that it has not assigned, conveyed or otherwise transferred any of its rights to the claims described in or arising out of the Litigation to any other person, entity, firm or corporation not a party to this Agreement, in any manner, including by way of subrogation or operation of law or otherwise. In the event that any claim, demand or suit is made or instituted against the County because City made an actual assignment or transfer, City agrees to indemnify and hold the County harmless against such claim, and to pay and satisfy any such claim, including necessary expenses of investigation, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
5.3.6 The County warrants and represents to the City that the execution and delivery of this Agreement by County will not (i) violate any judgment, order, injunction, decree, regulation or ruling of any court or governmental entity or (ii) conflict with, result in a breach of, or constitute a default under any material agreement or instrument to which the County is a party or by which the County may be bound.
ARTICLE 6
MISCELLANEOUS
6.1 This Agreement contains the complete expression of the whole agreement between the parties hereto, and there are no promises, representations, agreements, warranties or inducements, either expressed verbally or implied, except as are fully set forth herein. This Agreement cannot be enlarged, modified, or changed in any respect except by written agreement between the parties.
6.2 Each and all of the covenants, conditions and restrictions in this Agreement shall 779861.6 April 1, 2005 12
inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties, their successors -in -interest, agents, representatives, assignees, transferees.
6.3 No person or entity shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary hereof, and nothing in this Agreement (either expressed or implied) is intended nor shall it be construed to confer upon any person or entity, other than the City and the County, any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement.
6.4 In entering into this Agreement, the parties represent that they have relied upon the legal advice of their attorneys, who are the attorneys of their own choice, and that these terms are fully undertaken and voluntarily accepted by them. The parties further represent that they have no question with regard to the legal import of any term, word, phrase, or portion of this Agreement, or the Agreement in its entirety, and accept the terms of this Agreement as written.
6.5 The parties hereto represent and warrant to each other that they have full authority to execute this Agreement.
6.6 The headings employed to identify the provisions contained herein are solely for the convenience of the parties to this Agreement. If any ambiguity appears in either the headings or the provisions attendant thereto, such ambiguity shall not be construed against any party to this Agreement on the grounds that such party drafted this Agreement.
6.7 Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or given to either party to this Agreement by the other party shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served and given when personally delivered to the party to whom it is directed or to any officer of that party, or, in lieu of personal service, on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, certified, postage prepaid, addressed to:
County of Riverside
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, California 92501
Attention: Transportation Land Management Agency Director City of Temecula
Post Office Box 9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: City Manager
6.8 If any litigation is commenced between the parties to this Agreement concerning the rights and duties of either in relation to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to, in addition to any other relief that may be granted in the litigation, reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court presiding over the dispute.
779861.6 April 1, 2005 13
•
•
6.9 The following Exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated herein as though set forth in full:
Exhibit A I-215 Policy Area
Exhibit B Major Arterial Roads
Exhibit C Priority Phasing Program
Exhibit D Western Riverside County Area
Exhibit E Assumptions of Build -Out of I-215 Policy Area
6.10 This Agreement maybe executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
6.11 The effective date of this Agreement is the date the parties sign the Agreement. If the parties sign the Agreement on more than one date, then the last date the Agreement is signed by a party shall be the effective date.
779861.6 April 1, 2005 14
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement in the State of California.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Mike Naggar
Mayor Pro Tempore
Attest:
,"s s
_V
�1
Approved as to Form
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
779861.6 April 1, 2005 15
•
•
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
on Ashley
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Attest:
Nancy Romero, Clerk to Board of Supervisors
I• � t .i .� f� � �L.J it
Approved as to Form
William C. Katzenstein, County Counsel
By:A-aH L
atherine Lind
Deputy County Counsel
779861.6 April 1, 2005 16
rr
�
a�
�r
•'z/�
IL
WLo
�3r+
I I } I
Mimi
V
1 t'
-j C
L J
41 m gig
I JUIIL v
N i L• 8
IN.� s
EXHIBIT "B"
MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADS
Newport Road, including Interchange at 1-215 and roadway improvements from Goetz Road to Winchester Road (SR 79S).
Scott Road, including Interchange at 1-215 and roadway improvements from 1-15 to Winchester Road (SR 79N).
Clinton Keith Road, including Interchange at 1-15 and roadway improvements from 1-15 to Winchester Road (SR 79N).
Winchester Road Phase I, from Munieta Hot Springs Road to Domenigoni Parkway to 4 lanes.
Winchester Road Phase II, 4 to 6 lanes.
Winchester Road Phase III, 6 to 8 lanes.
RApyle1200SArterial Roads ExhlbR
—q
A
A
A
A
A
rn
U
o
H
V3
r
• �•
'�
"�
�
� Q.
Q
Q
Q
Q
°ram
a�.
U
w
a
aU
[
oc
o
o
a
Co
o
d
[�
M
�t
d
M
NI
N
It
� H
QO
tQ
0 �--�
pi.'
�
ti
lI7
CI
O
-
O
N
CDV1
�G ..
N
�s
.U+
M
o�
U
u
3 00�O
N
O
O
O
A
�!
yb-�a
O�
hl
oo
N
C)
N
(
v
x
V)
In o
00 N
C 4:
..
..
C^
Z
C
O
tl3i
a�
VIIC
w00
O
O
ri
w
O
N C
r
O o
C
W
v)
C
G
O
m o
:
L
C
a
P.�
Lw
O
�.3�C
w
�N
N
CD
co
O
a
0 CD
14*
■.r
� E co
C o)
—,
"-
F E Z
co
m rn
cap
2 O
cn y
®
o
FA
W N
W)
Ei
0 m
'0 >
C
U m
c
y'
y
e0 ,=
G
co
0 y
w
ca
es
c]
aN
v`
Ln
�=
.O
�:n
a
a
°''
C
Uo
.b
U~
o
c E
m
E
daCa
E��p
c
m
o
c o
vi c
,q o�
,d
.d.-..d
c•
�o
�>
o
O.0
�,�n
e� c
�U
o
O
cc
L
IX��
��°'mCUL-Ile
boy
0mo
O �.
Co
s o
o
cc�
ca
°'
c1 c N
C y
w
0 V
�_
w
0�
z ca �
to 0" cc
�_cca=��
a - �
s cn �
� �
ul
Lrc
r� 9
�
�
����o�
rx.
Pr.
tom --•
�
C
-4
•fir
�
N
N
N
t�
O
N
Co
Co
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
U
v
b
as
o1>1
wi
•`
--+
N
M
4 to
oo
O�
G
Csr
z
Exhibit "E"
Assumptions of Build -out of 1-215 Policy Area
Dwelling Units
Study Area Outside
CFDs
Total (County Study
CFDs
Area)
Areas in Acres
78,314 (72% of Area)
31,003 (28% of
109,317
Area
Build -Out
72,066 (64% of Units)
39,934 (36% of
112,000
Units
Built Units
19,929 (71 % of Built
8,185 (29% of Built
28,114
(Includes un-Built
Units)
Units)
Recorded and
Large Lots for
CFDs
Units Remaining
52,137 (62% of
31,749 (38% of
83,886
to be Built
Remaining Units)
Remaining Units
county unincorporated area
Exhibit B:
First Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside to Mitigate Traffic Impacts in Western Riverside County
ti
:;ontract No.
Riverside Co. Transportation
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO
MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS IN WESTERN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
This Amendment is made and entered into as of A orc. A..r 14 , 204 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), and the County of Riverside ("County"), a public subdivision of the State of California ("County").
ARTICLE 1
RECITALS
This Agreement is made for the following purposes and with respect to the following facts, which the City and County agree to be true and correct:
On April 12, 2005, the City and the County of Riverside entered an agreement entitled:
"COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY" ("COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT").
The COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT calls, among other things, for the City and the County to implement certain measures to mitigate the impact of new housing development on City and County arterial roads and highways within the boundaries of the I-215 Policy Area. ("The Measures").
The Measures call for the County to condition all County Land Use Applications authorizing the construction of residential dwelling units to be part of an appropriately funded financing mechanism (such as a Community Facilities District - CFD) that will build the major arterial road components identified in the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.
The County has been imposing conditions of approval that implement the requirements of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.
Now that the City and the County have been implementing the terms of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT for over a year, they have identified modifications to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT that will facilitate implementation and enhance the timely delivery of transportation infrastructure.
In light of the above, the City and the County hereby wish to amend the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT as follows:
ARTICLE 2
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS
Section 1. Exhibit A to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, referenced in Section
1.8 thereof, is amended as shown in "Revised Exhibit A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Revised Exhibit A modifies the boundaries of the original I-215 Policy Area to include the following sub -areas:
■ Newport Road/I-215 Interchange CFD — Sub -area A
■ Scott Road/I-215 Interchange CFD — Sub -area B
• Clinton Keith Road Extension CFD — Sub -area C
■ Washington Street Construction — Sub -area D
■ Clinton Keith Road Extension Fee Payment — Sub -area E • Newport Road Extension CFD — Sub -area F
• Newport Road Realignment CFD — Sub -area G
The County shall use these sub -areas as a guideline in determining how County Land Use Applications should be conditioned.
Section 2. Section 1.9.9 of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT is amended to read as follows:
"1.9.9 `Cou_n_ty_ Land Use AppIications" is defined in Section 2.3.3 and shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which would authorize, or conditionally authorize, the construction of dwelling units within the I-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone' changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. County Land Use Applications shall not include any applications for parcel maps that would result in the creation of four or fewer parcels, provided that the parcels created could not be further subdivided without a General Plan amendment. County Land Use Applications shall also not include any applications for minor changes to approved tentative tract maps that would add only one residential unit to the maps."
Section 3. Section 2.3.3 of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT is amended to read as follows:
"2.3.3 As used in this Agreement, County Land Use Applications shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which would authorize, or conditionally authorize, the construction of dwelling units within the I-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. County Land Use Applications shall not include any applications for parcel maps that would result in the creation of four or fewer parcels, provided that the parcels created could not be further subdivided without a General Plan amendment. County Land Use Applications shall also not include any applications for minor changes to approved tentative tract maps that would add only one residential unit to the maps."
N
Section 4. A new Section 1.9.19 is added to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT to read as follows:
"1.9.19 `Subdivision map extension application' shall mean an application to extend the time available to record a final map." Section 5. A new Section 1.9.20 is added to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT to read as follows:
"1.9.20 `TUMF' shall mean the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee adopted by the Western Riverside Council of Governments and its member jurisdictions (including the City and the County), as subsequently amended." Section 6. Existing Section 1.9.19 is renumbered Section 1.9.21.
Section 7. A new Section 2.2.1 is added to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT to read as follows:
"2.2.1 To facilitate the formation of financing mechanisms, the County has implemented Section 2.2 of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT such that subdivision maps are required to comply therewith prior to recordation of a final map.
Notwithstanding the County's implementation procedure, the City and County recognize that certain subdivision maps were tentatively approved prior to adoption of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, but have not recorded for a variety of reasons.
Recognizing that substantial time and money have been invested in these maps and that their recordation may be further delayed by the requirements of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT as implemented by the County, the County has developed the alternative procedure set forth in Section 2.2.2 that will allow these maps to record while still securing the funding necessary for the needed transportation improvements." Section 8. A new Section 2.2.2 is added to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT to read as follows:
"2.2.2 In considering a subdivision map extension application for any map tentatively approved prior to the effective date of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (April 12, 2005), the County may, at the request of the subdivider, conditionally approve the application to require the subdivider to pay (a) the applicable TUMF at the earliest date allowed by the TUMF Ordinance and (b) an early recordation fee, which shall be 50% of the TUMF in effect at the time of recordation. The County shall earmark the early recordation fee for use only on the major arterial road that most benefits the subdivision, as determined by the County. This alternative procedure is purely voluntary and any subdivider choosing not to request it shall be subject to all other terms of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT as implemented by the County." Section 9. Section 5.2 of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT is amended to read as follows:
"5.2 The City shall have the right to refile the Litigation, subject to the provisions of Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.6, inclusive, in the event that: (1) the County
does not, within four (4) months of the effective date of Amendment No. 1 to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, complete the staff work required for the County General Plan Amendment, including necessary environmental documentation, and set a public hearing date before the Planning Commission; (2) the County does not, for any reason, adopt the County General Plan Amendment within eight (8) months of the effective date of Amendment No. 1 to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT; or (3) the County does not adopt the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan described in Section
4.4 within one (1) year after completion of the Freeway Strategic Study described in Section 4.2."
ARTICLE 3
MISCELLANEOUS
The parties hereto represent and warrant to each other that they have full authority to execute this Agreement.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
The effective date of this Agreement is the date the parties sign the Agreement. If the parties sign the Agreement on more than one date, then the last date the Agreement is signed by a party shall be the effective date.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement in the State of California.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Mayor Ron Roberts
Attest:
4 Approved as to Form
City Attorney Peter M. Thorson
COUNTY OF
TA
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Attest:
Nancy Romero, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By�
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to Form
Joe Rank, County Counsel
Katherine A. Lind
Principal Deputy County Counsel
REVISED EXHIBIT A
1-215 Policy Area
PRINTED August 3, 2006
w � _
> Al. AN11K,AVF
F[ I 1 ll'E 4 . 1i1.
11)
C Cr
MOUNTAIN AVE v )� p w � c3 -
w o
MAI.1i :i RD � 11I1 F1A.FES RD � � j U � _Y J
W C7
I w �'4�1s , WATSON RD' .vi
t,1aA1' rt R o 5 s o A
fsfANAC ❑ ETNAiIA ? � sfi-74 •I -�`�, w C. Sti•7-=
MCLAUGHI 1 fi)Lu
PERRIS
W ti ,�• r
ROUSE Fill Z
I'OWE RD
p +S+ • •tea • 5hi!iUEL' R�] � .- i I^'
1 /V + fiidLGA1 L LV aI ; ' Pi GRAND AVFGRAND AVE J it '.3 r�i►RriC'���1 _` t 1 a� t'S AKE- DR 7
x V
` Sub -area A Sub -area A
Sub -area G Subhf,�rea'F'
CANYC?NcriC�r �� aj LA P1 GFZf=ST DIAMOND
,.., LAKE' m r VALLEY LAk
L D.HL NO
LAKE;ti
OLSINPRE'K ST
Sub -area B
..• [3Hi�NGF ST ' ;air f
K N
r
l � �•tu•tr %'
SPECILI RD
w
Sub -area D
Su -area J�Aty NICHOLAS RD
P r- ,
lA f:sTREELA sr
P arya{'l1
• - � -i'` , •V.fA SF.C-ilvlrl
LAKE
,6, . U`
p a j''`I' SKINNER
�p fr y�pp{� Cr ro HUNTER R' c
fs� t, C �s Off• '� 0
�'� � ; � �'r; " Sub -area E r .1
y, MURRIETN z - Buck RD
Kati{-I:1rA .g T
u `,L1Fp
Exhibit C:
Settlement Agreement among NNP_Spencer's Crossing, LLC, The City of Temecula, and the County of Riverside
SETTLEM1~.!V'l' AGr;Gi:1V17♦,NT
This Settlement Agreement is entered into by and among NNP-Spencer's Crossing, LLC ("Developer"), the City of Temecula ("City"), and the County of Riverside ("Coun(y") effective as of January A-. 2003.
RECITALS
A. Dtr July 6, 2001, the City of Temecula filed a petition for Writ of Mandate against Elie County of Riverside ("County"), as Case No. 360766 (the. "Lawsuit"), contesting the County's certification of Final EIEZ No, 411 (the "EIR") and adoption of(1) Resolution No. 2001-135 approving inreralia General Plan Amendment No. 472, (2) Resolution No, 2001 -111 approving Specific Plan No. 312 (French Valley), and (3) Ordinance No. 348.3996 approving Zone Change No. 6383 (cnllectivcly the "Approvals"). The Approvals authorize development of the real property depicted on Exhibit A Hereto ("French Valley") with 1,793 residential dwelling units and 1.7 acres of commercial uses. Developer is the successor in interest to the original applicant for the Approvals (Tucalotta Hills Associates and French Valley Association) and is now fee owner of French Valley and a real party in interest in the Lawsuit.
13. The City contends, interaliu, that file County violated CEQA and the Planning; and Zoning Law in connection with the Approvals and that the significant adverse traffic impacts of the Approvals must be mitigated by the construction of roadway construction and improvements identified in the EIR. Developer and County dispute the City's claims, but Developer recognizes that certain roadway improvements are necessary to provide adequate circulation to the development of the I.793 residential dwelling units allowed in French Valley by 111e Approvals, C. As directed by the California Environmental Quality Act, City and Landowner have met to discuss ilia issues raised in the Lawsuit, and explore potential For settlement of those issues.
D. Through settlement discussions, the City expressed concerns drat French Valley will develop without the completion of improveme
to 1nts to Clin[otr Keith Road connecting SR 79
215 ("Clinton Keith Road"). Without the eompletiotr of Clinton Keith Road, traffic from unincorporated areas in the County Borth of the City will adversely burden SR 79 (Winchester Road) through the City to I-15, At the same Elute, Developer recognizes that Clinton Keith Road is needed to provide anadequa[e circulation system to serve: the French Valley development.
E. Clinton Keith Road is an important regional circulation system improvement with or without development of french Valley. Findingit. way to cause Clinton Keith Road to be built expeditiously is a transcendent goal for the City and French Valley.
F. Successfully designing, funding, constructing and opening, Clinton Keith Road requires dedicated and determined participation by motivated property owners, and support by governmental entities, including the City, the County, and the City of Murrieta. Developer has RWG version 718894,2 Janua
ry 17, 2003
taken file lead in pursuing private landowner and political support for Clinton Keith Road, and is best situated IU provide the continued private landowner leadership enquired to successfully complete Clinton Keith Road.
G. The cost of designing and constructing Clinton Keith Road is Stich that it cannot be privately funded and completed, even in substantial part, prior to any development proceeding. 1;evenU0S from development are a critical element of successfully funding Clinton Keith Road. However, City believes development should be linked in phase with discrete Milestone events in the ace-Omplishmcnt of Clinton Keith Road, so that development is at least coincident with reasonable certainty of tite completion of Clinton Keith Road on a rcasonahic timetable.
H. The more private and public funds invested in completing Clinton Keith Road, the more likely it is that Clinton Keith Road will be built.
1. As a result of the settlement discussions between City and Developer, and in light of the Foregoing recitals, the parties have agreed upon a schedule of milestone events and corresponding residential unit phasing plan, wWch will avoid the necessity of bringing the Lawsuit to a hearing, and instead result in its dismissal. Accordingly, the panics now wish to resolve the dispute embodied in the Lawsuit without further litigation and without admission of the merits of the contentions of any party by any other party on the terms set forth below.
AGREEWNT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual promises and agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficicucy of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:
I. Unit P a ' t w�th i elation ste n 111 erne ts. Inconsideration for City`s dismussal of the Lawsuit with prejudice, Developer agrees that it will phase residential unit development in French Valley in accordance with the milestone schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B. As depicted on Exhibit B. as each milestone event or set of events is satisfied, building permits may be issued for one hundred U 00) dwelling units. The parties understand that while the milestone events are identified on Exhibit B in the order it is anticipated they will occur, the order in which they are listed on Exhibit B is not material to this Agrcernent, provided, however, that building permits for (1) the first 100 units will not be issued until a park and ride facility is completed as described in milestone "A," and (2) not more than 500 units will be released prior to accomplishment of milestone "F': securing funding for Clinton Keith Road. "Clinton Keith Road" as used in this Agreement means a road with a minimum of four trafFc Vf lanes between the French Valley Project and 1-215 and tite improvements, or interim improvements, to the 1-215 and Clinton Keith Interchange necessary to accommodate traffic from the French Valley Project. The park and ride described in milestone "A" shall be open and available to the public and maintained by Developer, its successors, or by art assignee of Developer approved by the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld provided the assignee is capable of maintaining the facility,
RWG version 718994.2 January 11, 2003
:s�
2. French Valley pevel,QfJnlcnt ,A�reement. In order to justify the upfront costs Developer will be incurring for Clinton Keith Road and other improvements and the risks inherent in the Exhibit B phasing program and milestone sch dulc, and to implement the Exhibil B phasing program and milestone schedule, Developer will apply to the County for approval or a Development Agreement for French Valley that will incorporate the Exhibit B phasing program and milestone schedule as a project requirernew, and provide a process for verifying the accompfishment of each: milestone event(s). City agrees to support Developer's application for such a development agreement so long as the development agreement contains the phasing plan described in Exhibit B to this Agreement, provides a reasonable method for monitoring development and deterrlvnation of accomplishment of the milestones, and dots not increase overall the density and intensity of development in Trench Valley allowed by the Approvals.
The County shall use its best efforts to expeditiously process and consider approval of the development agreement. The portion of the development agreement conditioning the issuance of building permits on the accomplishment of the milestones described in Exhibit B of this Agreement shall be enforceable by the City against the County, Developer and then -current owners of the affected portions of French Valley. In the event the County declines to approve the Development Agreement application, or attaches conditions to the Development Agreement that are unacceptable to Developer, Developer agrees that it will nonetheless provide evidence reasonably satisfactory to City of the accomplishment of each milestone event or package of events prior to obtaining the corresponding allocation of building permits, and that any dispute conceming the accomplishment of one or more milestone events shall be subject to non -binding, expl:dited arbitration by a mutually acceptable member of JAMS.
3. CtgntinmL� f r ancon Keith Road -tench Mille I)evc;inp et . City agrees that so long as the overall intensity and density of development of French Valley is not greater than as allowed pursuant to the Approvals. and is phased in accordance with this Agreement, City shall not appose future development of ,French Valley, City agrees to support County`s expedited processing of Clinton Keith Road as an important regional circulation system improvement, and in so doing to use reasonable efforts to enlist the support of the City of Murrieta for improvements to Clinton Keith Road within its jurisdiction.
. I]i Missal, Release and Enforcement. Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, City agrees to execute for filing and file a dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudicc. Upon execution Of this agreement and dismissal of the lawsuit, City shall have tflc right to enforce the terms and Provisions of this Agreement against Drench Valley as contractual obligations of the Developer.
Developer agrees to advise any subsequent buyer ofa]I or any portion of French Valley of tite existence and obligations of this Agreement, which obligation will be satisfied uporl execution and recordation of a Development Agreement as provided in Paragraph 2 above.. in the event Developer applies for approval of a subdivision IMP for all or any portion of French Valley prior to County action on the Development Agreement, or thereafter if no Development Agreement is executed and recorded for Drench Valley, Developer shall immediately notify the City of the filing of the Application for the subdivision map, and Developer and County agree that the subdivision reap shall be conditioned to comply with tine milestones and phasing establisher! by Exhibit B to this Agreement, and shall recite that the condition shall be enforceable by the City as a contractual right flowing from the settlement of Ilia lawsuit. County will place a ropy of this Agreement in the Specific Plan file for French Valley.
RWG version 718894,2 January 11, 2003 3
5. General Provi ion .
a. zf any dispute arises out of orconceming Ihis Settlement Agreement and/or the Mutual Release, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover, in Addition to any damages and/or equitable relief, its reasonable attorneys fees in that dispute. b. This Agreement and the exhibits hereto contain the entire agreement and understanding between the parties concerning the subject matter of this settlement and supersede and replace aU prior negotiations, proposed agreements and agreements, written or oral.
C. This Agreement and the exhibits hereto may be amended or modified only by a written instrument signed by all parties or their successors in interest, d, This Agreement and the exhibits hereto shall be interpreted, enforced and govemed by the laws of the State of California.
e. This Agreement and theexhibits hereto shall be construed as if the parties jointly prepared them and any uncertainty or ambiguity shall not be interpreted against any one party. f. If any provision of Ihis Agreement or the exhibits hereto shall be deemed unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions will be given full force and effect. g, This Agreement and the exhibits hereto may be executed in counterparts which when taken together constitute the entire agreement among Ilse partirs hereto. h. The person(s) signing this Agreement on behalf of any specified party represents that he or she has rull authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of such party. i. This Agreement sliall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the heirs, successors in interest, and assignees of the rxspective parties. All heirs, successors and assignees shall be bound by the duties of the parties arising under this Agreement. j• In the event that Clinton Keith Road is significantly delayed, City and Developer agree to meet and confer in good faith on possible additional circulation system improvements that may be feasible, and provide similar congestion relief to City, as a potential substitute to the Milestone events listed on EWtibit B-
k. The waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall) be invalid unless evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged themwitli. The waiver of, or failure to enforce, any provision of this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any further breach; of such provision or of any Other provision hereof. Tiie waiver by any party of the time for performing any act shall not be a waiver of the time for performingany other act or acts required under this Agreement.
RWG version'i18N94.21anuuy 11, 2W3 4 �+
IN WETNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written.
"CITY" --
City of Temecula
1 I
. •rIM,. '
Susan lono. City
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By.
Peter Thorson, City Attorney
'IOEYELOPER"
NNP-SPencer's Crossing, LLC
a Delaware limited liability comps y
By• Z
Its: 11Ma ans
I: maiden
B
Its: o>rREK c. 'IHGMAs
RWG version 718894.2 January 11, 2o09 5
"COUNTY"
County of Riverside
By:— . - --- --
ATTEST:
By:--- - -
APPROVED AS TO FORM;
B Y:
N
EXHIBIT A
DEPICTION OF (FRENCH VALLEY
RWG version 718894.2 January 11, 2003 �{o!
rcr
C a
7 ❑D
rn R a H
r�r
n 2= .
ok
S.�
briZn tit
1 ?�
LAND USE SUMMARY
LAhrDivu
le AMj_QWHr %CE
74.4 )jD 224
Wdwo, fk.1d.otL.1 . J.]M4,
210.4 ca 871
MIAlm Rald-6.1 - CODU rJ.
15&6 4.5 6%
Aeild,.A.A 5.61.W
449.4 11
9ME32OMMTA==
cv—sp-MID"C"dor,
131 — —
D—wr
20.0 Opm Sp--IEV-dtd P-6..y.
6"
ca—Orcl.)
1.7 K-do
Su6m-1
iss.4
rmb
601.0 Lf IL17-1
PA, 12
J11%, 2 11
r
' -I,- —E
:
— = au
-elllii l
A;
P.A. 29
FA. A3
11 tolu"
PAL is
xurlyy'XTk—
PA. 13
mv,U4
�
•PA.
12 I AA. 4 1
I
"JUDD.
KM,fm
,
M,
PA. Is
V�Aj 10
wmiUF
11,11. jA-F —
W.., 3 w
-71
USE PLlsN S4
67reffell, Valley FIGUREIII.A.2
11 w
TOCALOTA FULLS ASSOCIATES LLC AI
I 9SOO MACAJUIMR BLVD. SUITE 700
IRVINE, CA 91612
PAGE III-A-5
ICXHiB1T B
CLINTON KEITH ROAD MILESTONE SCHEDULE
Building permits for 100 units will be released upon the accomplishment of each of the following ndlestone events for the completion of Clinton Keith Road ("CKR")"Clinton Keith Road" as used in this Agreement means a road with a minimum of four traffic lanes between the French Valley Project and I-215 and the improvements, or interim imprnvernents, to the I-215 and Clinton Keith Interchange necessary to accommodate traffic from the French Valley project, A. 100 units at:
v execution of an agreement for preliminary design and environmental clearances for CKR; and
• :approval by the Board of Supervisors of the expanded boundaries and the funding levels of the Solllhwos( Area Road and Bridge Benefit District ("RBBD") for CKR
B. 100 units at; .completion of a 250-space park -and -ride facility either on -site of off -site north of the Temecula City limits open and available for public use, C. 100 units at:11
circulation to the public of the draft environmental document for CKR �
D. 100 units at:
.
execution of the "at Risk final design contract for CKR E. 100 units at:
. Certification of the final environmental document b lead a to y agency
Y Pursuant to
CEQA and, if applicable. NEPA for CKR; and
award of the CKR bridge structural design contract; and identification of CKR right-of-way ("ROW) requirements (i.e., completion of 35% of CKR roadway design)
F, 100 units at;
■ funds for the completion of CKR
are available pursuant to the financing planT
G. 100 units at:
+ finalization of ROW requirements and completion of ROW appraisals for CKR H. 100 units at:
a 95% completion of the CKR roadway and bridge design
Y completion of ROW acquisition for CKR
I, 100 units at:
9 completion of final roadway design, including final structural design of the CKR bridge; and
® receipt of all environmental clearances; and
f award of contracts for construction of CKR
. Remainin
units at: g CKR completed and open for.public use
u
RWG version 718894.2 January 11, 2003 $
0 Item No. 15
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Aaron Adams, City Manager
DATE: October 25, 2022
SUBJECT: City Council Travel/Conference Report
PREPARED BY: Luisa Tovar, Executive Assistant
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file report.
On September 7 and 8, 2022, Mayor Matt Rahn traveled to Long Beach, CA to attend the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo. Mayor Rahn was scheduled to stay at the Conference until September 9, 2022; however, returned to Temecula earlier than anticipated, on September 8, 2022, due to the Fairview Fire threatening Temecula Wine Country and the City of Temecula.
ATTACHMENT: Itinerary
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
LONG BEACH
SEPTEMBER 7, 8, 9, 2022
MATT RAH N
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2022
Hotel: Hyatt Regency Long Beach, 200 South Pine Ave., Long Beach, CA 90802. Phone: 562-491-1234, Confirmation #CFYVESW2, King Bed, $239 + fees and taxes. httos:// www.calcities.ora/detail-oaaes/event/2023/09/20/default-calendar/annual-conference-and-expo 8:00am-5:00pm Registration Open
10:00am-12:00pm Understanding Public Service Ethics Laws and Principles (AB 1234) 11:00am-12:00pm Riverside Division Meeting — Beacon B
1:30pm-5:00pm Open General Sessions
5:00pm-7:00 pm Grand Opening Expo Hall Reception
Exhibit Hall A/B
7:00pm-10:00pm CitiPac — Aquarium of the Pacific
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2022
7:30am-4:00pm Registration Open
8:30am-5:30pm
9:00am-3:00pm
10:00am-12:00pm
1:00pm-5:30pm
Regular Sessions
Expo Open
General Session
Regular Sessions
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2022
7:30am-12:30pm Registration Open
8:00am-11:15am Regular Sessions
11:30am-2:00pm Closing Luncheon & General Assembly— Convention Center, Exhibit Hall C
Item No. 16
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development
DATE: October 25, 2022
SUBJECT: Community Development Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the Community Development Department monthly report.
The following are the highlights for Community Development for the month of September 2022.
CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Planning processed sixteen (16) new applications (not including Home Occupations) and conducted seven (7) Public Hearings in September 2022. A detailed account of planning activities is attached to this report.
Planning Statistics
September
2022
Long Range Projects
0 Development Plan
3 Home Occupations
1 Nlodificadons
6 Pre- App
Temporary Use Permit
3 Zoning or Planning Letter
Tow
17 Paseo Del Sol Tentative Tract Map No. 36483 (PA14-0087): The City is processing a Tentative Tract Map (No. 36483) for 168 single-family homes and 11 open space lots located at the northwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. (COOPER)
Winchester Hills Development Agreement Amendment (PA21-0128): The City is processing a Second Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and Lennar Homes, Inc., a California Corporation and Winchester Hills I LLC, a California Limited Liability Company to rescind the First Amendment to the Development Agreement and reinstate the original term of the Development Agreement for the Winchester Property located within portions of Planning Area 12 of the Harveston Specific Plan. (COOPER)
Firenze (PA21-1023): The City is processing a Development Plan application for an approximately 498,557 square foot hotel and apartment project. The approximately 148,545 square foot, five story, 224 room hotel includes a conference center, restaurant, wine market multi -tenant space, and outdoor courtyard dining space. The approximately 350,012 square foot, seven story, 121-unit apartment building include a roof top area that contains a pool/spa, cabanas, fire pit, media wall, kitchen, fitness area, and lawn/game area. The parking for the project is located on the interior of the apartment building that is wrapped with the residential units. The project is located approximately 665 feet north of Rancho California Road on the east side of Jefferson Avenue. (COOPER)
Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update (PA21-1525): The City is processing a Modification to the previously approved Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan. The updated Master Plan, at buildout will include the existing 237,305 square foot hospital building and 5,180 square foot storage building along with an approximately 130,000 square foot, four story Behavioral Health Building in Phase 2, an approximately 10,000 square foot expansion to the emergency department, a 125,000 square foot, five story second hospital tower, a 80,000 square foot medical office buildings, and a 14,000 square foot utility plant in Phase 3, and an approximately 125,000 square foot, five story third hospital tower, a 80,000 square three story foot medical office building, and a four story parking structure with the existing helipad relocated to the roof of the structure in Phase 4. The project is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway. A public scoping meeting for the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was held on March 23, 2022, at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. The Revised Draft SEIR was provided to staff for review. (COOPER) Temecula Resort and Spa (PAs 22-0035, 22-0037): The City is processing a Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map for an approximately 474,137 square foot, seven (7) story, 90-foot high full service hotel that includes a parking garage, conference facilities/ballrooms, gallery/event space, full service spa, restaurants, bars/lounges, retail outlets, workout facility, outdoor pool area, and a wedding garden located on the east side of Front Street between First Street and Second Street. The project was presented to the Old Town Steering Subcommittee on September 27, 2022. (COOPER) Temecula Hyundai (PA22-0293): The City is processing a Modification to a Development Plan for the addition of approximately 3,824 square feet to the vehicle showroom and service area, a new approximately 674 square foot vehicle delivery canopy area, elevation revisions to adhere to new corporate colors, and a new vehicle display pad at the entry driveway located at 27430 Ynez Road. (COOPER) Sommers Bend SHAWOOD Home Product Review (PAs 22-0494, 0495, 0496): The City is Processing Home Product Reviews for Planning Area's 19, 20B, and 21 of Sommers Bend. There are a total of 57 homes ranging in size from 3,203 square feet to 4,974 square feet with three (3) different architectural styles.
Home Product Review for these planning areas was previously approved on June 2, 2021. The applicant is proposing new architectural styles with new construction techniques for these larger homes. The projects are scheduled for Planning Commission on October 19, 2022 (COOPER) Seraphina Tentative Tract Map No. 38267 (PA22-0830): The City is processing a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 38267) for the creation of 39 single family lots and two (2) open space lots on 12.77 acres located on the southwest corner of Joseph Road and Rita Way (APN: 957-080-027). (COOPER) Boutique Luxury Hotel (PAs 22-0929, 0930, 0931): The City is processing a Development Plan for an approximately 54,699 square foot, four-story, 45 room hotel that includes retail spaces, a gym, meeting space, and a rooftop restaurant and pool area. The project is located on the west side of Old Town Front
Street approximately 400' south of Santiago Road adjacent to the U-Haul dealership. The application package also includes requests for a Minor Exception for the height of the building to accommodate architectural tower elements and a Variance to allow for parking within the setback due to the narrow width of the project site. (COOPER)
Parker Medical Center II (PA22-0987): The City is processing a Development Plan for an approximately 35,601 square -foot, three story, medical office building located on the west side of Avenida De Missiones approximately 425 feet south of Temecula Parkway. (COOPER) Rally's (PA22-1012): The City is processing a Modification to a previously approved Development Plan (PA15-1572) for an approximately 998 square foot drive thru restaurant located on the southwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Mahlon Vail Road. (COOPER)
Apollo Storage (PA22-0999): The City is processing a Development Plan for an approximately 113,295 square foot, four story, self -storage facility located on the east side of Madison Ave. approximately 110 feet south of McCabe Court within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. (COOPER)
LONG RANGE PLANNING
General Plan Update
The Long Range Planning Division has developed a four -phase, multi -year process to update the General Plan. Phase I is complete and included updates to Housing and Public Safety Elements. Phase I also included an update to the City's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines to analyze Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Phase II is in process and includes an update to the Quality of Life Master Plan (QLMP), reconciling the City's GIS Maps on a parcel by parcel basis, a baseline EIR analysis of the City's Circulation Element, and developing a Complete Streets Policy document. Phase III will include a Fiscal Land Use Study to analyze the City's remaining development capacity and market absorption potential for residential, commercial, and industrial development. The final phase is to work with a General Plan Advisory Committee to update to the General Plan and EIR over an 18-month timeframe. (PETERS)
Quality of Life Master Plan Update: On April 27, 2021, the City Council established a Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) to update the Quality of Life Master Plan (QLMP). The QLMP identifies the City's six core values, including: 1) Healthy and Livable City; 2) Economic Prosperity; 3) Safe and Prepared Community; 4) Sustainable City; 5) Transportation Mobility and Connectivity; and 6) Accountable and Responsive City Government. Projects and programs proposed in the City's Annual Operating Budget and Capital Improvements Program must be consistent with the City's Core Values. Performance measures (indicators) are measured annually to track progress and the completion of goals and objectives. The last BRC meeting is scheduled for July 21, 2022. The Preliminary Draft document will be presented to the remaining Commissions in October. The Final Draft QLMP will be scheduled for a City Council meeting on November 15th. (PETERS)
Permit Ready ADU Program (LR19-1464): The City received an SB 2 Grant from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to prepare, adopt, and implement a Permit Ready Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) program. The ADU program will encourage the construction of ADUs, offering property owners a selection of pre -approved ADU building plans that can be obtained at the Community Development Department, free of charge. On September 16, 2020, the RFP closed on
PlanetBids. The City received three detailed proposals from qualified consultants. After detailed review of all the proposals, staff selected checkerboardSTUDIOS Consultant Firm. On March 18, 2021, staff kicked off the project with the Consultant and staff from Planning, Building & Safety, Public Works, and Fire. This will be a joined effort between the internal departments and the consultant. Staff is working with the consultant on the first task (Phase 1: Schematic Design), staff has provided feedback of the Schematic Design taking into consideration the School District and Development Impact Fee (DIF) fees, and appropriate unit type and size. On, October 19, 2021, staff presented at the draft site plan and architecture designs to the Southern Riverside County Association of Realtors (SRCAR). On November 30, 2021, staff held an Open House to solicit feedback from the professional community (i.e., Engineers, Contractors, Architects, etc.), the meeting will be open to the public. Staff is currently reviewing the construction drawings. Plans will be going back into review to update the plans to account for the 2022 Building Code. (RABIDOU)
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Amendment (LR19-1458): An amendment to the Uptown Specific Plan to implement the following changes: modify graphics to reflect consistency with text regarding allowable frontage types, amend street cross sections (graphics), amend plant pallet and silva cell requirements for street trees, implement a street naming convention, amend streetlight spacing and other typographical errors.
Staff has reached out to Spurlock Consulting for assistance in updating the Sidewalk and Streetscape Standards and is awaiting a scope if work and timeline. Public Works is drafting new street sections for the Specific Plan anticipated completion in November. (COLLINS) Transportation Discovery and Existing Conditions Analysis (LR20-1071): The City received an SB 2 Grant from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to prepare an internal document for staff to identify potential transportation focused areas as part of Phase 2 of our General Plan Update process and timeline. The City has hired Fehr & Peers (F&P) to document existing transportation conditions in the City, provide benchmarking information on how transportation facilities, transportation use and policies compares to other peer agencies (through benchmarking) and will evaluate how much of the current Circulation Element has been implemented. Staff worked with F&P to identify methodology, thresholds, and mitigation to address VMT for the California Environmental Quality Act evaluation, which the City Council adopted in May 2020. On July 19, 2021, Staff has a scheduled internal meeting with Fehr & Peers, they present to staff the Data Collection Status. Currently, the consultant is developing the three scenario runs to be reviewed by staff prior to conducting a full model run. (PETERS) Mobile Food Trucks (LR20-1472): On February 23, 2021, staff presented to the Economic Development Subcommittee members (ME/JS) on Mobile Food Trucks (MFT). This was a noticed meeting with one public comment in favor of MFT, read by Stuart Fisk. The intent of the meeting was to get the subcommittee's feedback on the potential for MFT to operate in the City. Staff presented the definition of MFTs, existing regulations, standards of operation to consider, and Pros & Cons list. The subcommittee advised staff to create a framework and come back to the committee for discussion. Staff is working on developing the framework. Staff took the draft to Community Development Brainstorming Meeting on May 4, 2022, for review. Revisions necessary. Staff has shelved the Ordinance for the time being in an effort to have a smaller test of food truck operations within the City by allowing food trucks to operate at alcoholic beverage manufacturer (Breweries, wineries, etc.) exclusively serving their customers entirely on private property and under the requirements of Riverside County Ord. No. 580. (COLLINS) Shopping Cart Ordinance (LR21-0909): An ordinance to modify Title 9 Public Peace, Morals and Welfare of the Temecula Municipal Code to regulate shopping carts. Shopping carts continue to be left throughout the City, costing taxpayers and businesses money to retrieve, repair or replace these carts. The ordinance
proposes mandatory physical measures for all retailers with shopping carts, exemptions provided for, exemptions are invalid for retailers whose carts are found more than 3 times in a 12-month period. Staff presented the draft ordinance to the City Council Public Safety Subcommittee on January 18, 2022 (Rahn, Edwards), direction to staff was to conduct more outreach to businesses, chamber of commerce as well as to present the ordinance to the Planning Commission Commercial Center Subcommittee. Staff hand delivered 82 letters to all businesses within the City, presented the draft ordinance to the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce on January 11, 2022, and presented to Planning Commission Commercial Center Subcommittee on February 16, 2022 (Turley-Trejo, Watts). Commissioners were supportive of the ordinance, recommended the framing be as a responsibility and not assign blame. Staff was requested to present again to the Subcommittee's to show outreach efforts and report feedback. The Shopping Cart Ordinance was passed and, staff is presently following up with another in person visit to further explain the requirements and timeframes for implementing theft prevention measures, completion is anticipated to be the week of October loth. (COLLINS)
Temecula Creek Wildfire Risk Reduction Community Plan (LR21-1331): Temecula applied for and was awarded a $300,000 grant to develop Temecula's first Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP).
The grant has a $78,000 match (staff time), the remainder is to onboard a consultant to draft the plan. RFP has closed and SWCA Environmental was selected as the winning candidate. Staff is currently working to place the item on the City Council for their consideration. (COLLINS) Municipal Code Update (LR22-0182): An update to the Temecula Municipal Code Title 5 and 17. Updates to Title 5 are limited to clarification for exemptions to the requirements of Chapter 5.22 Massage Establishments specific to chair massage and specifies limits to existing exemptions. Updates to Title 17 include changes to the separate conveyance of Accessory Dwelling Units IAW AB 345. Additionally, ADU's would require all equipment (including window AC units) to be screened from the R-O-W and update the definition of guest house and secondary dwelling unit. Update PDO-4 & PDO-10 to require restaurants that provide live entertainment comply with Chapter 9.10 Live entertainment License. Item is scheduled for the Planning Commission on November 19, 2022, and City Council on January 18, 2023. (COLLINS)
WRCOG REAP Agreement (LR22-0664): An agreement between WRCOG and the City to provide consultation services to provide analysis of required municipal code updates as they relate to the new slate of housing laws, such as SB-9, ADU Laws, etc. Additionally, would evaluate changes to the municipal code required after the adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The cost is included as a benefit to member agencies of WRCOG. WSP is the consultant selected by WRCOG to assist the city review its Municipal Code in relation to the new housing bills passed. Staff has bi-weekly meetings with the consultant to address the changes and will discuss proposed changes at a future date in consultation with the City Attorney's Office. (COLLINS)
Old Town Specific Plan Update (LR21-0279): An amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan to implement the following changes: (1). Revise maximum building height for three and four-story buildings in the Downtown Core District from 50 feet to 55 feet, (2) Add provisions to allow for raised commercial outdoor patios (24-inch height), (3). Revise commercial ground floor fagade standards to prohibit the use of aluminum shop front or spandrel panels, (4) Clarify existing parking structure setback language, (5) Revise architectural guidelines related to varied rooflines and fences, (6) Revise non -conforming use language for single-family homes in the Residential and Limited Mixed -Use Zones for consistency, (7) Revise alley requirements to clarify utility locations, trash services, and delivery requirements, (8) Amendment the Use Matrix to allow beer tasting, escape rooms, entertainment licenses, (9) Revise existing bed and breakfast
language to ensure consistency with the Municipal code. The project is anticipated to be heard by the Planning Commission before the end of the year. (JONES)
HOUSING
Las Haciendas Affordable Housing Project: The City is processing a Development Plan for a 77-unit affordable multi -family housing community consisting of two residential buildings, a community building and tuck -under parking located at 28715 Las Haciendas. The City Council approved a Loan Agreement with Community Housing Works (CHW) for the use of affordable housing tax allocation bond proceeds on May 26, 2020. The developer held a virtual community workshop on July 28, 2020. The item was approved by the Planning Commission on October 7, 2020. An amendment to the Loan Agreement was approved at the April 27, 2021, City Council meeting. A tax allocation application was forwarded to the state in March 2021.
The applicant has submitted Building Permits and Grading Permits. CHW was awarded tax credits in June 2021. The project is under construction. (RABIDOU, WATSON) Vine Creek Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA): City Council approved the DDA with Temecula Pacific Associates on June 25, 2019, for the development of 60 affordable units on City -owned property on Pujol Street. The developer is looking to secure financing from the State of California prior to construction. The City and developer will collaborate with the County of Riverside and the State Department of Housing and Community Development for additional funding opportunities through the Permanent Local Housing Allocation grant. The project has received state tax credits as of June 2022. The applicant is moving forward with the project based on this additional funding. (WATSON) Housing Element Update (LR18-1620): The City is working with De Novo Planning Group to update the 2021-29 Housing Element. De Novo will also assist with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process, community engagement, and California Environmental Quality Act. The current Housing Element was certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in 2013 and serves as the foundation for the update. The Housing Element is a required part of the City's General Plan and is a blueprint for meeting the housing needs of residents, at all economic levels, and addressing segments of the population with special needs. The City Council General Plan Ad Hoc Subcommittee, consisting of Council Member Edwards and Mayor Rahn, and the Planning Commission General Plan Ad Hoc Subcommittee, consisting of Commissioners Watts and Turley-Trejo, will serve as advisory bodies.
Running concurrently with the Housing Element Update is the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA planning cycle is an eight -year cycle and covers October 2021 through October 2029.
The Final RHNA allocation was issued in September 2020. Staff is working with the consultant to update data and write draft chapters. A Housing Workshop was held on August 17, 2021, with approximately 12 attendees. The item was recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission at the September 15, 2021, Planning Commission meeting. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection have signed -off on the Housing Element. The item was approved by the City Council on October 12, 2021. The City Council adopted the revised Housing Element on February 8, 2022. Staff has submitted an informal set of changes to HCD. (RABIDOU)
BUILDING & SAFETY
Building and Safety statistics for September 2022 are highlighted in the following table. wilding &. Safety Statistics
September
2M
Permits
442
New Single Family -.nits
9 -ex Commercial BuildinE
4)
Photovoltaic
191
Tenant Ltnpro cement
12 "on Construction C of O
31 -umber of -kctive Plan Checks
123
'umber of Deny- Plan Checks
119
-umber of Finaled Permits
2551
Inspections
3441
Inspections Per Day.
169_96
Inspections Per Person Per Day
32.77 Stops Per Month
926
Visitors to Counter
733
New Construction Projects Currently in Plan Check
❑ Truax Hotel (161,586 SF)
❑ Parking Structure on 3rd Street (48,907 SF)
❑ Generations at Linfield - memory care/assisted living (59 apartments and 32 condos) ❑ Hotel (38,202 SF) on Jefferson and Winchester
❑ Hotel Curio (72,486 SF with 31,808 SF basement Parking) 41h Street ❑ Solana Way Senior Assisted Living and Memory Care (72,882 SF) ❑ Temecula Hyundai Service Building (5,753 SF)
❑ New Industrial Building (32,792 SF)
❑ New Margarita Recreation Center (8,161 SF)
❑ Nine (9) Industrial Buildings — Mountain View (219,609 SF total) ❑ Longhorn Steakhouse (5,710 SF) (old Marie Callender's location) Non -Construction Certificate of Occupancy
❑ The Urban Island Restaurant (2,600 SF)
❑ Live Well Family Counseling (2,234 SF)
Tenant Improvement
❑ Dave's Hot Chicken (1,924 SF)
❑ Boba Time (819 SF)
CODE ENFORCEMENT
During the month September, Code Enforcement responded to 97 web inquiries. In addition, the division opened 114 code cases, conducted 165 regular inspections, and forwarded 22 referrals.
Code Enforcement Statistics
September
Abandoned or Inoperable vehicle
3 Vacant Home I'Prop- Maintenance "Infestation/
0 Bus ines or Home Occupation n. o license, CUP
5 Trash and Debris:: Dumping
Overgrown e getation . weeds.-` Fire Hazard
16 Green Pool. vector Control . Start water
4 Graffiti
Noise Itiuisance•'Animal Central
Trailer RV Stored. Scat. Parking
T
Construction ix Permit: Building Code
Encroach Public EWW . Trash Cans
18 Zoning -:Sims
Public Safer- & Health
1 Total Number of Cases
114
Foreclosure Tracking: Code Enforcement works with the local real estate community to monitor foreclosures, defaults and real estate owned properties.
Foreclosure Statistics
September 2022
Residenrtial - Default
39 Residential - Foreclosure
21 Residenrtial - REO
12 Total - Residential
72 Commercial - Default
Q
Commercial - Foreclosure
1 Commercial - RED
Total - Commercial
1 ATTACHMENT: Current Planning Activity Report
PLANNING ACTIVITY REPORT
Assigned Planner Approval
PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date
Applicant Company
Owner
Plan Type Status
PA22-0984 921-020-067 Jaime Cardenas 09/01/2022
Greg Lang
STEPHEN
PL Zoning or Cancelled
Temecula, CA
CAVADIAS
Planning Letter
Case Title / Description: APN 921020067 ZL: a Zoning verification letter for the vacant property with associated Assessor's Parcel Number 921020067.
PA22-0985 28120 Jefferson Ave 921-060-032 Eric Jones 09/02/2022 Steve Aquilino Dog n Suds
JEAN
PL Modifications Out
Temecula, CA 92590
DOMENIGONI
Case Title / Description: Dog N Suds Modification: A Minor Modification application to allow a rear patio totaling approximately 1,000 square feet to be installed for an existing restaurant. The project is located at 28120 Jefferson Avenue.
PA22-0987 961-290-003 Scott Cooper 09/07/2022
Michael Bastian
Episcopal
PL Development Plan Review
Temecula, CA
Diocese of San
Plan
Diego
Case Title / Description: Parker Medical Center II DP: A Development Plan for an approximately 35,601 square -foot, three story, medical office building located on the west side of Avenida De Missiones approximately 425 feet south of Temecula Parkway
PA22-0990 28225 Heirloom Dr 916-400-035 Scott Cooper 09/12/2022 09/13/2022 Efrem Joelson
Meritage Homes
PL Modifications Approved
Temecula, CA 92591
of California, Inc.
Case Title / Description: Heirloom Farms Zipline MOD: A Modification (Planning Review Only) to a previously approved Development Plan (PA18-0661) to remove the zipline manufacturer information from the landscape plans for the Heirloom Farms project.
PA22-0992 29363 Rancho California Rd 944-330-011 Scott Cooper 09/14/2022 Nina Raey
Land of M&H
PL Modifications Out
Temecula, CA 92592
Investors, LLC
Case Title / Description: LongHorn Steakhouse MOD: A Modification to a previously approved Development Plan (PA21-0793) to revise the corner feature, patio area limits and material, adding an awning to the front elevation and replacing the detention tank with pipes and update storm drain and utility layouts.
The project is located at 29363 Rancho California Road.
PA22-0994 31130 South General Kearny 953-050-036 Yannin Marquez 09/15/2022 09/19/2022 Rebecca Kelley
Carefree
PL Zoning or Approved
Rd
Communities CA
Planning Letter
Temecula, CA 92591
Case Title / Description: Residential ZL: a Zoning Letter request for 31130 South General Kearney Road (APN 953050036).
Assigned Planner Approval
PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA22-0995 41915 4Th St 922-033-017 Eric Jones 09/15/2022 Jessica Steiner Anthony Bennett PL Development Plan Review Temecula, CA 92590 Plan
Case Title / Description: Be Good Hotel Development Plan: A Development Plan Application to review a four-story hotel featuring nine rooms, restaurant and basement parking. The project is generally located on the northwest corner of Fourth Street and Mercedes Street.
PA22-0996 28580 Pujol St 922-053-047 09/21/2022
Jarrod Short Pacific West Pacific West PL Modifications Plan Review Temecula, CA 92590
Communities Communities
Case Title / Description: Vine Creek Apartments Modification: Modification Application to allow for external downspouts to be incorporated and certain conditions of approval to be amended for a previously approved affordable residential project generally located approximately 100 feet north of the Main Street and Pujol Street intersection.
PA22-0997 28459 Old Town Front St 922-026-044 Yannin Marquez 09/21/2022 10/06/2022 Melissa Marin RCM Capital PL Temporary Approved
Temecula, CA 92590
Partners Use Permit
Case Title / Description: StarPups Rescue Animal Adoption Event Pop -Up: A Minor Temporary Use Permit for an adoption booth for Nancy's Furry Feline Rescue for 4 hours on September 24, October 15, November 9 and December 17, 2022 on Starbucks Patio (north side of the building).
PA22-0999 910-272-002 Scott Cooper 09/22/2022
Joe Holasek Hoff Investments PL Development Plan Review Temecula, CA
Plan
Case Title / Description: Apollo Self Storage DP: A Development Plan for an approximately 113,295 square foot, four story, self -storage facility located on the east side of Madison Ave. approximately 110 feet south of McCabe Ct. (APN: 910-272-002)
PA22-1001 29581 North General Kearny 921-830-035 Yannin Marquez 09/27/2022 Stephanie Christ the Vine PL Temporary Plan Review
Rd
Turnbull Lutheran Church Use Permit
Temecula, CA 92591
Case Title / Description: Christ the Vine Lutheran Church Fall Festival: A Major Temporary Use permit to allow for a fall festival that consists of games, music, food and bounce houses at 29581 N. General Kearney Road for October 29th, 2022 from 5 pm to 8 pm.
PA22-1002 26631 Ynez Rd 921-720-006 Yannin Marquez 09/29/2022 DANIEL FLORES Toyota of PL Modifications Plan Review
Temecula, CA 92591
Temecula
Case Title / Description: Temecula Valley Toyota Carport and Solar MOD: A Minor modification for the construction and installation of three PV solar carports; carport (1) 270 panels (6,510 sq. ft.), carport (2) 236 panels (5,730 sq. ft.) and carport (3) 190 panels (4,611 sq. ft.) at the parking lot of Temecula Toyota Dealership located at 26631 Ynez Road.
Assigned Planner Approval
PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date
Applicant Company
Owner
Plan Type Status
PA22-1003 31220 Nicolas Rd 957-090-020 Jaime Cardenas 09/29/2022 Jessica Ramirez
Jessica Ramirez
PL Temporary Plan Review
Temecula, CA 92591
Use Permit
Case Title / Description: Ramirez Construction Home TUP: a Temporary Use Permit to allow the existing 1440 square -foot home to remain property until occupancy is obtained for the future manufactured home located at 31220 Nicolas Road.
PA22-1005 43513 Ventana St 944-330-046 Scott Cooper 09/30/2022 Kim Berry
RTA Rancho
PL Modifications Plan Review
Temecula, CA 92592
Highlands, LLC
Case Title / Description: Arrive @ Rancho Highlands Basin MOD: A Modification to previously approved Development Plan (PA19-1448) to remove the detention basin at the entrance of the project along Ynez Road.
The project is located adjacent to the Temecula Duck Pond approximately 775 feet southeast of Rancho California Road on the north side of Ynez Road.
PREAPP22-0 28306 Old Town Front St 921-070-019 09/08/2022 Aldric Angelier Eshoppe
BULLHEAD
PL Plan Review
988 Temecula, CA 92590
Ventures LLC
CITY SUNSET
Pre -Application
RIDGE
APARTMENTS
Case Title / Description: A Pre -Application to discuss a proposed hookah lounge that serves beer and wine with appetizer type menu.
PREAPP22-0 31855 Calle Novelda 955-226-009 Eric Jones 09/22/2022 Garrett Wait
PALOMA DEL
PL Plan Review
998 Temecula, CA 92592
SOLASSN
Pre -Application
Case Title / Description: Paloma Del Sol CC&R Revision Pre -Application: A Pre -Application to review proposed revisions to the existing Paloma Del Sol CC&R document related to vehicle and RV storage. The project is located with Paseo Del Sol Specific Plan area.
tem No. 17
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: John Crater, Division Chief
DATE: October 25, 2022
SUBJECT: Fire Department Monthly Report
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Report
Wendy Miller, Management Analyst
That the City Council receive and file the Fire Department Monthly
City of Temecula Fire Department
Temecula Fire Department Service Calls
September 2022 �
Incident Type
Commercial Fire 1
False Alarms 92
Haz Mat 2
Medical 622
Multi -Faro 0
�.�� 1989
o� 0 NV Other Fire 8
Other Misc 10
Public Assist 46
Residential Fire 0
Rescue 3
Ringing Alarm 6
Standby 6
Traffic Collision 62
Wildland/Vehicle Fire 4
Total 862
so
City of Temecula Fire Department
Temecula Fire Department
Plan Review and Inspections
September 2022
�116 0481959/y i1
10 Plan Review and Inspections
Plan Review
Construction Inspections
Annual Inspections
Counter/Public Inquiries
August Year to Date
607 4568
270 3216
27 287
Item No. 18
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: October 25, 2022
SUBJECT: Public Works Department Monthly Report
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the Public Works Department Monthly Report for Capital Improvement Projects, Maintenance Projects, and Land Development Projects. This report may also be viewed on the City's website at:
hqp://temeculaca.gov/270/Cgpital-improvement-Projects-CIP
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
October 25, 2022
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
CIRCULATION PROJECTS
Cherry Street Extension & Murrieta Creek Crossing, PW19-15 Description: Preliminary design of the Extension of Cherry Street from Adams Avenue to Diaz Road, including a new crossing of Murrieta Creek.
Cost: $37,248,262
Status: The City received 30% plans for a low flow crossing. Environmental agencies have stated that a low -flow crossing is a non -starter. Design consultant is preparing a bridge planning study, to be completed in Summer 2023.
Diaz Road Expansion, PW17-25
Description Improve Diaz Road to meet the roadway classification of Major Arterial (4 Lanes Divided), between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. The 2.2-mile stretch will be widened, extended, and/or improved to create a contiguous Major Arterial segment. The project will be developed and constructed in two phases.
Phase 1 will include improvements on Diaz Road from Winchester Road to Rancho California Road. Phase 2 will include improvements on Diaz Road from Cherry Street to Winchester Road.
Cost: $14,255,991
Status: Phase 1 design, Phase 1 & 2 environmental studies, and Phase 1 permitting November 2019 — January 2023. The Initial Study has been approved, Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted, and Notice of Determination filed in May 2022. Design is 90% complete. Regulatory permit applications have been submitted for USACE 404 Nationwide Permit and CDFW Streambed Alteration 1602. Current activities include consultant review of 90% plan check comments, design coordination with utility purveyors (SCE, RCWD, and EMWD) and City project PW16-05 Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive, Riverside County Flood Control review of 90% design plans and Encroachment Permit application, and preparation of regulatory permit applications for SWRCB 401 Water Quality Certification and USACE Section 408.
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
October 25, 2022
CIRCULATION PROJECTS (Continued)
French Valley Parkway/Interstate 15 Improvements- Phase 11, PW16-01 Description: Design and construction of the two-lane northbound collector/distributer road system beginning north of the Winchester Road interchange on -ramps and ending just north of the Interstate 15/Interstate 215 junction with connection to Interstate 15 and Interstate 215.
Cost: $138,736,346
Status: City is evaluating proposals received September 1, 2022 in response to RFP No. 270 for Construction Management / Resident Engineering services. Bids for the Construction Contract were received on October 6, 2022 and they are being evaluated. Target for beginning of construction is December 2022. 1-15 Congestion Relief, PW19-02
Description Design and construction of a single auxiliary lane, northbound Interstate 15 connecting the Temecula Parkway on -ramp to the Rancho California Road off -ramp.
Cost: $8,971,710
Status: Design and environmental studies November 2019 — December 2022. Current activities include Caltrans review of 100% Roadway and Structures PSE, Storm Water Data Report, Drainage Report, and Permit Engineering Evaluation Report. Caltrans has tentatively approved the CEQA Categorical Exemption. City is preparing the revalidation of the environmental document. The Notice of Determination will be filed upon project approval under the Permit Engineering Evaluation Report. Target for beginning of construction is Spring 2023.
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive, PW16-05
Description: Design and construction of a new bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek between Rancho California Road and Winchester Road.
Cost: $26,073,374
Status: The City applied and was approved to receive Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds. City Council approved the design agreement with CNS Engineers Inc. at the March 12, 2019, meeting. Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) approved by Caltrans on August 15, 2019. Plans are 30% complete. RCA JPR Conformance is approved. Biological monitoring in Temecula Creek for potential mitigation site is complete as of July 2021. Project has received MSHCP conformance. Staff continues to work with Caltrans to advance HBP Grant Funds to earlier fiscal years. Caltrans HBP Program management had proposed reducing the curb -to -curb width of the bridge that is considered "participating" for grant funding purposes.
Staff has been able to address this issue with Caltrans and the majority of the bridge width will remain as a participating cost. 2022 HBP Bridge Update was submitted in August. NEPA approval is anticipated in October of 2022, Caltrans review time has been longer than anticipated.
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
October 25, 2022
CIRCULATION PROJECTS (Continued)
Overland Drive Widening, PW 20-11
Description This project includes widening Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Commerce Center Drive, to two lanes in each direction, and the completion of missing segments of sidewalk, streetlights, and installation of the traffic signal at Commerce Center Drive and the modification of the traffic signal at Jefferson Avenue.
Cost: $2,894,420
Status: 60% plan check submittal package was returned to design consultant for corrections in mid -September. 90% plan check submittal package is anticipated to be submitted in late Fall of 2022.
Traffic Signal Installation — Citywide, Rancho California Road and Tee Drive, PW19-19 Description: This project includes the installation of a traffic signal on Rancho California Road at Tee Drive.
Cost: $448,045.00
Status: Construction contract was awarded by City Council on August 9, 2022. Contractor is providing the City with project submittals, and construction is anticipated to start in the Fall of 2022. Construction completion is anticipated in December of 2022.
Traffic Signal and Park & Ride Access Improvements, PW18-11 Description: This project includes the installation of a traffic signal on Temecula Parkway at Wabash Lane. The project also includes relocating the access to the Park and Ride facility on Temecula Parkway at La Paz Road from Vallejo Avenue to Wabash Lane.
Cost: $1,347,674
Status: The traffic signal and the new access road to the Park and Ride are fully operational. Access to Park and Ride from Vallejo Ave. has been closed and a permanent block wall will be constructed. Construction completion is anticipated in December of 2022.
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
October 25, 2022
CIRCULATION PROJECTS (Continued)
TRAFFIC SIGNAL- SYSTEM UPGRADE (Protective/Permissive Signal Heads), PW 19-09 Description: This project will modify traffic signals at five (5) locations in the City to provide protected/permissive signal operations. The five (5) intersections include Margarita Road/Verdes Lane, Ynez Road/Town Center North, Ynez Road/Town Center South, Redhawk Parkway/Paseo Parallon-Overland Trail, and Winchester Road/Enterprise Circle.
Cost: $481,900
Status: Project plans and specifications will be sent to Caltrans for Construction Authorization in the next month Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Rd, Solana Way, Nicolas Rd and Winchester Rd, PW 21-10
Description: Pavement rehabilitation project on Ynez Road, Solana Way, Nicolas Road and Winchester Road.
Pavement rehabilitation includes full width and/or edge grinding of existing asphalt, localized dig outs, preparation of grade, and placement of rubberized asphalt concrete pavement. Work also includes reconstruction of ADA curb ramps, removal and replacement of curb and gutter, adjustment of existing utilities to grade, installation and removal of temporary video detection and restoration of existing striping, and detector loops.
Cost: $3,629,219
Status: Construction contract was awarded by City Council on October 11, 2022. Construction is anticipated to start in late October/early November of 2022. Construction completion is anticipated in January of 2023.
Pavement Rehabilitation Program- Meadowview/ Paloma Del Sol, PW21-06 Description: Rehabilitation of roads in interior streets in the Meadowview tract, and Paloma Del Sol tract Amarita Way, Montelegro Way, and Santiago Rd.
Cost: $4,732,266.70
Status: In construction. Paloma Del Sol access ramp replacements complete. Starting asphalt curb replacements in the Meadowview tract. Anticipated completion of project is end of December 2022 4 City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
October 25, 2022
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Bike and Trail Program — Great Oak Trail Lighting, PW21-16 Description: Project includes the installation of solar lights along the Great Oak Trail adjacent to the northeast side of Pechanga Parkway from Deer Hollow Way to Loma Linda Road.
Cost: $400,000
Status: Project is currently in design
Citywide Drainage Master Plan, PW19-16
Description: Project will prepare a report that shows all drainage courses within the City. Also includes a master hydrology study showing the anticipated storm flows at build -out.
Cost: $600,000
Status: Design consultant is cataloguing all drainage in GIS. Project completion anticipated for Spring 2023.
Community Recreation Center (CRC) Renovations, PW19-07
Description: The project facilitates the rehabilitation, improvement, and reconfiguration of the Community Recreation Center. This project includes expansion and reconfiguration of teen center; conversion of office space to accommodate a dedicated police substation; renovation of key components of the building including safety features, flooring, roof, and restroom facility access; ADA compliance; renovation and expansion of existing office space and rec rooms including AV upgrades; expanded storage space and upgraded kitchen equipment.
Cost: $10,708,232
Status: Construction contract for Phase 1 was awarded at the 9/27/2022 City council meeting.
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
October 25, 2022
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (Continued)
Fiber Optic Communication System Upgrade, PW 18-05
Description: This project will install fiber optic communication system upgrades including conduit, cable, CCTV cameras, traffic signal controllers, and related communication equipment to improve safety and operations with optimized traffic signal timing coordination. Various signalized intersections will be improved along the Winchester Road, Rancho California Road, and Temecula Parkway corridors.
Cost: $1,208,200
Status: All communication infrastructure and traffic signal cabinet equipment has been installed. Project is in fiber optic communication testing stage.
Fiber Optic Communications Systems- Citywide, PW 22-03
Description: This project will develop a communications masterplan that will provide a strategic plan outlining the approach and buildout design of fiber optic cable and conduit throughout the City. The masterplan document will provide a roadmap to connect all existing and future traffic signals, traffic monitoring devices, surveillance cameras, and City facilities to City -owned fiber communication lines. The ultimate project goal is to enhance the City's existing fiber optic communication system to ensure it can handle the future needs of the City.
Cost: $120,150
Status: The project has just commenced, and the consultant is working on an existing systems assessment.
Fire Station 84 Renovation, PW19-14
Description: This project includes the design, construction, and renovation to Fire Station 84. The renovations include, adding a Wellness Room, expanding the Storage Room, and upgrading the Training Room. Also, the upgrades include, electrical, windows, flooring, paint, tile, HVAC, cabinets, plumbing fixtures, garage bay doors and any necessary improvements needed to conform to ADA accessibility access.
Cost: $1,641,028
Status: Advertisement for construction bids was cancelled. Contract documents are under revision and project will be re -advertised in the Fall of 2022.
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
October 25, 2022
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (Continued)
Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Interchange Enhanced Landscaping, PW17-19 Description: Landscape beautification of the Interstate 15 corridor between French Valley Parkway and Temecula Parkway, including each interchange, in association with Visit Temecula Valley and the Pechanga Tribe.
This project includes the design and construction of enhanced landscaping, hardscape, and irrigation between the freeway and ramps on the west side of the Interstate 15 / State Route 79S (Temecula Parkway) interchange.
Cost: $3,558,483
Status: Design and environmental studies August 2019 — October 2022Current activities include environmental revalidation and design of new power and irrigation water service.
Margarita Recreation Center, PW17-21
Description: Demolition and Reconstruction of New Margarita Recreation Center Building and Pool Cost: $12,601,508
Status: RFP responses were received on August 27, 2020. The project was re -advertised on November 25, 2020, to account for increased project budget and proposals were received on December 23, 2020. The Design - Build Contract was awarded at the March 9, 2021, City Council Meeting to De La Secura Builders, Inc., for a Guaranteed Maximum Price of $8,680,459.00. Major demolition activities commenced mid -March. City Groundbreaking occurred on March 31, 2022. Building footings have been poured. Foundation was completed mid -August and framing is well underway. Pool excavation, placement of steel reinforcement, and concrete for the pool base is complete. Roofing is expected to start end of September 2022.. It is anticipated building construction will be complete in spring 2023 with a grand opening in Summer 2023 after the building is furnished and equipped.
Mary Phillips Senior Center Enhancement and Renovation, PW20-13 Description: The project includes the enhancement and renovation of the Mary Phillips Senior Center. Work includes new exterior siding, painting, replacement of perimeter soffits, fascia boards, eaves, and select doors & windows.
Cost: $1,262,025
Status: On 9/13/2022, City Council rejected all bids and authorized staff to re -bid the project.
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
October 25, 2022
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (Continued)
Mary Phillips Senior Center Outdoor Recreational Area, PW22-08 Description: The project includes the design and construction of a shuffleboard court area adjacent to Mary Phillips Senior Center. In addition, the HVAC units will be replaced.
Cost: $650,000
Status: Project in design and estimated to be completed by November 2022.
Pedestrian Signal Equipment Upgrade, PW 19-10
Description: The project will install pedestrian countdown signal heads, ADA compliant pedestrian pushbutton equipment, and upgrade traffic signal controllers to improve safety and operations at signalized intersections Citywide including the Butterfield Stage Road, Jefferson Avenue, Margarita Road, Redhawk Parkway, Pechanga Parkway, Rancho California Road, Temecula Parkway, and Ynez Road corridors.
Cost: $779,400
Status: Project will be going to City Council for Notice of Completion in October.
Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect, PW08-04 Description: Design, environmental document, and construction of the extension of the existing trail from Ynez Road to the Murrieta Creek Trail. The extension includes access and under -crossing at Ynez Road, Interstate 15 and Jefferson Avenue and a continuous paved trail along Santa Gertrudis Creek to connect to Murrieta Creek trail.
Cost: $7,173,595
Status: Grand Opening held on October 1, 2022. Construction is complete. Punchlist and project closeout are only items remaining.
Santa Gertrudis Creek Phase II — Margarita Under -Crossing, PW19-04 Description: Design, environmental document, and construction of the undercrossing in Santa Gertrudis Creek at Margarita Road to connect to the pedestrian/bicycle trail. The under -crossing at Margarita Road will provide a continuous paved trail along Santa Gertrudis Creek at this location.
Cost: $2,716,764
Status: The project is in design. 100% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PSE) expected in January 2023.
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
October 25, 2022
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (Continued)
Sidewalks — Citywide (Ynez Road, Rancho Highland to Tierra Vista Road), PW17-28 Description: New sidewalks on the west side of Ynez Road from Rancho Highland to Tierra Vista Road.
Cost: $198,920
Status: ADA Access Ramps have to be revised. The project is scheduled to be advertised for construction bids in the Fall of 2022.
Sidewalks — Citywide (Pauba Road, Elinda Road to Showalter Road), PW 19-20 Description: New sidewalks and street widening on the South side of Pauba Road from Elinda Road to Showalter Road.
Cost: $467,403
Status: Project is at 95% design stage.
Traffic Signal- Promenade Mail Ring Road, PW 21-15
Description: The project includes the installation of a traffic signal on Ring Road at Promenade Mall East.
Cost: $412,206
Status: Construction contract was awarded by City Council on September 13, 2022.
Citywide Slurry Seal Program Fiscal Year 2021-22, PW22-02 Description: Slurry seal residential streets in Paloma Del Sol, Paseo Del Sol, and Rancho Vista Estates tracts.
Cost: $2,451,053.45
Status: In construction. Week four slurry seal started. Anticipated completion of project is end of November 2022.
Citywide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2021-22, PW 22-01 Description: Various concrete repairs in the city.
Cost: $272,369.97
Status: Project beginning construction October 27, 2022.
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
October 25, 2022
PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS
Community Recreation Center Splash Pad & Shade Structures, PW21-07 Description: This project provides for the conversion of the CRC's wading pool into a splash pad, and the addition of shade structures in the area.
Cost: $1,100,000
Status: Project is at 60% design.
Park Restroom Renovations, Expansion and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), PW17-06 Description: Renovation of various park site restroom facilities, including Ronald Reagan Sports Park North/South Ball Field (new roof, cabinets, fixtures, and other building improvements), Vail Ranch Park and Long Canyon Creek Park.
Cost: $1,127,800
Status: Project is currently in design.
Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing
Description: Re -design, enhancement of playground equipment, and safety surfacing to comply with current state and federal regulations and enhance the quality of the parks.
Cost: $800,000
Status: An RFP is being prepared for the design, purchase & installation for three playground project sites — Redhawk Community Park, Long Canyon Creek Park & Temecula Creek Park.
Ronald Reagan Sports Park Restroom Expansion and Renovation, PW18-03 Description: Design and construction of a new restroom building, including additional stalls and urinals, a large snack bar and a dedicated storage case.
Cost: $1,120,000
Status: The construction contract was awarded at the April 12, 2022, City Council meeting. Construction began on May 16, 2022. Construction completion is anticipated in October 2022 with a ribbon cutting ceremony scheduled for October 13, 2022, at 3:30pm.
10 City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
October 25, 2022
LAND DEVELOPMENT OVERSIGHT PROJECTS
American Tire Depot
Description: A 7,303 square foot building to be used for tire retail and repair, as well as minor auto repair services, located at the southwest corner of Ynez Road and DLR Drive.
Status: Parking lot has been paved. Wet utility tie-in construction has commenced.
Arrive @ Rancho Highlands
Description: A 270-unit multi -family community built on 12.32 acres that includes 55 affordable units. The project is located adjacent to the Temecula Duck Pond approximately 775 feet southeast of Rancho California Road on the north side of Ynez Road.
Status: Grading and onsite storm drain permits were issued in October 2021. Grading and onsite storm drain construction has commenced. Overflow parking lot has been paved.
Heirloom Farms
Description: A Development Plan for a 321-unit single family residential community built on 27.86 acres consisting of detached homes and attached townhomes located on the southwest corner of Date Street and Ynez Road.
Includes the installation of a new Traffic Signal at the intersection of Ynez Rod and Waverly Lane/Temecula Center Drive
Status: Rough grading permit has been issued in July 2021, the offsite and private onsite street and storm drain improvements permits were issued in October 2021 and the traffic signal permit was issued in September 2021. Grading, street, and storm drain improvements and the traffic signal installation has commenced.
Precise Grading plans are currently being reviewed.
Las Haciendas Apartments
Description: A Development Plan to construct a 77-unit affordable housing project located at 28715 Las Haciendas Street in Uptown Temecula
Status: Precise grading permit was issued in December 2021. Grading has commenced in January 2022 and is ongoing.
11 City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
October 25, 2022
LAND DEVELOPMENT OVERSIGHT PROJECTS (Continued)
Longhorn Steakhouse
Description: 5,708 square foot restaurant with outdoor patio located at 29363 Rancho California Road Status: Precise grading permit is approved. Construction expected to begin soon.
Mountain View
Description: Thirteen industrial buildings on Avenida Alvarado Status: Eight precise grading permits have been issued and construction has commenced. Improvements on Avenida Alvarado, along with street light installations is in process. Onsite storm drain installation has commenced.
Solana Assisted Living
Description: A 90,000 square foot, two-story, Senior Assisted Living Facility located on the southeast corner of the Margarita Road and Solana Way.
Status: A rough grading permit was issued in January 2022. Grading began on February 7, 2022. Street improvements and precise grading plans have been submitted for review.
Sommers Bend
Description: Land Development has provided oversight of the following submittals for plan check and inspections: final maps, Community Sports Park, and recreation lots, precise grading; street and storm drain improvements; traffic signals; street lighting; and signing & striping.
Status: The mass grading permit was issued in September 2018. Sommers Bend has been paved with streetlights installed. The community sports park, Ranch at Sommers Bend, construction is complete and has been accepted at the February 8, 2022, Council Meeting. The Sommers Bend recreation center construction is complete. Installation of streets, storm drains and streetlights on east end of project is in process. Grading has been completed in the Density Core, currently installing sewer. Installation of Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel improvements northwest end of project is in process. 12 REQUESTS TO SPEAK
AND ELECTRONIC
COMMENTS SUBMITTED
FOR THE RECORD
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item:b
Item Description or Item No.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
Date:
Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. /
Name: r� r� / �.`� Phone Number:
Address
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
Date:
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item:[21 Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. _
Name: /ry Phone Number:
Address
Email adc
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
ora.M`.
Public Comment
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
i
Date: I CE/2J 00�-
Non-Agenda Item: E Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item:
`_,
Item Description or Item No. 'IGsi / ( t rllr
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
d .. r-v w�
Name: � �Ll'D� �
�P�i�Vp Cu C�
Email address: ('
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
Date:
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name: bun �r6(,t.J✓1 Phone Number: �
Address: �
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: --a Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
Date: _Z1oc'i- Z_
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item: ❑ Item Description or Item No. b Cam- &V C
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name
Address
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Phone Number:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
j REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
r�xy
Date:
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item: El Item Description or Item No. py�lv
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk 2Liaf to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record --, I
Name: 6r& La.,,,,7r4-L.j, Phone Number:
Address. -
Email address: I
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ]
Item Description or Item No.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
Date:
Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item:
0Aoo f
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name: 5 /M "b✓ 1 DwM—
Address
Phone Number: �
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
Date:
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item:' Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. ��iA, /j� � p� 1r ] �%
Name: v1 � V\I w u� Phone Number: (��� (\ '
Address: —
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item Agenda Item: ❑
<_r
Item Description or Item No. LKIAI I v \ J
j
Date: I ( ` 2 OZZ
Future Agenda Item:
b 4 C-LS �, Ct J
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name: VG7 S v a g l ee— l G �t/'j Phone Number:
Address:
If you are representing,an orgagization ypr grjuq, please giveithq name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
G1989 Date: �-�--
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: IV Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item: ❑ Item Description or Item No.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the re�c'ord a . bcc Qr //C /
Name: �t�� U • 5(`�Y y Phone Number:
Address
Email ac
If you are representing an organization or group, please gXe the naTe:, Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
Date: A4-6 'j' -
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: dAgenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item: ❑ Item Description or Item No.
My—`f- D0,U-4S illy SCfft6j__s YVI C&Z iLf
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name:/� �jL►��t;(-�i��r Phone Number:
Address. 'Y✓I£ � -/ Chi" 1l 1
you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
Date. (� 2 2 2.
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. rOoe i, l lq CC --
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. ,,,,,IW�,t�1
Name: 1 T ANT Ro U"Uhl Phone Number:
Address
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
< CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
Date:
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: © Future Agenda Item: ❑ Item Description or Item No.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk priior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name. 01 16� Gl e I 1 D t Phone Number:
Address
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
Public Comment
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
Date: Ib _Z� '-2V2�z-
Non-Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item: d Future Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name
Address
d-r
Phone Number:
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Lie$+ Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
y REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
Date:
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item: Er Future Agenda Item: ❑ Item Description or Item No.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name: >''< 4 h r +^ Phone Number:
Address:
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
C— \ 4,k ,(oV, w✓S+ 1 1 ., e
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
Date: 1 v Lo —o
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. 4-f `1
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the re�rd.
l _Name: �,D�T� li/t �i Z Phone Number: ���
Address
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
ITT GC
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
19fi9
Date: �--
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. Gy ', i%I f � E
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the recordLL
1/Name: M( 6Z Phone Number:
-ram
Address
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
�_ CITY OF TEMECULA
t 'A.
1989 2022 Date:
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item: L Item Description or Item No. V on
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. (
Name: PO�`,�E r j� OL'6aj
— Phone Number:
Address: �e� LEA �JZ —I 25"! f
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
ivx9 l� l
Date: V' Zs/ 2 Z
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item Item Description or Item No. 2mo
I
Request to Speak farms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the reco . ?
Address: U h q)1
Email address: �
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomepu lic record.
All information provided is optional.
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑
Item Description or Item No
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
Date:
Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item:
P�
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name: ���►J r� I n 1 7 U Phone Number:
Address:
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
ivtt
Date:
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. o rU SL D M
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name: ��0.��� �2�� Phone Number:
Address: �-
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
AW
1989
Date: I O ZS 22
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: El Agenda Item: El Future Agenda Item Item Description or Item No.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to spear, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name: (,'�-� � �SQ-x� arA'Vqo�--Q' Phone Number: � � `
Address
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
luau Date: / (J
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item: ` Item Description or Item No.�-
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
�f"a(l n
Name: � Phone Number:
Address:
Email adc
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1981) Date:
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item. ❑ Future Agenda Item: FZ Item Description or Item No.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk arinr to the City Council! addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the reA
cord.
Name: \ oogLb�c Phone Number:
Address:
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑
Item Description or Item No.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
Date. to ✓
Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name: ��"yPhone Number: - ` ✓I� ��('
I
address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
Date: � () //45+ a'a
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: El Agenda Item: A Future Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No
N fl oWge-\ ci
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp !qf to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. ^,
Name: c�� '(Y1a5sa Phone+Number:
Address: `�� �Q W1 V'� 0�JC,�
Email address: (
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
t CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
Date: -Z-�—
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item: W Future Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name:
Addres
Email a
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑
1 Item Description or Item No.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
Date:
Agenda Item:El Future Agenda Item:
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. ,, (� �
')0;)? ( Ynecu.1 u 1 (A q Z5q 2
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
I
note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:01 AM
To: '
Subject: FW: Statement of Opposition to the Requested City Council Resolution Opposing Proposition 1
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951)694-6421
rand i.iohla-temeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From:
Date: October 21, 2022 at 4:40:12 PM PDT
To: Matt Rahn , Zak Schwank , Maryann
Edwards , James Stewart ,
Jessica Alexander
Cc: Council Assistant , Aaron Adams
, Kevin Hawkins , Luke Watson
, Betsy Lowrey , Luisa Tovar
Subject: Statement of Opposition to the Requested City Council Resolution Opposing Proposition 1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Afternoon Temecula City Council Members & City Officials, This email is intended to communicate our STRONG OPPOSITION to the improper and self- serving request from Councilmember Jessica Alexander for Temecula City Council to support/pass a resolution opposing Proposition 1.
As I'm sure you're aware, the United States Supreme Court ruled that reproductive rights should be decided upon by the states. In California, reproductive rights are already protected by law.
On Nov 8th, California voters will decide whether to further enshrine reproductive freedom in the
California constitution. Quite simply, reproductive rights are outside of Temecula City Government's scope of responsibility.
Unfortunately, this resolution request represents yet another effort by Alexander to promote her own religious (412 Church) and business (Birth Choice) interests. Alexander is again attempting to use her Council seat to serve her own personal interests rather than promoting the best interests of the City of Temecula and its residents. In light of Alexander's personal business position as the Director of Birth Choice (an anti -abortion organization), this resolution request represents a conflict of interest.
For the reasons documented above, Temecula City Council should reject the resolution requested by Jessica Alexander.
Regards,
Jeffrey A. & CindySue Wittek
Temecula, CA 92591
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:02 AM
To:
Subject: FW: Temecula Sanctuary City For Abortions
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951)694-6421
randi Johl .temeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Joan Engel ; James Stewart ;
Jessica Alexander ; Maryann Edwards
; Zak Schwank
Cc: Council Assistant
Subject: Temecula Sanctuary City For Abortions
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you Jessica Alexander for standing up for those who cannot speak for themselves, the innocent babies. I am saddened that other council members do not have the same regard for human life.
I strongly oppose the use of my tax dollars being used to pay for the murder of babies.
I commend you for standing up for what is right even though others criticize you for it.
Thank you!
Best regards, Joan Engel
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:01 AM
To: Amber Doesburg
Subject: FW: Public_Comment_City_Council_Meeting_10/25
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951) 694-6421
randi.iohle-temeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Amber Doesburg
Subject: Public_Comment_City_Council_Meeting_10/25
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello, this letter is directed to Jessica Alexander but written for all members. As a member of this city I DO NOT support making Temecula a "sanctuary city'. This is ridiculous and a waste of time. Jessica Alexander is not fit to be on the council and clearly makes the entire town look foolish. She needs to learn to keep her religion to herself and stop before she gets this city in a lawsuit. I also believe this topic is an obvious conflict of interest for her. She works with Birth "Choice", and yet she wants to push a resolution that would ultimately be in favor of this company? It seems like Jessica needs to learn some basic skills on keeping her personal beliefs from her elected position. I urge the rest of this council to shut her down and focus on what's more important for ALL the people that live in Temecula.
Thank you,
Amber Doesburg
zone:92591
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:01 AM
To:
RE: Abortion Rights
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951) 694-6421
[email protected]
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. -----Original Message -----
From: cmoramarco@earthlink.
Saturday, October 22, 2022 9:02 AM
To: Matt Rahn ; Zak Schwank ; Maryann Edwards
; James Stewart ; Aaron Adams
; Randi Johl
Cc: Council Assistant
Subject: Abortion Rights
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mayor Rahn, Mayor Pro Tern Schwank, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Stewart, Mr. Adams, and Ms. Johl, This email is sent with respectful intentions regarding the following that appeared on Temecula Patch late Thursday afternoon, October 20, 2022:
"Temecula City Councilmember Is Challenging Abortion Rights, Again.
Councilmember is asking her colleagues to pass a resolution opposing Prop 1 which is on the Nov. 8 ballot in California." Although I am sincerely hopeful that "conflict of interest" may prevail and make this email unnecessary, please allow me to first communicate that I am a Temecula resident.
My intention is not to convey caustic rhetoric but I strongly object to Temecula Council member Alexander being allowed to explain her self -professed "real dangers" of Proposition 1, make any abortion comments, or discuss a resolution opposing Proposition 1.
Council member Alexander's arguments against Proposition 1- including those of her Murrieta church, its members, and those of the nonprofit Life Legal Defense Foundation are very much false, very much misleading, and an extreme fear - mongering effort.
*Validation dispelling these false arguments FOLLOWS BELOW.
For clarity, I strongly object to Council member Alexander making any comments whatsoever on the dais about abortion, abortion rights, Proposition 1, etc. I am also against the City Council issuing any resolution opposing Proposition 1.
On September 27, 2002, Council member Alexander was allowed to spew her crass and divisive, personal opinions - and wave a doll around repeatedly - for far too long. Please do not allow this Council member to run roughshod over, manipulate, and dictate to the City of Temecula. She has been and is using the dais for her own agenda - and now, has the intention to use the dais as a conduit for misinformation about Proposition 1.
On October 11, 2022, - as I understood it - it was explained to Council member Alexander that the subject of abortion rights has already caused local controversy (become a controversial subject) at a Temecula City Council meeting (September 27, 2022). Thereby, abortion rights are not open to City Council meeting discussion again for 3 months / 90 days (after December 27, 2022). In respect for and as an obligation to Temecula residents, please stand tall and strong about this. Temecula does not need further chaos. Temecula deserves better.
With all due respect to you, it seems it may be time for the City of Temecula to consider implementing new policies and procedures regarding all Council members not speaking about non-agendized items. Also for consideration may be the implementing of timely interventions including the silencing of microphones.
For local residents, it is disconcerting to need to follow local media to discover what the Temecula City Council will be discussing at the next Council meeting - rather than relying on the Final Agenda posted on the City website. Such was the case on September 27, 2022. It seems it may also be the case for October 25, 2022.
As you may concur, Council member Alexander's ongoing antics create a seemingly never-ending whack -a -mole situation that is taking a tremendous toll on the City and the community.
As you may also acknowledge, the distractions this public official instigates continue to draw unfortunate Liz Truss -like attention to Temecula. What a shame and what a pity!
Mayor Rahn, Mayor Pro Tern Schwank, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Stewart, Mr. Adams, and Ms. Johl - thank you for your consideration and for all the truly meaningful work you do for the City of Temecula. *VALIDATION explaining and justifying Proposition 1 follows below.
Thank you again.
Cindy Moramarco
*1) PROPOSITION 1 IS WRITTEN PURPOSEFULLY FOR BREVITY.
Constitutional law experts explain that amendments speak broadly to rights, while state laws provide the parameters.
To that effect, California already has laws around when abortions can be performed. "It's real misinformation to critique a constitutional amendment in this manner," according to Cary Franklin, UCLA constitutional law professor and director of its Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy. *2) PROPOSITION 1 INTENTIONALLY DOES NOT MENTION VIABILITY.
According to Franklin, this makes sense. California law allows a person to have an abortion until the point that a physician determines "there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures" or if the procedure is necessary in order to "protect the life or health of the woman." In most cases, doctors have considered a fetus viable at 24 weeks, but that number changes depending on the pregnancy.
Viability does not have any constitutional significance. According to Franklin, "Viability varies and moves around according to technology, health, geography, and the age of the pregnant person.... It is not a kind of word that you would put in a document meant to endure through time, because it's a medical term that doctors need to work out with their patients using their medical expertise in each case." *3) PROPOSITION 1 PURPOSEFULLY UTILIZES BROAD LANGUAGE.
According to Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law, the broad language of Proposition 1 will not supplant state laws around viability. "That's not how it works. The state's Constitution is currently being interpreted as protecting abortion rights and yet there are restrictions after viability, according to Chemerinsky. "There is no reason why this right would not be interpreted the same way.
Rights are not absolute even if enumerated. Free speech is an example. The same would be true of abortion rights. I think the opponents' argument is misguided."
*4) PROPOSITION 1 ONLY ALLOWS ABORTION WITH THE RESTRICTIONS OF EXISTING LAWS.
According to Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University who teaches constitutional law, opponents have repeated a common falsehood that pregnant people seek late -term abortions outside of medically necessary - and incredibly heartbreaking - circumstances.
Murray also recognizes that there will be lawsuits about what the scope and substance are of these protections. *5) CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA IS PREPARED TO FIGHT FOR PROSITION 1. "We'll defend it in court and we will allow a court to do its constitutional role to interpret and define and clarify so that it's clear, but it's our job to defend the laws of the state of California," Bonta has said, noting that he typically does not take positions on ballot measures as he has with this one.
Bonta has also said he understands that there have been questions about the brevity of the language - "It's three lines, it's very short" - but that its intent has been clearly stated. "I think if there needs to be some clarification, it can be clarified by a court without striking it down," according to Bonta. "The court would determine the contours and limits if there are any, and we would make our best arguments to the court and so would anyone who challenges it, and then the court can decide." *This is a private and confidential message.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments are confidential, private, proprietary, and privileged, and are intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee, any retention, disclosure, or duplicating of the original, prior, or subsequent messages or attachments, or any action taken, is unauthorized. Recipients should not file copies of any original, prior, or subsequent messages or any original, prior, or subsequent attachments with publicly
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:01 AM
To: 'Lynn Lambrecht'
Subject: RE: Proposition One
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951)694-6421
randi.iohletemeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Lynn Lambrecht ; Matt Rahn ; Zak Schwank
; Maryann Edwards ; James Stewart
; Jessica Alexander
Cc: Lynn Lambrecht <
Subject: Proposition One
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To our City Council,
It has come to my attention that once again Councilmember Alexander is using her seat on our City Council to forward her personal opinion against Proposition One for the next council meeting to ask we the people of Temecula to take a stand about Prop One which is legally on the ballot November 8th.
We the people will vote and I urge the City Council to dismiss her request. This proposition is before the voters of California, and we the people shall vote. I urge you to remember the separation of church and state under the Constitution and uphold your oath of office.
It is exhausting and discouraging that Ms. Alexander refuses to uphold her oath of office by continuing to present personal advocacy on behalf of our city and residents. Her views do not speak for me.
If Temecula continues on this path, I fear the impact to residents and economy will be negatively impacted.
Why would we choose to live here? Why would we invest here if at every meeting we are discussing church and state issues, asking the city to choose for us how we should think, feel and act? Democracy means something to me. I have lived and worked on six continents and have experienced different forms of government. It is a privilege to live in our county under democracy.
Telling any of us how to think, what to believe and beating people into submission is not what democracy is.
Ms. Alexander is free to think and practice her beliefs, as are the rest of us. May we please stop this endless cycle of her attempts/ beliefs/ church telling us what to do and keep the separation of church and state in our beautiful city?
I have deep appreciation for the other council members who strive to address broader city planning issues representing everyone who chooses to live here. Thank you.
I strongly oppose Temecula taking any stance on Prop One (or any proposition) when all California voters have the right to exercise their voice, in their way by voting their conscious.
Thank you for hearing my thoughts,
Lynn Lambrecht
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:08 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: PLEASE READ MY LETTER BEFORE 10/25/22
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951) 694-6421
rand i.joh I 6&-temecu laca. gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: therese fairbanks ; Zak Schwank ; Maryann Edwards ; Jessica Alexander ; James Stewart
; Council Assistant
Subject: PLEASE READ MY LETTER BEFORE 10/25/22
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
October 22, 2022
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
am writing in support of a Resolution to state that the City of Temecula shall be a sanctuary city for all human beings from conception in the womb to natural death:
From the womb to the tomb.
1 You would be on the right side of the issue to resolve to be better than the angry mob who promote a culture of death. Do we really want to import people and businesses that come here to kill innocent lives?
In a world gone mad, literally you see the angry men (why so angry?) and women (why? so sad) let us be the voice of reason, upholding the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for which this great nation was founded.
Simply resolve to vote in favor of the City of Temecula to be a place of refuge for those seeking life, a family -friendly place with friendly faces filled with compassion, respect, dignity; a helping hand in times of a "crisis pregnancy"...I had what was deemed a crisis pregnancy, but all my pregnancies were difficult. I am without regret, happy to enjoy 2+1 (coming) grandchildren. Thanks goes to the life affirming people 25 years ago that helped me.
Please do not allow fear or empty threats to deter you. It is merely a resolution, not a law. We resolve to be for life, a better life, a family -friendly city. Let us show the world the beauty of Temecula. We love this City, the babies, the families that make up this beautiful city.
We are the silent majority who are peaceful, quiet souls, but we do vote and vote we must for the preservation and dignity of life. We support and applaud people who stand for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We all inherently know what is good, what is right and just. No matter what our religion or lack thereof. We know. Deep down. Dig if you must.
z
Remember that Abraham Lincoln was not popular with his resolve to adhere to the Declaration of Independence and end slavery. Just like then, now is the time to stand up for those who are not granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Equality begins in the womb.
This is our time, make it count. Vote for your life, and the lives of your children and future grandchildren! The value you place on life today, is how children will value their life, and the lives of your grandchildren, or lack thereof.
They are watching! Lead by example.
With Warm Regards,
Therese Fairbanks
Wife, Mother, Grandmother, public servant
With Faith, Hope, and Love,
Therese Fairbanks
Matt. 21:22 #Ask+believe+receive
James 2:26 #Faith without works is dead.
3 From: Randi Johl
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:07 AM
To:
Subject: RE: My support for a resolution to make Temecula a sanctuary city for life! Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951) 694-6421
randi.iohlatemeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the Califomia Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Natalie Mikhail ; Zak Schwank ; Maryann Edwards ; Jessica Alexander ; James Stewart
; Council Assistant
Subject: My support for a resolution to make Temecula a sanctuary city for life! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
I am writing in support of a Resolution to state that the City of Temecula shall be a sanctuary city for all human beings from conception in the womb to natural death.
Imagine a world where a young woman faced with a crisis pregnancy in Temecula is not afraid. She doesn't feel like she needs to go against nature and kill her own child in order to have a future. She knows that she lives in a community where there are resources and people available and willing to help her and her child. This is the type of city we want Temecula to be know as. We want Temecula to be known for its love and support of the unborn, women and families. One that is known to support a culture of life.
We are the silent majority but we do vote and we will vote for those that stand for a culture of life.
Please do not be afraid to speak up for the unborn and for women. Again, please vote in favor for a resolution to state that the City of Temecula shall be a sanctuary city for all human beings from conception to natural death.
Thank you,
Natalie Mikhail
Sent from my iPhone
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:06 AM
To: [email protected]'
Subject: FW: Prop 1
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951)694-6421
randi.iohl temeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Melanie Roth
Cc: Council Assistant
Subject: Prop 1
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Ms. Alexander,
I recently read in the Temecula Patch that you have proposed that Temecula city council write a resolution opposing Prop 1. Have you not learned anything from the city council meeting that was filled with Temecula citizens who clearly stated their support of reproductive rights? I was present at that meeting and it was glaringly clear that the majority of the town believes in a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. Yet, again, you wish to push your agenda on our city. Furthermore, is Temecula to become a "nanny state" and decide for its citizens? Let the peoples' voices be heard and let make their own choice at the ballot box! Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Melanie Roth
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:05 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: October 25 Temecula Community Services District (CSD) Meeting Public Comments Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951)694-6421
randi.iohla-temeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From:
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:00 AM
To: Council Comments
Cc: Jessica Alexander ; Maryann Edwards ;
Matt Rahn ; Zak Schwank ; James Stewart
; Council Assistant ; Erika Ramirez
; Randi Johl ; REDI Commission
; Zach Hall ; Community Services Commission
; Erica Russo ; Old Town Board
Subject: October 25 Temecula Community Services District (CSD) Meeting Public Comments ...
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Temecula CSD;
Very recently while in Old Town Temecula I couldn't help but notice the bizarre, psychedelic, Timothy Leary inspired decorated city structures littering Old Town Temecula. And I think that most of us can all agree that "art is in the eye of the beholder," as the adage goes.
But I was dismayed by these psychedelic eyesores as they seem to have no place and no historical relevance to Old Town Temecula. Was this hippie -styled 1 decor inspired by the Old West and Frontier history that has always been at the heart of Old Town? I think that all of us can safely conclude that day-glo orange, pink and purple artwork has nothing to do with the ascetic look and history of Old Town.
In fact this kind of artwork seems more appropriate for more dysfunctional locales, like the Haight-Ashbury District of the always problematic city of San Francisco.
Perhaps such psychedelic artwork would be better suited in some of Temecula's other parks and recreation facilities. But these visibly loud eyesores have little or no connection to Historic Old Town Temecula and they should be re -painted with more suitable designs as soon as possible.
I was also dismayed that the city essentially killed the recently_ planned Old Town Temecula Western Days with 11th hour bureaucratic red tape. This was done despite the fact that the Temecula Gunfighters use blank ammunition and have a spotless safety record.
I remind you once again that the City Seal of Temecula reads with the motto Old Traditions, New Opportunities. The Temecula Gunfighters have been part of our community's old traditions.
The Temecula Gunfighters date back to 1988, before when the city was even incorporated. Yet it seems now that city bureaucrats have taken a new and high-handed opportunity to do away with this old tradition. To me this just smacks of ignorant z
bureaucratic excess and more leftwing virtue signaling to promote unconstitutional gun control and the curtailment of 1st Amendment freedoms.
Temecula has traditionally had other high and worthy traditions, such as a commitment to impartial justice, the pursuit of objective truth, the safety and protection of innocent life, and reverence and faithful adherence to our Constitution. As Governing Officials of this City, you should all take this opportunity to conscientiously act according to these ideals and standards.
OF TE14k
vJ'k 1989
�,�1��08 NEW oYQ°��
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Rick Reiss
Temecula, California
P.S. I have Cc this to the City Council Members, Staff and Bcc this to various interested parties, 2nd Amendment protection groups, as well as media contacts.
Sent from my iPad
3 From: Randi Johl
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:45 PM
To: '
Subject: FW: Agreement with the attached Discussion regarding the Sept. 27th Meeting and in support of the Resolution in opposition to Prop 1
Attachments: Sept. 27th City Council Meeting.docx
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951) 694-6421
randi.johlatemeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Cindy Greaver ; Matt Rahn ; Maryann
Edwards ; Zak Schwank ; James Stewart
; Council Assistant
Subject: Agreement with the attached Discussion regarding the Sept. 27th Meeting and in support of the Resolution in opposition to Prop 1
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in agreement with the attached discussion by Greg Langworthy as a representative of the Salt and Light Ministry at Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship (which I have co -led with him in past years) regarding the September 27th meeting and in support of the Resolution to Oppose Prop 1. We have a responsibility to speak for and protect the rights of Temecula residents who cannot speak for themselves.
If you have not done so already, please go to https://www.stoppropi.com and watch the webinar posted where Bob Tyler, General Counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, gives an excellent legal analysis and likely outcomes if this proposition is passed. It will threaten public health, erode parental rights, encourage human trafficking and exploitation, may thwart existing health regulations that protect women, among other things, and goes far beyond protecting abortion access.
Please put fear aside and do the right thing for your constituents by passing a Resolution to Oppose Prop 1 as you have done many times, including passing the George Floyd Resolution.
I hope you will ensure the codes of conduct, policies of the Council and standards of behavior for those addressing the Council will be enforced at tomorrow's meeting. Discussion can become very contentious, but there is a core issue here that we need to have a focused, civil discussion about to address the protection and safety of Temecula residents.
My husband and I are owners of two small businesses here in Temecula and we love our community.
Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to Temecula residents, Cindy Greaver
Discussion Highlights of the Temecula City Council Meeting, 9/27/22 (re Council member Jessica Alexander's Proposed Sanctuary City of the Unborn Agenda Item) On September 27th, the Temecula City Council was encouraged by council member Jessica Alexander to create a resolution declaring Temecula to be a "Sanctuary City for the Unborn" in response to Governor Newsom's advertisements declaring California to be a sanctuary state for abortion. The council had the opportunity to affirm that the unborn child in the mother's womb has a right to life, but council members Matt Rahn, Maryann Edwards, Zak Schwank, and Stew Stewart voted to not move forward and consider adopting such a resolution. Opposition from a number of constituents and a threatened lawsuit from the attorney general of California influenced the decisions of the four opposing council members.
It was only during the council discussion that many in attendance learned that the proposed resolution was not a ban on abortion as falsely reported in The Los Angeles Times. This false report was the source of many of the angry public comments as well as the attorney general's threatened lawsuit. Mayor Rahn discovered that neither The Times nor the attorney general called council member Alexander to confirm their story.
After the initial round of public comments, Temecula's city attorney defined the procedure for considering Alexander's request. Under Resolution 21-54, adopted by the council a year ago, the council had three options: (1)Refer the item to the city manager to put the item on a future agenda or conduct additional research and report back to the council, (2)Refer the item to a council subcommittee, or (3)Take no action and the item would not be placed on a future agenda. After hearing additional public comments and conducting their own discussion, the council voted 4 to 1 for the third option.
The central Constitutional argument made by Alexander was that the developing child in his mother's womb is a unique person at the time of conception and therefore civil government has the duty to "secure" or protect his rights. This duty is made clear in our Declaration of Independence. -
all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men... "
She reinforced her point by showing a video of the stages of a child's development in the mother's womb and asked the council members if this life deserves protection. Her request was to have the city council declare their commitment to protect all lives in Temecula: to be a city which encourages mothers to bear their children rather than end their lives and then be prepared to help with spiritual and physical resources.
None of the other members of the council were willing, at this point, to move forward to consider or study her request. They had two main objections. The first was a fear of a threatened lawsuit from the attorney general of California who believed Temecula was
proposing a ban on abortion. The second was a concern that by supporting this resolution the council members would be "disenfranchising" those in the community who support abortion.
A common point of agreement among all the council members was that each was elected to represent the diverse interests of their constituents. Where the disagreement became clear is that only councilman Alexander was willing to declare that the unborn child growing in his mother's womb is also a Temecula constituent worthy of protection.
History has taught us that when human rights are not protected, there are tragic consequences. The brutal practice of slavery was allowed to continue in the South because of the government's declaration that negro slaves were property, not persons created in God's image. The systematic killing of six million Jews during WWII became official policy because the German government declared Jews to be an inferior race and therefore not entitled to "unalienable rights." And in the news today we are witnessing the brutal acts of the Iranian government against the women of Iran because the government has declared that women are not equal to men. Mahsa Amini was recently beaten to death by the Iranian government's morality police for not wearing a headscarf. Here in Temecula, our challenge is to declare our responsibility to do all we can to protect the rights of the unborn children in our city.
For now, four of our city council members have chosen to not move forward and create a resolution declaring Temecula to be "A Sanctuary City for the Unborn." For now, only councilman Alexander has taken the position that government officials have a Constitutional duty to protect the lives of the unborn in our city. We, as members of the body of Christ, should continue to pray for our leaders in Temecula and encourage them to Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves (Proverbs 31:8).
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:42 PM
To: 'Paisley Cato'
Subject: RE: agenda item Oct 25
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951)694-6421
randi.johl temeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Paisley Cato ; Zak Schwank ; James
Stewart ; Matt Rahn ; Jessica Alexander
; Randi Johl
Subject: agenda item Oct 25
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
RE: Consideration of preparing a resolution opposing Prop1 (At the Request of Council Member Alexander) As a citizen of Temecula for the last 26 years, I strongly oppose any effort by the city council to spend time considering a resolution opposing Prop 1 as requested by Council Member Alexander. This would be a waste of valuable city council time and, it is disappointing that a council member is willing to use her position and council time to pursue a personal agenda.
Prop 1 will be decided by voters long before any legitimate process to present a resolution could even be considered. So one has to ask why Council Member Alexander brings this up at this time, and it can only be to use her elected position as a way to promote a personal opinion, rather than an agenda item that benefits the citizens of the city. Is it not a conflict of interest that her agenda directly supports the business for which she is executive director? Even if a legitimate process had been followed to present a resolution for consideration, it would be inappropriate to adopt such a resolution as it does NOT reflect the opinion of the majority of citizens in the city, who instead support the state's status as a reproductive freedom state.
I am very much in favor of Prop1 and would oppose a city resolution against this proposition.
Respectfully,
Paisley Cato
[resident in District 3]
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Fyi -
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951) 694-6421
randi.lohl temeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Randi Johl
Monday, October 24, 2022 2:40 PM
Aaron Adams; Kevin Hawkins; Patrick Thomas; Luke Watson; Peter Thorson Public Comment Item #9
2022-10-24 11-37.pdf
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Harry McGovern
Subject: [Scan] 2022-10-24 11:37
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sent with Genius Scan for iOS.
https://dI.tglapp.com/penius-scan
Main Office
P.O. Box 620 / 6413 32�d St. Ste A / North Highlands / CA 95660 (916) 334-1221 Estimating / Engineering FAX (916) 334-5384 Accounting FAX (916) 334-8355
Southern California Regional Office
P.O. Box 1239 / 16249 Adelanto Rd. / Adelanto / CA 92301 (909) 875-0533 Engineering / Accounting FAX (909) 875-2243 October 24, 2022
Temecula City Council
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: October 25, 2022 City Council Meeting, Item 9
To whom it may concern,
This letter is submitted to the City Council regarding item 9 on the consent calendar for the October 25, 2022 City Council meeting relating to the French Valley Parkway project. This letter is submitted by me on behalf of MCM Construction which sought to bid the French Valley Parkway project on October 6". 1 am the Executive VP of MCM Construction and we are a 45 year old very experienced Contractor and we were wrongfully denied the ability to timely submit our proposed bid to the City for the project because the City did not allow bidders to timely submit their proposed bids.
As indicated in our Attorney's letter dated October 14, 2022 to the City Attorney, which was also sent to the Public Works staff, we were denied the right to submit our proposed timely bid because the bidding software used by the City to receive the electronic bids was improperly programmed and cut off the time to receive bids one minute early.
This fact is documented in writing and supported by two other bidders who also experienced the same thing. We have submitted declarations under penalty of perjury from our company and the other two bidders attesting to this fact.
When a public entity advertises a time to receive bids it must act as advertised and in this case the City did not do so. As a result, our attorney has advised us and the City that the entire bid process is therefore tainted and any contract that is issued from the tainted bid process is illegal and void.
To avoid the consequences from this conduct MCM requests that the City reject all bids and re -bid the project.
Item 9 on the consent calendar proposes to do this because apparently staff and your City Attorney understand that an unfortunate mistake was made.
MCM asks that the City correct this mistake and not perpetuate it. MCM reserves all of its legal rights should the City not act as proposed on the consent calendar.
Thank yWU.H. . c
Executive V.P. & G.M.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER / STATE CONTRACTORS LIC. NO. 286430
From:
Randi Johl
Sent:
Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:57 AM
To:
'
Subject:
FW: Protecting the Unborn
Attachments:
Unborn.xwd
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951)694-6421
rand i.johl(�temeculaca.aov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Curt Sorweid
Cc: Council Assistant
Subject: Protecting the Unborn
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Jessica Alexander,
You don't know me, my name is Curt Sorweid. I was a resident of Temecula for 12 years, and loved living there. My wife and I moved to Saint George, Utah in 2020 do to the California's total liberal agenda regarding covid. We attended Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship for 11 years. I was a member of their Salt & Light committee. I watched your valiant effort to make Temecula a sanctuary city for the unborn and I was very moved by what you had to say.
I was so moved that I prayed about it and the Holy Spirit moved me to bring it up at our city council meeting here in Saint George. I have been working hard to get support for such a resolution here. I did my home work and also contacted the Mayor and every city council member. I ask for a response from each member and I received only two.
The mayor made it clear she was not supportive and one member who is amazing, a mom Michelle Tanner was very happy to help. I then tried to call all the council people and I finally got two more maybe supporters. I have reached out to church members, people in our local area I know, also our political action coalition. I am hoping for 20 supporters to show up. I will present this to our next council meeting on November third. I have three minutes to speak.
As you already know from your recent experience this will be a uphill battle, but the Lord is on our side! I just wanted you to know you made a difference!!! You are awesome, God knows what you are doing. Pray for our success. I am attaching the rough draft that I plan on presenting.
God Bless
Curt J Sorweid
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:55 AM
To: '
Subject: FW: The right to life, make Temecula safe for babies Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951) 694-6421
randi. iohl(a�temeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Robin & Greg <
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 8:20 PM
Subject: The right to life, make Temecula safe for babies CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
I am writing in support of a Resolution to state that the City of Temecula shall be a sanctuary city for all human beings from conception in the womb to natural death.
You would be on the right side of the issue to resolve to be better than the angry mob who promote a culture of death. Do we really want to import people and businesses that come here to kill innocent lives?
1 In a world gone mad, literally you see the angry men (why so angry?) and women (why? so sad) let us be the voice of reason, upholding the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for which this great nation was founded.
Simply resolve to vote in favor of the City of Temecula to be place of refuge for those seeking life, a family -friendly place with friendly faces filled with compassion, respect, dignity; a helping hand in times of a "crisis pregnancy."
Please do not allow fear or empty threats to deter you. It is merely a resolution, not a law. We resolve to be for life, a better life, a family - friendly city. Let us show the world the beauty of Temecula. We love this City, the babies, the families that make up this beautiful city.
We are the silent majority who are peaceful, quiet souls, but we do vote and vote we must for the preservation and dignity of life. We support and applaud people who stand for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We all inherently know what is good, what is right and just. No matter what our religion or lack thereof. We know. Deep down. Dig if you must.
Remember that Abraham Lincoln was not popular with his resolve to adhere to the Declaration of Independence and end slavery. Just z
like then, now is the time to stand up for those who are not granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Equality begins in the womb.
This is our time, make it count. Vote for your life, and the lives of your children and future grandchildren! The value you place on life today, is how children will value their life, and the lives of your grandchildren, or lack thereof.
They are watching! Lead by example.
Sincerely,
Robin Daniel
Wife, Mother, public servant
3 From: Randi Johl
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Christine Massa
Subject: FW: Comment for "future agenda items" and a new proposed item Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951) 694-6421
randi. iohle_temeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: ctmassa ; Zak Schwank ; Maryann Edwards
; Council Assistant ; James Stewart
; Jessica Alexander
Subject: Comment for "future agenda items" and a new proposed item CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Temecula City Council members. I'm writing to again express my opposition to wasting any more council time entertaining Jessica Alexander's religious views. I believe it was very clear a few weeks ago, when approximately 84% of the city's respondents asked the city to stay out of matters of women's reproductive choice. Alexander - or the people doing the work for her - believe they've found a loophole in the city's "cooling off' period from discussing declined items, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the representative population doesn't want you all discussing this issue in any way, shape, or form.
Instead, I'd like you all to consider a different agenda item. I would like for the city council to request an audit of how much money Jessica Alexander wastes. My money. Our money (except for the large portion of the people who write or speak who come from Murrieta). Those line items can be in the form of:
0 Legal counsel hours from having to protect the city from her reckless statements and propositions.
• Staff time wasted having to research her pointless agenda items and any other research she has • them do that don't go anywhere.
• Staff time wasted printing out talking points that were written for her by other people - the • way she reads them, it's clear she didn't write them herself because it's very scripted. 0 0
o And let's not forget... she did have the city buy her two printers, so she's clearly doing a lot of o printing. There's waste there too.
0 •
• Policing time for her countless "rallies" and "prayer circles." • Lost revenue over the bad rap her antics bring to our fine city.
While we're at it, I'd like that audit to also include her HR file and knowledge of how many HR complaints have been filed against her. I'm sure that working with her is not fun; and I'm more sure that working for her must be even worse.
Please don't give these religiously -backed proposed agenda items any more air. Instead, let's stop wasting the city's valuable resources - money, time, and people - pursuing activities that we've already told you we don't want.
Thank you for your time!
Christine T. Massa
2 From: Randi Johl
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:53 AM
To:
Subject: FW: Resolution opposing Proposition 1
Attachments: ADF Legal Analysis - CA Prop 1 Reproductive Freedom[23].pdf Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director i City Clerk
(951) 694-6421
randi. iohlatemeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Andrea valenzuela ; James Stewart ;
Matt Rahn ; Maryann Edwards ; Jessica Alexander
; Council Assistant
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Resolution opposing Proposition 1
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Attorney General Bonta,
I would like to file a complaint regarding a violation of my constitutional right to separation of church and state.
Please see the below email chain. I contacted my local city council to express my concern about a conflict of interest.
In return I received religious propaganda. This is inappropriate behavior from an elected official.
I have filed this request using the Consumer Complaint portal on your website. Please advise if there are any further actions I should take to address this violation.
Thank you,
Andrea Valenzuela
Temecula, CA 92591
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jessica Alexander
Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: Resolution opposing Proposition 1
To: Andrea valenzuela <
The Right to Life League - America's 1st pro -life organization C
VOTE NO on PROP 1
WHAT DOES PROP 1 SAY?
"The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives..
WHAT DOES THE LANGUAGE OF PROP 1 MEAN?
We don't know how California state courts will interpret Prop I's very broad language that goes far beyond abortion. Its broad grant of "reproductive freedom" - regardless of age or maturity - may be an existential threat to public health and protection of women and children. "Reproductive freedom" as a fundamental constitutional right may override existing laws that protect children and public health. Existing protections could be deemed "state interference." Minors may be able to consent to sex at any age and with anyone. Girls and women may sell eggs and rent their wombs to anyone - including private firms for profit - without state oversight or restrictions. And Prop 1 could override existing public health bans on incest and polygamy because they also interfere with sexual freedom. Even state regulation of abortion clinics and abortionists could be deemed unconstitutional interference with someone's right to choose a type of reproductive care. We just do not know how expansive this "reproductive freedom" could get.
WHY VOTE NO ON PROP 1:
• MAY THWART EXISTING HEALTH REGULATIONS THAT PROTECT WOMEN • MAY ELIMINATE STATE OVERSIGHT OF ALL REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES
INCLUDING SURROGACY, BUYING AND SELLING OF EGGS AND SPERM, AND
OTHER REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
• MAY ENABLE CHILD ABUSE AND SEXUAL EXPLOITATION
• MAY ENABLE INCEST AND POLYGAMY
The Right to Life League is America's first pro -life organization, founded in 1967.
We advocate for the protection of life from conception to natural death.
RighttoLifeLeague.org (626) 398-6100
The Right to Life League - America's 1st pro -life organization PROP 1 GOES FAR BEYOND PROTECTING ABORTION ACCESS
• ABORTION IS ALREADY A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT under California's constitution, according to state supreme court rulings. Prop 1 will affirm those rulings. • LATE -TERM ABORTION IS ALREADY UNRESTRICTED IN CALIFORNIA.
Newly passed law (AB 2223) removes all civil and criminal penalties for abortions, and bars investigation into the death of babies born alive "due to causes that occurred in utero" — in other words, botched abortions. AB 2223 effectively permits late -term abortions and the killing of babies born alive after failed abortions. Prop 1 will affirm that law. • ABORTION FUNDING IS ALREADY SET. The California Legislature has already committed over $200 million dollars to paying for abortions. Prop 1 has nothing to do with that funding. Prop 1 will have no effect on where, when, or how California taxpayers fund abortions for out-of-state women.
PROP I THREATENS PUBLIC HEALTH.
PROP I ERODES PARENTAL RIGHTS TO PROTECT CHILDREN.
PROP 1 ENCOURAGES HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND EXPLOITATION.
SEE THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS FLYER TO LEARN HOW.
The Right to Life League is America's first pro -life organization, founded in 1967.
We advocate for the protection of life from conception to natural death.
RighttoLifeLeague.org (626) 398-6100
This goes beyond abortion. Please read documents attached and legal documents as well.
Blessings,
Jessica Alexander
City Council
City of Temecula
From: Andrea valenzuela ; Matt Rahn ; Maryann Edwards ; Jessica Alexander ; James Stewart
Cc: Council Assistant
Subject: Resolution opposing Proposition 1
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Councilmembers,
It is very disheartening to continually see this city dragged through the mud by the divisive acts of Councilmember Alexander. Once again, Ms. Alexander is choosing to use her position on city council to promote her own self interests and religious views. When will the council hold its members accountable for clear conflicts of interest? As a voting citizen, I implore you to stop allowing this type of behaviour to continue.
Sincerely,
Andrea Valenzuela
Temecula, CA 92591
5 ALLIANCE DEFENDING
FREEDOM
FOR FAITH. FOR JUSTICE
LEGAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 19, 2022
RE: Legal Analysis of the California's "Reproductive Freedom" Ballot Initiative California's Proposition 1 "Reproductive Freedom" ballot initiative would amend California's constitution to create a complete license to "reproductive freedom" for any "individual." This not only includes procuring abortions at any stage of pregnancy, including the gruesome partial birth abortion procedure, but it could also allow men to avoid child support payments, force the state to procure women to be surrogate mothers, and allow children to remove healthy reproductive organs without parental knowledge or consent. The proposed amendment uses intentionally vague terms that threaten the public health, safety, and general welfare of Californians.
The amendment would endanger both mothers and their children by prohibiting common-sense limits and regulations on abortion, and it would undermine the state's ability to protect other fundamental rights, like conscience rights of doctors and nurses to not participate in ending a human life, parental rights to raise and educate children, rights of association for hospitals and care centers to hire mission -oriented employees, the free speech right to advocate for life -affirming care, and the fundamental right to life of every human being.
I. "Reproductive freedom" includes more than unregulated abortion.
The proposed amendment makes "reproductive freedom" a constitutional right, but unfortunately fails to define this key term. Confronted with this lack of clarity, courts interpreting this broad term could conclude that "reproductive freedom" means far more than just unfettered, unregulated access to abortion, contraceptives, and sterilization.
A. Courts have failed to adequately define the term "reproductive freedom." When a law fails to define a term, courts typically defer to the word's ordinary meaning.' Here, the proposed amendment merely states that reproductive freedom "includes the0 fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives." Rather than define the term "reproductive freedom," the proposed amendment provides only broad examples of what the term "includes," leaving the door open for activists to expand the outer limits of "reproductive freedom" and for courts to impose ever more expansive meanings. 1 See FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397, 403 (2011) ("When a statute does not define a term, we typically `give the phrase its ordinary meaning."') (quoting Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 138 (2010)).
To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has not defined the term "reproductive freedom" but has used the term in cases involving regulations on abortion procedures.2 California state courts have likewise not defined "reproductive freedom. At the very least, courts use the term "reproductive freedom" to refer to access to abortion, but the proposed amendment's failure to define the term leaves the issue open to interpretation.
B. Academia promotes a broad understanding of "reproductive freedom." Legal scholarship discussing "reproductive freedom" fails to consistently define the term. While scholarly articles tend to discuss the term in the context of abortion, they also explore other connotations of the term, including access to contraceptives, sterilization, mother and child -related healthcare, and paternal rights.
Some legal articles state broadly that "reproductive freedom" is "the individual's choice to reproduce or not to reproduce"3 and "the ability to choose whether, when, how, and with whom one will have children."4 Others have a more expansive view. As one author put it, "to adequately ensure that all women in this country have true reproductive choice, the definition of `reproductive freedom' must be expanded to include, `for example, ... decisions about sterilization and medical treatment; it must include access to fertilization technologies and to prenatal and perinatal care."'5 C. `Reproductive freedom"could include any sexual activity.
At a more general level, "reproductive freedom" could mean any conduct related to sexual activity because of the relationship between sexual activity and reproduction.
Forbidding any state interference of any person's sexual activity in California would mean that any law regulating sexual conduct, including statutory rape laws and incest laws, could be subject to strict scrutiny analysis.
California's statutory rape law makes it a crime to engage in sexual acts with a person under 18 years of ages California code also forbids sexual conduct between members of the same family.? These laws forbid sexual activity with certain people, e.g. children and family members, and therefore they impose a limit on the "reproductive 2 See Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 916 (1992) (J. Stevens, concurring), overruled by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022); see also Washington v.
Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 771, n. 11 (1997) (J. Souter, concurring); and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2318 (2022) (J. Breyer, dissenting). 3 Elizabeth J. Ireland, Do Not Abort the Mission: An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights Case of R.R. v. Poland, 38 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 651, 695 (2013) (quoting Berta E. Hernandez, To Bear or not to Bear: Reproductive Freedom as a Human Right, 17 Brook. J. Int'l L. 309, 309 (1991)). 4 Dorothy E. Roberts, The Future of Reproductive Choice for Poor Women and Women of Color, 14 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 305, 309 (1992) (quoting Kathryn Kolbert, Developing A Reproductive Rights Agenda, REPRODUCTIvE LAWS FOR THE 1990s: A BRIEFING HANDBOOK 8 (N. Taub & S. Cohen, eds. 1988)). 5 Darci Elaine Burrell, The Norplant Solution: Norplant and the Control of African -American Motherhood, 5 UCLA Women's L. J. 401, 406 (1995) (quoting Roberts, supra n.5). 6 Cal. Penal Code § 261.5.
7 Cal. Penal Code § 285.
Legal Analysis of "Reproductive Freedom" California Ballot Initiative Page 2
freedom" of adults and family members who want to exercise their "reproductive freedom" by engaging in sexual activity with minors or members of their own family.
While it may sound grotesque to contemplate such activities, enshrining "reproductive freedom" as a fundamental right would give criminals who violate statutory rape and incest laws a defense for their heinous acts.
D. `Reproductive freedom" is likely to be interpreted expansively.
Although courts will likely take an expansive view of the meaning of "reproductive freedom," even the narrowest definition would create a broad scope of new rights that will conflict with other fundamental rights.
For instance, it would interfere with the state's protection of the fundamental right to conscience by requiring nurses and doctors to participate in ending human life through abortion. It would interfere with parents' right to raise and educate their children by cutting parents out of any of their children's medical decisions that fall under "reproductive freedom." It would interfere with hospitals' rights of association to hire mission -oriented employees and forbid them from maintaining policies and procedures that require staff to provide life -affirming services to their clients. It would interfere with the Californians' right to free speech in advocating for the life of the unborn. And, of course, it would forbid policies protecting the most fundamental right, without which no other right can be exercised: the right to life.
H. The creation of a right for every "individual" includes not only pregnant adult women, but also minors and men.
The proposed amendment stops the state from interfering with the reproductive freedom of any "individual" but does not define the term "individual." As with the term "reproductive freedom," courts defer to the common definition of "individual" to determine its meaning.$ In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has already relied on a dictionary definition of "individual" to determine that it means a "human being, a person."9 In the context of California's proposed amendment, courts will turn to the ordinary definition of the term "individual" and likely conclude that it refers to any human being or person, male or female, adult or child.
A. Minors could have dangerous access to abortion and sterilization.
The proposed amendment would create an unprecedented right for minors to procure abortions, sterilization, and other medical procedures related to their reproductive capacities, with no ability to the state to provide regulations or rules to protect minors pursuing these procedures.
Minors could also argue that the right to reproductive freedom includes the right to sterilization and the right to undergo sterilizing gender transition surgeries that remove healthy reproductive organs. This could allow girls to demand medically 8 Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449, 454 (2012). 9 Id. at 454 (citing 7 Oxford English Dictionary 880 (2d ed. 1989)).
Legal Analysis of "Reproductive Freedom" California Ballot Initiative Page 3
unnecessary hysterectomies and mastectomies; for boys, it could include penectomies and orchidectomies. For both, the proposed amendment could create a right to access puberty blockers and hormones that affect their sexual development.
Moreover, giving minors a new right to have these procedures would undermine the fundamental right of parents to raise and educate their children. Not only would parents be cut out of their rights and obligations as parents, but children would also be left vulnerable to industries that profit from children who can be persuaded to pursue these procedures —all while prohibiting the state from protecting the health, safety, and wellbeing of Californian minors.
B. The amendment allows men to take advantage of "reproductive freedom." Just as the amendment would create a right for women to decide whether they become a parent, it would also give that same right to men. Giving men a right to "reproductive freedom" could hurt mothers and their children by undermining state laws that require men to provide child support. For example, a man who never intended to father a child despite- engaging in sexual activity could object to his partner's pregnancy, even demanding that she abort the child. If the woman keeps the child and demands child support, the man could appeal to his right to reproductive freedom to avoid paying for such support.10
Creating a new right for infertility care as part of "reproductive freedom" could also compel California to ensure that women are made available to act as surrogates for men who want children. For example, same -sex couples that are naturally infertile could argue that their right to infertility care means that the state must facilitate and require surrogacy options for them to acquire children." These are just some of the real -world implications of adding a new class of rights to California's constitution.
III. Creating a "fundamental" right to abortion undermines the state's ability to enforce common-sense health and safety regulations.
The proposed amendment stops government officials from enforcing laws and regulations that interfere in any way with a "fundamental right to choose to have an abortion." In doing so, the amendment would forbid the state from protecting the health and safety of women through common-sense health regulations.
Courts use the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review to decide if burdens on fundamental rights can survive. The U.S. Supreme Court explains that to satisfy strict scrutiny, government action "must advance interests of the highest order and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests."12 In other words, the government must 10 See also, Michael J. Higdon, Marginalized Fathers and Demonized Mothers: A Feminist Look at the Reproductive Freedom of Unmarried Men, 66 Ala. L. Rev. 507 (2015). 11 Earlier this year, a gay couple filed a claim against New York City making this exact argument. See Precious Fondren, Gay Couple Was Denied I.V.F. Benefits. They Say That's Discriminatory, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Apr. 12, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/nyregion/nyc-ivf-same-sex-couple.html . 12 Espinoza v. Montana Dept of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2260 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Legal Analysis of "Reproductive Freedom" California Ballot Initiative Page 4
be compelled to enforce the law even though doing so violates a fundamental right, and it must have no alternative but to impose a burden on that right.
Unfortunately, many state laws that provided common-sense protections for public health and safety were invalidated because they violated a "right" to abortion.
The history of cases reviewing abortion -related laws under strict scrutiny analysis demonstrates that very few regulations on abortion procedures survived challenge under this rigorous test.13 For that reason, protective and popular laws, including California's requirement that abortions be performed by medical professionals who have a valid medical license, clinic safety regulations, and late -term abortion limitations, are all vulnerable to being struck down by a court applying this standard.14 If California adds the proposed amendment to its constitution, activist plaintiffs will seek to compel state courts to use strict scrutiny analysis to invalidate common- sense health and safety laws and regulations that Californians have supported and relied on for years.
IV. Conclusion
California's proposed "Reproductive Freedom" Amendment would undermine the state's compelling interests in protecting and promoting public health, safety, and the general welfare. The amendment's use of the broad and undefined term "reproductive freedom" paves the way for unregulated abortion, commercial surrogacy, and sterilizing gender transition surgeries. The establishment of a broad, right to "reproductive freedom" could even shield criminal sexual activity, hindering the state from enforcing laws criminalizing incest and statutory rape.
The amendment's use of the term "individual" rather than "woman" will provide an untested fundamental right to "reproductive freedom" for men —and a resulting lack of accountability for their sexual actions. And it will provide unprecedented access to abortion and sterilization for minors. The amendment will put healthcare providers who wish to preserve life and "do no harm" at risk of lawsuits for declining to perform procedures, like abortion. It will cast out health care providers who wish to provide life - affirming care and it will forbid aspiring doctors from practicing medicine in California. 13 See Elizabeth R. Kirk, Impact of the Strict Scrutiny Standard of Judicial Review on Abortion Legislation under the Kansas Supreme Court's Decision in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, 42 On Point (2020). 14 California Health and Safety Code 123468(a) and California Business and Professions Code 2253(b)(1).
Legal Analysis of "Reproductive Freedom" California Ballot Initiative Page 5
From:
Randi Johl
Sent:
Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:53 AM
To:
'
Subject:
FW: No to Resolution Re Prop 1
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951)694-6421
randi.johl temeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Aaron Cook ; James Stewart ; Zak Schwank
; Maryann Edwards ; Jessica Alexander
Cc: Council Assistant ; Kirsten Cook <
Subject: RE: No to Resolution Re Prop 1
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Morning,
Reaching out again just to share my perspective as a constituent since the agenda for tonight's meeting is generating a lot of attention with the proposal for a resolution opposing proposition 1. As I expressed last month, this issue (access to abortion and now contraception) does not seem to be something the City Council should be weighing in on from a perspective of limiting people's choices. I prefer to leave this decision up to individuals and for the city council to focus on city related business.
In fact, in this case, I agree with council woman Alexander's position she expressed during the recent August 9th council meeting when she said the following regarding state ballot initiatives:
"I just want to be able to take the position just as a council member that because it's going to be on a statewide ballot measure I just don't feel that is my duty to speak out for the people and they're going to be able to speak out either yes or no for it. So as of right now, just for the city council, I just can't support that... I just want to make sure that as it's going to go forth in November that the people get to pick that and not here at the city.
Thank you again for all your time and work to serve our city and community.
Sincerely,
Aaron & Kirsten Cook
From: Aaron Cook
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 10:02 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Subject: No to Resolution Re Temecula's Unborn
Dear Members of the City Council,
I'm a resident of Temecula and am concerned about the recent proposal for a resolution declaring Temecula a sanctuary city for Temecula's unborn. Abortion is a polarizing issue with reasonable arguments on both sides. While I'm personally opposed to abortion, I recognize the challenging and nuanced situations others may find themselves in, and believe they should have the right to make decisions based on personalized medical and spiritual advice.
I applaud the people who spoke out in support of the birth choice center in the last council meeting and the work they do. However, the leap from offering beneficial services to restricting others choices is an overstep.
Regardless of the arguments for or against abortion, I also don't believe it is appropriate for the city to be involved in this issue. I'm concerned it would bring negative attention and expose the city to unnecessary lawsuits that will cost residents money. Please keep the focus on the business of the city.
Thank you for your service to our community. I'm sure your time spent on the council is under appreciated. Overall I'm very happy with the quality of services in the city and hope that continues while staying out of partisan culture war issues.
Sincerely,
Aaron
From: Council Comments
Sent: Tuesday, October 2S, 2022 3:21 PM
To: 'Teri Biancardi'
Subject: RE: Potential future agenda item
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951) 694-6421
randi. [email protected]
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefor: may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Teri Biancardi ; Jessica Alexander
; James Stewart ; Maryann Edwards
; Zak Schwank ; Matt Rahn
Subject: Potential future agenda item
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Greetings, councillors and staff, I am sending the following in case I do not get the opportunity to speak tonight:
My name is Teri Biancardi, and I have lived in Temecula for nearly 22 years. My husband and I moved here from London with our then two daughters, and ultimately raised three here. From the time we arrived, we never looked back, and still pinch ourselves at our good fortune that we live in this special place.
One of the bright spots has been the quality of our local governance. That has led to Temecula's ability to attract talented, top drawer staff. Even when we didn't agree with some of the City's positions, we have always felt confident that decisions were taken in good faith, with the best interests of the residents in mind. The care, forethought and planning that has gone into the building of Temecula has led us to where we are today; an innovative, prosperous, caring, and safe home for us residents, and destination for tourists.
But that fundamental, the tradition of good governance so essential to our city's success, has come under enormous strain recently. That's down to the actions of just one councillor, who in promoting her own agenda, which has nothing to do with the running of a city, has led to multiple legal threats to our city, to in just the last month alone. Whose antics have
repeatedly made national news, embarrassing and shaming our community. Who is associating our town with extremist positions that are not even within its jurisdiction to decide.
Our lives and livelihoods are too important to be toyed with this way. I am appealing for an end to the grandstanding that is causing real harm to our community, and is jeopardizing our city's future. Jessica, please stop with the performative politics, and just do your job.
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:48 AM
To: 'Latina Association'
Subject: RE: CA Prop 1 Non-Agendized Comment
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951)694-6421
randi.iohl temeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Latina Association ; Aaron Adams ; Maryann Edwards ; Matt Rahn ; James Stewart
; Zak Schwank ; [email protected]
Subject: CA Prop 1 Non-Agendized Comment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
October 25, 2022
I firmly request Opposition to Councilwoman Jessica Alexander requesting the city council vote a resolution opposing Prop 1 California General Election November 8, 2022.
Presently, our city is in disarray making headlines on night talk shows and media creating a negative image. She is using the council chair to elicit political gain.
The administration, specifically City Manage, City Attorney, and City Clerk must and should clean house.
Councilwoman Alexander should have never been allowed to use our community taxes to further her agenda and that of her supporters. She was elected by district, but she is bound to legislate for our city. She can't continue imposing her DOGMA on the Temecula residents.
City Manager Aaron Adams and City Attorney Peter Thorson, your legislative leniency, and lack of firm stand is creating a dangerous atmosphere in our city. We must take note of the recent happenings in Los Angeles Council with clear understanding that we, the residents, set the course of your position in the city administration. We will pursue Jessica Alexander's lack of restraint using our funds and time for her personal profit to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.
Jessica Alexander will NEVER impose on our daughters and granddaughters' personal decisions about their reproductive rights, and we will never go back to female reproduction neglect.
In Unity Respectfully,
Martha Angelica Howard
Latina Association Riverside County, President
2021 Bosworth Award 75th Assembly District
LULAC Council 3190 Member
Former Temecula City Council District 5 Candidate
Temecula Woman of the Year NAACP-W.I.N.
Latina Association Riverside County
"To make a difference through engaging in public policy, education, and culture affirmation." https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lati na-Association-of-Riverside-Cou nty/209501775871863
From:
Randi Johl
Sent:
Tuesday, October 2S, 2022 11:48 AM
To:
'Eva Smith'
Subject:
RE: Request to DENY Proposal to Add Proposition 1 to the Agenda Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951) 694-6421
randi.johl temeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Eva Smith ; Matt Rahn ; Zak Schwank
; Council Assistant ; James Stewart
; Jessica Alexander
Cc: Randi Johl
Subject: Request to DENY Proposal to Add Proposition 1 to the Agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members,
I am writing you today to join members of our community in expressing our concern with council member Alexander's request to take a stand against California State Proposition 1.
I would like to request that you deny council member Alexander's latest stunt to discuss Proposition 1 and request that you follow the California constitution to avoid any lawsuits.
I would also like to request that you ban council member Alexander (or any council member) from bringing props that resemble human beings to their presentations, especially if it is a Black plastic baby being used as a prop.
Approving her request will give her a platform to continue to spread lies, misinformation and hate under the guise of "pro -life" advocacy. It will also, once again make The City of Temecula a target for travel boycotts, real estate purchase boycotts and lawsuits.
Does the City of Temecula want to be subjected to California State lawsuits, AGAIN? Instead of advocating for the quality of life of ALL Temecula residents, Alexander continues to waste precious City time and resources. As a Director of Birth Choice, Jessica Alexander should not be allowed to advocate on any resolutions which her nonprofit for profit organization will benefit from.
Why is the council member allowed to waste precious time advocating for personal interests and not the interests of her constituents!
Last time I checked, the residents of Temecula are NOT lining the streets of Temecula to try to get abortions.
Temecula residents need affordable housing,
jobs that are NOT 60 miles plus away and cheap gas!! Temecula residents need food and affordable utility bills.
Temecula residents do not want
our tax dollars spent fighting the State of California. Temecula is already known as a great community to raise families. We do not need this type
of negative attention at our doorsteps.
Since being elected Jessica Alexander wastes City has wasted a lot of time trying to pass anti -abortion resolutions. She also tried and failed to get a memorials dedicated to embryos and fetuses. In a recent council meeting she
was also unsuccessful in getting council members to sign onboard to take a stand and make Temecula a Sanctuary city for the unborn.
During her "Sanctuary City to the unborn" presentation she spent six minutes waving a Black baby as a racists prop.
What message about abortion and "pro -life" is she trying to send by waving a Black baby as a prop? The tactic was very unusual to witness since a couple months earlier she was trying to rob George Floyd of his humanity with her anti -Black and anti -Diversity presentation to get rid of the REDI commission.
All I could think of when I watched her wave the Black baby as a prop in the air -- was her previous disparaging remarks and disrespect for George Floyd. All I could think of was her disregard for the diverse population
in Temecula.
I am so sick and tired of the "Pro -Life" movement using Black Babies as Props, especially in the Council Chambers! If Black babies are so precious, where was her concern for human life with regards to George Floyd during
her racists presentation attempting to rob George Floyd of his humanity? If Black babies are so precious why did she want to get rid of the REDI commission.
I respect Jessica Alexander's stance on "pro -life" and Proposition 1, but she needs to do it on her own time and not use the City Council Chambers as her personal stage.
Using the Temecula City council chambers as her personal stage is a conflict of interest and out of line.
Please do not allow your colleague to continue to waste precious Cities Resources and time.
Please do not give her a platform to spread lies and misinformation.
Follow California law and let the voters of California decide.
Thank you.
Eva Smith
24 year Temecula Resident
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 3:04 PM
To: 'Tammy Meyer'
Subject: RE: Comment for Tonight's Meeting
Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda.
Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE
Legislative Director / City Clerk
(951)694-6421
randi.johl temeculaca.gov
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the Califomia Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Tammy Meyer
Subject: Comment for Tonight's Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I would like to have this message read to the council for tonight's meeting:
If you are getting a large amount of public comments in support of Alexander's agenda item, I hope you realize that this is because her supporters came to city hall and pretty much camped out all day thus preventing anyone else from being able to get in a conflicting opinion.
Subject: FW: Temecula "pro -life" city ban?
From: Bob
Cc: Council Assistant
Subject: Temecula "pro -life" city ban?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Member,
"Councilmember Jessica Alexander recently proposed a resolution that would make Temecula a "pro -life" city that bans abortions... despite her previous position that City Council should not weigh in on any state measures." There are residents that bring in their personal religious beliefs. "It's very important that we support being pro -life, that we're here to show that our church doesn't believe in the murdering of babies, even in the fetus," said Jere Chilton.
There are many grey areas concerning abortion, like saving the life of the mother, health of the fetus, rape, incest resulting in child pregnancy (making a female keep a pregnancy from rape and/or incest is another violation to the victim). Temecula council members should not inject its endorsement of a particular religious bias into this debate. This is a personal decision that should be made by the female with the help of her support system.
The US has three branches of government and religious beliefs and the bodies of female women and children are not one of them.
Roe binds together an entire class of personal freedoms, all part of the Constitution's "liberty doctrine" and a ban would violate the Establishment Clause.
Thank you for your time,
Mrs. Alvarado
From: mincraty mine <
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:06 PM
To: Council Comments
Subject: Jessica Alexander pushing Pro life Agenda (DO NOT SUPPORT) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of Temecula, CA. Jessica Alexander has been pushing a pro -life agenda that does not reflect my views. I do not support her continuously using valuable agenda time to discuss matters that are bigger than Temecula. I expect city council members to be working on projects and using time to improve the city locally. Proposition 1 will be decided by the voters and I believe that the will of the people will be heard. It is not the city's duty to take a stand on such issues. Please have a vote to end this as soon as possible and stop Jessca Alexander from pushing her agenda into this city.
Subject: FW: Right to choose
From: Will W. ; Zak Schwank ; Jessica Alexander
; James Stewart ; Maryann Edwards
Cc: Council Assistant
Subject: Right to choose
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To all concerned,
In regards to all proposals and agenda items in regards to women's right to choose, I for one believe in the separation of church and state. The attempt by Mrs Alexander or others to utilize their position to conflate the two is an abomination to both our founding fathers beliefs as well as those of Jesus Christ.
Surely by now you have heard the "render unto ceaser" argument, the fact that so many other religions have different views on this subject as well at so many quotes from our founding fathers that you do not need a rehash but I am willing to provide if needed. Do not go down a slippery slope of trying to decide which rights you are going to strip from people based on personal choices.
Stop this foolishness.
William W.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:41 PM
To: Council Comments
Subject: Letter for today's city meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi there thank you very much for reading this, its very crucial:
• Thank you Mayer Rahn, City Council, Staff & every one else for your time, • Hello channel 3 Temecula, hello youtube!
• 1 wanted to talk about the most important elections possibly in history because the outcome determines whether we will have this country left or not for most part.
• We are under stagflation now which is recession and inflation simultaneously. Fixing one via Keynesians solutions makes the other worse.
• Also many places there is no voter ID. Only legal votes count, chain of custody, verifiable, signature verified. Yet many understand, unfortunately, its literally whoever "tries the hardest" makes most impact. • MOST IMPORTANT FOR NOW: Remember USA approved allied weapons shipments to Ukraine ( Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) and biden adm + dem majority congress sent 180 tons of weapons less than a week before Russia was backed in corner to invade. We all know biden family is compromised with Ukraine as they have made many deals with them when he was VP, and tony bobolinski blew the whistle on Fox in 2020. The biden guy is blackmailed by them and with help of dem led congress keeps sending billions of dollars WHICH EACH PENNY INCREASES % of possible war. Russia has said they have been so damaged that they might have to strike Ukraine using nuclear, and biden adm has said they would get involved, and Russia has said if that happens they will hit USA coasts. Actually the war started on ground 6 months ago, many usa soldiers are there fighting Russians daily. Soros backed Msm wont show but independent media (like Infowars and revolver) do. • Excuse is ethics?! but what about What about other wars in current progress now? Ethopia? yemen? • Excuses led to enrolling green energy changes which mathematically at this point CAN NOT replace traditional sources. The oil & gas leases halted, drilling permits limited, reversing Trump's NEPA regs and natural gas regs, canceling pipelines have all been ignored and excuse is 2/24/22: Russia invades Ukraine. o Besides USA is only responsible for less than 2-3% of Earth's pollution. China, Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Bangladesh, and India are for the rest. For example China dumps 8.8Million tons of plastic in ocean, USA 0.3Million per year.
• MOST IMPORTANT FOR NOW: I am asking for the left who care to vote for MAGA Republicans because your safety and health is WAY more important than beliefs, opinions, and supporting certain agendas. We do not want to start full blown nuclear, biological, or more cyber war with Russia. They can also hit the nuclear plants and release lot of radiation or turn of all of electric grids which would be equally devastating. • There are 2 groups. One is totalitarian globalist ( hybrid of corporate fascism and communism) establishment technocratic elite ( world economic forum brags about their previous, current, and future agendas), since Tulsi Gabbard left, 100% of democrats and about 60% of republicans follow their orders. • Other side is nationalist populist, which in 4 short years brought the best economy on earth, cut red tape and bureaucracies, had most unemployment in all groups in many decades, safest southern border, energy independent , peace through strength, best foreign deals yet the main stream media + entertainment industry + education industry pushed back using mass formation via emotions and Stockholm syndrome. • Please read Eckhart Tolle's book "A New Earth", and make the less selfish decision. We don't have to agree and shouldn't, but in the core, 99.99% of us are on same team, team humanity being attacked by dark forces which can be overcome.
Regards,
From: ryann kelly <
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Council Comments
Subject: The risks of Jessica's plans
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello city council,
As a fellow citizen of Temecula, I have growing concern over the overreach being attempted by this council -specifically Jessica Alexander.
Her now multiple attempts at overreaching past city level into state level legislation are threatening to our tax dollars and further dividing the community we live in.
Beyond agreeing or disagreeing on the ethics of abortion, denying women the right to medical access in a city of California is directly against our state constitution. If a woman orders an abortion pill, will she be arrested for checking her mail? If she's pregnant, will she be arrested seeking care in San Diego? The response may be "of course not!", but these are questions that, per state constitution, we shouldn't have to ask! Each time this subject is addressed, it's adding gasoline to the flames of a fire that could destroy our wonderful community that comes together for so many things.
Please keep your personal views out of our city politics and maintain separation of church and state. You have every right to practice your religion. You have no right to force me practice it as well.
Thank you,
Concerned Temecula citizen who wants anonymity from religious zealots.
Erika Ramirez
Subject: FW: Thank you
From: Lila Montoya
Cc: Council Assistant
Subject: Thank you
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Council Member Jessica Alexander,
I just want to thank you for your bravery in standing for the fundamental human rights of children in the womb. You are an inspiration, especially in California.
Sincerely,
Lila
Lila Montoya
Subject: FW: Make Temecula a safe haven for the unborn
From: Robin Daniel <
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:53 PM
Subject: Make Temecula a safe haven for the unborn
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am writing to you as a 30 year old mother of two daughters, a 2 year old and 8 day old. My husband and I moved to Temecula in 2019 because we thought it was a great place to raise a family and it seemed that the values and morals aligned. I am extremely disheartened that there is an abortion clinic in Temecula that murders the most vulnerable of our population..
I am writing in support of the city counsel moving forward to make Temecula a sanctuary for the unborn especially amid the current vile proposition one in California.
Abortion is not about "women's healthcare", that terminology is deceiving, and abortion is the most anti -woman movement there is.
* Unfortunately, California's State Constitution already gives women permission to kill their innocent children. Prop 1 Amends the CA constitution to permit abortion up to the moment of childbirth. There are no limits in the amendment.
This amendment represents the most radical expression of the pro choice side.
You can never do something evil to achieve a good end. It's always evil to intentionally take the life on an innocent human being. And the child in the womb is an innocent human being. They're as much a human being as you and I are and have as much of a right to life as you and I.
DENUMANIZATI0N
IS . CONSISTENT
COMPONENT OF
G E N 0 c 10 E
tHUMAN
COALITION
From: Shannon Rampe
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:58 PM
To: Council Comments
Subject: I Support a Woman's Right to Choose
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I am a resident of Temecula and an active and registered voter. I support a woman's right to choose and adamantly do not support attempts to ban or outlaw abortion in our city.
Sincerely,
Shannon Rampe
Sent from my iPhone
From: Cindy Kennedy <
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 5:08 PM
To: Council Comments
Subject: public comment for tonights cc meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I am not able to attend tonight's meeting because of my work schedule. I want to show my support for Councilwoman Jessica Alexander. I fully support Jessica's efforts and commend her for standing up for the unborn and her constituents. This is why we voted for her and will be voting for any of the true conservative candidates running vs the current liberal and RINOS. It is sad that most of us our not given the opportunity to speak because of your new 30 minute time limit. We all know the the very vocal local minority group is run by mostly educators/indoctrinators. Most likely they have backing by the unions and Sacramento. Looking forward to the mostly silent majority win this Nov. us
Ps- We only saw two police cars during the 2+ hours we were at the duck pond last Friday from 4-6. The police seem to be very good at being reactive, but not very proactive. Please bring back neighborhood/shopping center policing. Q
Thank you
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
From: Jeff Comerchero <
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 5:16 PM
To: Council Comments
Subject: Prop 1 issue
ICAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Comment for item to discuss Prop 1
These Jessica Alexander shenanigans must end and the City get back to the business of doing what City Councils and City Staffs are there to do.
Alexander may think it's a glamorous job but I assure you it is not. If my 21 years on the council taught me anything, it's that. State issues are state issues and federal issues are federal issues. The City Council has no jurisdiction in the areas Alexander constantly brings to the dais. She needs to care as passionately about the real business of the City as she does about abortion issues. Maybe God needs to tell her to fix potholes and maintain parks. --Jeff Comerchero
Sent from my Wad
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 9:42 AM
To: Randi Johl
Subject: FW: No on Prop 1
From: Megan Thatcher , James Stewart
, Jessica Alexander , Maryann
Edwards , Matt Rahn , Zak Schwank
Subject: No on Prop 1
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am a 34-year-old stay-at-home mother and a 5 year -long resident of the Temecula area. My family and I moved here because it aligned with the family values we cherish deeply in our home. This leads to my reason for writing this letter —to support the City Council moving forward to discuss some kind of resolution opposing Prop 1 in the city of Temecula. While I realize that this city council does not have the authority to outlaw abortion in Temecula, or to do away with Prop 1 I'd it does pass in November, I think that —in the same way that we as a city have pushed back on government overreach in the past — we should be proactive in standing up for the unborn in some way in the city of Temecula.
I know many of you have stated that you are personally pro -life, but that you were elected to represent all of Temecula's citizens you can only do so much in your positions as city councils.
Now I would argue that you can do much in your position —as much as fulfilling your duty and obligation to represent not only what is the popular demand but what is right. If you can recall, freedom of slavery at one point in history was not a popular view, but it was right for the sake of all humanity. You also were elected to represent the unborn of Temecula whose life depends on your voice.
I conclude with the encouragement to act with integrity and to move forward to discuss what we can do as a city to stand against Prop 1.
Warmest regards,
A concerned woman and mother,
Megan Thatcher
DENUMANIZATI0N
IS . CONSISTENT
COMPONENT OF
G E N 0 c 10 E
tHUMAN
COALITION
From: Jessica Petri <
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 5:40 PM
To: Council Comments
Subject: Councilwoman Alexander's personal agenda does not represent this city CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am a homeowner in this city raising my young adult children here. I am appalled at the religious and personal agenda that councilwoman Alexander continues to push upon this city & its people. Its fiscally irresponsible to go against state laws and risk being sued potentially costing taxpayers and wasting councils time. She has a personal conflict of interest due to her position in private sector. She violates separation of church and state. She does not speak for me. She doesn't not speak for this city and has repeatedly dragged Temecula into negative press. Its absurd this is allowed. She has repeated demonstrated homophobic, transphobic and racist views, her agenda matches that. It is time for everyone to stop this divisiveness and celebrate diversity. The leadership of this city must match that. She clearly does not value the citizens nor possess a responsibility to this city, she repeatedly pushes her own religious views onto others. Its unacceptable, it must stop.
Sent from my Whone
From: Gia Rueda <
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 6:01 PM
To: Randi Johl; Maryann Edwards; Jessica Alexander; Matt Rahn; James Stewart; Zak Schwank
Subject: Prop 1
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi, It's me again. Gia Rueda, 15 year resident of Temecula, Retired LAPD police sergeant, and Desert Storm Veteran.
Do you hear that? ..... I don't. To be honest, most of us won't hear it. Only people like Councilmember Jessica Alexander will hear and respond to the fear -mongering dog whistle of 412 pastor Tim Thompson.
By now, we all know this little game; Tim blows his dog whistle, and the obedient Jessica, snarls and gnashes her teeth, wasting city time and resources, until the reasonable members of Temecula City Council wisely vote her down.
The topic this time? Proposition 1 which amends California Constitution to expressly include an individual's fundamental right to reproductive freedom.
Wait a minute. Why are we discussing this at all? Anyone, Bueller, Bueller? Proposition 1 is an amendment to the California STATE Constitution; not the County Constitution, City Constitution, or Old Temecula north of the feed store and south of Gertrudis Creek Constitution. I repeat: Prop 1 is a STATE proposition, something over which Alexander and the rest of this wise Council has no jurisdiction.
Ms. Alexander, your hyperbolic assertions that Proposition 1 will "encourage human trafficking" and "enable child sexual exploitation" is ABSURD. You're like Chicken Little screaming, "The sky is falling! Proposition 1 may enable incest and polygamy!" There is a clear conflict of interest with these matters and your position at Birth Choice, making your agenda increasingly problematic.
Chicken Little, JUST. DO. YOUR. JOB. Approve a budget, do some homeless outreach, fill some potholes, plan a cultural event, attend a ribbon cutting. Just stop wasting the cities time and resources with a proposition that is clearly outside of your job description and outside the purview of the Temecula City Council.
From: Leslie DeMedicis <
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:57 PM
To: Council Comments
Subject: Enough is enough
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Temecula City Council has spent enough time on Jessica Alexander's personal agenda of pushing her religion onto our city. We are not all Christians in this city. I certainly don't agree with Ms. Alexander's desire to continually try to make Temecula follow her religious ideas.
For Temecula to pass a resolution against prop 1, makes it seem that our entire city is against it. That's just not true.
Stop spending your valuable time and our tax dollars on Jessica Alexander's nonsense. The fact that she has a vested interest in Birth Choice and keeps pushing this pro -birth rhetoric makes me think there's some conflict of interest.
Enough is enough with Jessica Alexander.
Leslie DeMedicis
15 year Temecula Resident
From: A Cox <
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:24 PM
To: Randi Johl
Subject: Public Comment for the Temecula City Council Meeting - Oct. 25 - Please add my letter to the record.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I was unable to attend tonight's Council meeting, but I need to speak up on behalf of the sane and reasonable residents of Temecula after watching it on TV. Please add my letter to the record.
Of all the points I could make after Ms. Alexander's position statements, the most wretched is that she is NOT honoring her oath. She is not representing Temecula or respecting the Council. Instead, she is promoting her own extreme views and using her precious position on the Council to feed the ONLY concept she is apparently able to think about.
Although she has been asked repeatedly, she has declined to say whether she is a PAID employee of that local organization she so vigorously promotes. This deepens the prospect of her conflict of interest and should be investigated. No councilmember anywhere should use their seat as a bully pulpit.
It is unbearable to consider how much true city business is postponed due to her mindless posturing. I commend the other councilmembers for their patience, but I am even more disturbed than before about what I am witnessing.
A.L. Cox
From:
Randi Johl
Sent:
Wednesday, October 26, 2022 9:41 AM
To:
Randi Johl
Subject:
FW: Anti -abortion agenda
-----Original Message -----
From: Susan LOng
Subject: Anti -abortion agenda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am having difficulty sending this message to all city council members. Addresses fail to send.
Please forward.
Dear city council members,
As a 36 yr citizen of Temecula, I implore the city council not to succumb to right-wing, religious pressure against the citizens of Temecula. Women are untitled as a birthright to manage all aspects of their own healthcare. It is no one's business what healthcare decisions are made between a woman and her physician. Shut this down! Susan Long
Sent from my iPhone
Pb PlanetBids Vendor Portal X +
F C Q O pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/l4837/bo/bo-detail/97471#bidDocs A\ MyFlatiron I\- SupportCenter ® BOX PlanetBids Portals Owner links Caltrans Links DBE Resources SRF Information License and Registr .. o City of Temecula
< Back to Bid Search
1-15 / FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II, PROJECT NO. PW16-01, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. INFRALUL-5459(031 Bid Information Line Items Documents Addenda/Emails O&A Prospective Bidders Title
Addendum No 07 - PW16-01
Addendum No 08 - PW16-01
Digital Terrain Model
Digital Terrain Model
Digital Terrain Model
Addendum No 02 - PW16-01
Addendum No 03 - PW16-01
Addendum No 04- PW16-01
Addendum No 05 - PW16-01
Addendum No 06R1 - PW16-01
FVP NOD
FVP IS -EA
Addendum No 06 - PW16-01
Addendum No 09 - PW16-01
PROJECT PLANS for CONSTRUCTION
SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICATIONS EXH A- LAPM Form 12-G SPECIFICATIONS EXH B - Federal Wage Rates SPECI SPECIFICATIONS EXH A- LAPM Form 12-G
SPECIFICATIONS EXH B - Federal Wage Rates
SPECIFICATIONS EXH C - CAUOSHA COVID-19 Info
Your eBid Was last Submitted on October 6, 022 9.54 AM (PDT,-) a 8 it * I] s
Flatiron West, Inc. v
e:1ea:a2
File Name
Size
Downloaded
Addendum No 07 - PW16-01.pdf
321.5 kb
Downloaded
►. .: rC4
Addendum No 08 - PW16-01.pdf
5.3 mb
Downloaded
►. .. r
1-1 5-FVP PHII_Finished Surface-Median.dtm
215.8 kb
Downloaded
►. •.
1-15-FVPPHII_Original Ground Surface.dtm
35.6 mb
Downloaded
►. ..
1-15_FVP PHII Finished Surface.dtm
3.4 mb
Downloaded
►. ...
Addendum No 02 - PW1601.pdf
676 kb
Downloaded
►. ...
Addendum No 03 - PW16-01.pdf
334.1 kb
Downloaded
r. ...
Addendum No 04- PW16-01.pdf
3.1 mb
Downloaded
►.
Addendum No 05 - PW16-01.pdf
230.4 kb
Downloaded
►.
Addendum No 06R1 - PW16-01.pdf
548.1 kb
Downloaded
► • ..
SUPP INFO FVP NOD.pdf
395.7 kb
Downloaded
►. ...
SUPP INFO FVP IS-EA.pdf
233.1 mb
Downloaded
r. ...
Addendum No 06 - PW16-01.pdf
561.8 kb
Downloaded
► • ..
Addendum No 09 - PW16-01.pdf
4.7 mb
Downloaded
PLANS 01 EA 432721-15 FVP PHll.pdf
124.3 mb
Downloaded
►
SPECS 01.pdf
1.3 mb
Downloaded
► • • • .
SPECS 02 EXH A - LAPM EXH 12-G.pdf
605.9 kb
Downloaded
►.
SPECS 03 EXH B - FED WAGE RATES.pdf
143.2 kb
Downloaded
r. ...
SPECS 04 EXH C - CAL OSHA COVID-19 Guidan
Dark Mode I Privacv Policv I Terms & Conditions '
Your eBid was last Submitted on October 6, 2022 9:54 AM (PDT) • . - • : • Dark Mode I Privacy Policy I Terms & Conditions
Flatiron West, Inc.
FREMAINING
e : 4
PKEC
Pierce Kavcioglu Espinosa & Cesar LLP
16055 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
Encino, California 91436
(818) 728-4999
Construction Counsel Tyler J.Cesar
(
[email protected]
October 24, 2022
VIA EMAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
B. Tilden Kim
Richards Watson Gershon
350 South Grand Avenue, 37th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Email: [email protected]
Re: Response to Notice of Bid Protest Submitted by MCM Construction, Inc. regarding 1-15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II (Project No. PW16-01) Dear Mr. Kim:
My firm represents Flatiron West, Inc. ("Flatiron"). Flatiron is the low bidder on the City of Temecula's (the "City") 1-15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II Project (No.
PW16-01) ("Project"). Flatiron looks forward to working with the City to quickly get this important work of improvement underway and completed.
I have been asked to respond and comment on the correspondence by MCM Construction, Inc. ("MCM"), dated October 14, 2022, sent by Mr. D. Michael Schoenfeld, in which MCM purports to protest the award of the contract to Flatiron. In actuality, MCM does not protest the Flatiron bid, but instead goes to the unusual step of simply asking the City to reject all bids and re -advertise the Project.
The City should refuse MCM's request. MCM's complaints are misguided. Throwing out all bids because MCM failed timely to submit its bid would be unfair, it would provide MCM an unfair competitive advantage, and it would waste the valuable time and resources of the bidders and the City. As the City is likely aware, the construction industry has been continuously experiencing widespread and unusually high inflation. Therefore, it is likely material suppliers and subcontractors will increase their prices which could significantly increase the cost of the Project for the City. It is unlikely that rebidding this work will be without impact to the City's budget.
First, MCM has not demonstrated any harm or prejudice, and therefore, it lacks standing. Had it had more time to submit its bid, there is no evidence that it would have made any difference regarding the award to Flatiron.
B. Tilden Kim
October 24, 2022