kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
Exhibit 1: Local Vicinity Map
500
kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
Exhibit 2: Conditional Permit Use Site Plan
501
kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
Noise Background
Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady ambient noise that is the sum of various distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from traffic on a major highway.
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. For example, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the average acoustic energy for a stated period of time; thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. The Day-Night Sound level (Ldn) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10-dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and an additional 5 dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime.
502
kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
Regulatory Setting
State
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable”, “conditionally acceptable”, “normally unacceptable”, and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single-family homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries, and churches are “normally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses.
Title 24 – Building Code
The State’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 1, Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher.
Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new multi-family residential buildings, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.
Local
City of Temecula General Plan
The City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element (Noise Element) identifies noise-sensitive land uses and noise sources, defines areas of noise impact, and contains policies and programs to achieve and maintain noise levels compatible with various types of land uses. The element addresses noise which affects the community at large, rather than noise associated with site-specific conditions.
The Noise Element identifies land use guidelines to protect residential neighborhoods and noise- sensitive receptors such as schools and hospitals from potentially harmful noise sources. The noise standards for various land uses in the City are shown in Table 1: Temecula Land Use Noise Standards.
503
kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
Table 1: Temecula Land Use Noise Standards
Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Type and Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior3
Residential
Hillside
Rural
Very Low
Low
Low Medium
45 65
Medium 45 65/701
High 45 701
Commercial and Office
Neighborhood
Community
Highway Tourist
Service
- 70
Professional Office 50 70
Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75
Public/Institutional Schools 50 65
All others 50 70
Open Space Vineyards/Agriculture - 70
Open Space - 70/652
1. Maximum exterior noise levels up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for Multiple-Family Housing.
2. Where quiet is a basis required for the land use.
3. Regarding aircraft-related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL.
Source: City of Temecula, Noise Element, 2005.
City of Temecula Municipal Code
The following sections of the Temecula Municipal Code (TMC) are applicable to the proposed project.
Section 9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards
No person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set forth in Tables N-1 (see Table 1 above) and N-2.
Section 9.20.060(C) Special Sound Sources Standards
The general sound level standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of this chapter apply to sound emanating from all sources, including the following special sound sources, and the person creating or allowing the creation of the sound is subject to the requirements of that section. The following special sound sources are also subject to the following additional standards. Failure to comply will constitute separate violations of this ordinance.
504
kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
C. Sound Amplifying Equipment or Live Music
1. It is unlawful for any person to cause, allow or permit the emission or transmission of any loud and raucous noise from any sound-making, sound-amplifying device or live music under his control or in his possession:
a. Upon any private property;
b. Upon any public street, alley, sidewalk or thoroughfare; c. In or upon any public park or other public place or property.
2. The words "loud and raucous noise," as used in this section, shall mean any sound having such intensity or carrying power as to unreasonably interfere with the peace and quiet of other persons, or as to unreasonably annoy, disturb, impair or endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of other persons.
3. The determination of whether a sound is "unreasonable," as used in subsection (C)(2) of this section, shall involve the consideration of the level of noise, duration of noise, constancy or intermittency of noise, time of day or night, place, proximity to sensitive receptors, nature and circumstances of the emission or transmission of any such loud and raucous noise.
Existing Setting
Existing noise levels at the project site and the nearest residential uses are primarily impacted by roadway traffic, parking lot activity, and stationary (e.g., mechanical equipment) noise sources.
Redhawk Parkway is located approximately 900 feet west of the project site is the primary source of traffic noise in the project vicinity. Parking lot activity immediately to the west and mechanical equipment (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) at the clubhouse and other Redhawk Golf Course buildings to the east are also noise sources that affect the existing noise environment. Other ancillary noise sources in the project vicinity include golf course patrons talking, the use of car radios, and golf cart movements/activity. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence or short-term noise.
It is also noted that golf-related events currently occur at the Pavilion and are the primary noise source during their operation. Such events typically include amplified music, speeches, and gathering of large crowds that generate noise.
505
kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 Noise Measurements
To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area and obtain reference noise levels for event speaker noise at the Pavilion, Kimley-Horn conducted seven short-term (10-minute) measurements on June 15, 2024; see Appendix A: Noise Data. Three noise measurements were taken to obtain existing ambient noise levels without Pavilion events, and four noise measurements were taken during a private event to obtain reference levels for speaker noise and see the effect of Pavilion events at the nearest residential uses. The 10-minute measurements were taken between 2:10 p.m. and 9:10 p.m. The DJ was positioned in the southeastern corner of the Pavilion with two speakers approximately six feet aboveground and oriented to the northwest. The noise level data for each noise measurement is listed in Table 2: Existing Noise Measurements and the noise measurement locations are shown on Exhibit 3: Noise Measurement Locations.
Table 2: Existing Noise Measurements
Site Location Measurement
Period Duration Leq
(dBA)1
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Ambient Noise Measurements
ST-1 End of cul-de-sac on Camino Carmargo,
approximately 450 feet northwest of Pavilion.
2:10 p.m., Saturday,
June 15, 2024 10 min 48.0 39.4 57.8
ST-2 Redhawk Golf Course parking lot, approximately
200 feet west of the Pavilion.
2:41 p.m., Saturday,
June 15, 2024 10 min 48.1 37.5 60.7
ST-3 East of the Pavilion, across the golf course
adjacent to residences along Tiburco Drive.
3:17 p.m. Saturday,
June 15, 2024 10 min 46.5 41.3 65.7
Event Noise Measurements
ST-1 End of cul-de-sac on Camino Carmargo,
approximately 450 feet northwest of Pavilion.
8:05 p.m., Saturday,
June 15, 2024 10 min 50.0 43.5 58.0
ST-2 In Redhawk Golf Course parking lot area,
approximately 200 feet west of the Pavilion.
8:23 p.m., Saturday,
June 15, 2024 10 min 50.1 45.9 56.5
ST-3 East of the Pavilion, across the golf course
adjacent to residences along Tiburco Drive.
8:41 p.m., Saturday,
June 15, 2024 10 min 48.7 43.0 55.1
ST-4
End of drive aisle in the northern portion of
Pavilion area, approximately 140 feet from the
DJ speakers/area.
8:59 p.m., Saturday,
June 15, 2024 10 min 74.6 66.0 80.8
Source: Noise measurements taken by Kimley-Horn and Associates, June 15, 2024. See Appendix A for noise measurement results.
Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure standards and guidelines for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with each of these uses. Residences, hospitals, schools, guest lodging, libraries, and churches are treated as the most sensitive to noise intrusion and therefore have more stringent noise exposure targets than do other uses, such as manufacturing or agricultural uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance. Sensitive receptors near the project site are shown in Table 3: Sensitive Receptors.
506
kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
Table 3: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project Single-Family Residences 300 feet to the west
Single-Family Residences 350 feet to the southwest
Single-Family Residences 450 feet to the southeast
Single-Family Residences 835 feet to the east
Source: Google Earth, 2024.
Noise Impact Analysis
The project would allow for weddings, banquets, meetings, corporate events, and other private events at the Pavilion that would produce noise from amplified music and crowd noise. Private events would be allowed seven days per week (no more than four times per week) with all amplified music ending at 9:45 p.m. The DJ and speaker system would be setup in the southeastern corner of the Pavilion as indicated in Exhibit 2. Mobile musicians (e.g., guitarist, violinist, etc.) may also perform at private events along the grass area immediately east of the Pavilion with a speaker setup in the southernmost portion of the Pavilion area. However, the mobile musicians and the DJ would perform exclusively and the DJ music/speaker noise is usually the loudest.1 Thus, DJ music/speaker noise was conservatively modeled and analyzed in this analysis as a worse-case condition.
The primary noise sources from private events at the Pavilion are amplified music and crowd noise.
Pavilion event noise was modeled with the SoundPLAN software. SoundPLAN allows computer simulations of noise situations, and creates noise contour maps using reference noise levels, topography, point and area noise sources, mobile noise sources, and intervening structures.
As shown in Table 2, the measured noise level from the amplified music/speaker system at the Pavilion is 74.6 dBA at 140 feet. One point source representing the DJ speaker system was modeled in SoundPLAN in the southeastern corner of the Pavilion. The point source was oriented in a northwest direction consistent with the observed condition by Kimley-Horn on June 15, 2025. One area source representing crowd noise covering the entire Pavilion area was modeled using a reference noise level of 89 dBA at 3 feet.2, 3
1 Per e-mail coordination with the project applicant on May 15, 2024. 2 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, 2015.
3 It is noted the crowd noise level modeled in SoundPLAN (89 dBA at 3 feet) is most representative for weddings and other large gatherings/events that would be allowed as part of the CUP. The measured event noise levels obtained by Kimley- Horn on June 15, 2024, did not include a large or “loud” crowd and was not identified as a primary noise source. 507
kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
Exhibit 3: Noise Measurement Locations
508
kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 Inputs to the SoundPLAN model also included existing elevations and topography, ground surfaces, walls, and the surrounding residences and Redhawk Golf Course buildings/structures to best represent acoustic conditions at the project site and surrounding area. A total of 35 receivers were modeled to analyze single-point noise levels at the surrounding residences. The modeled noise levels for the project are provided in Table 4: Private Event Noise Contours and Exhibit 4: Operational Noise Contours.
As shown in Table 4, Pavilion event noise levels at the would range from approximately 31.6 dBA to
64.7 dBA at the surrounding residences and would not exceed the City’s 65 dBA noise standard. In addition, interior noise levels would reach a maximum of 38.7 dBA at the surrounding residential uses and would not exceed the City’s 45 dBA interior noise standard. However, due to the variability of speaker noise levels (i.e., DJ’s can set or increase speaker noise to their desired level) and the general difficulty in managing or controlling crowd noise, it is recommended the maximum noise level from amplified speakers at the Pavilion be limited to 84 dBA at a distance of 50 feet; see Mitigation Measure NOI-1. This maximum speaker noise level would ensure the surrounding residences are not be exposed to noise levels above the City’s noise standards.
Table 4: Pavilion Event Noise Levels
Receptor No.1 Land Use Modeled Exterior
Noise Level (dBA)
Interior Noise
Level (dBA)1
1 Single-Family Residential 62.8 36.8
2 Single-Family Residential 61.9 35.9
3 Single-Family Residential 61.7 35.7
4 Single-Family Residential 59.2 33.2
5 Single-Family Residential 56.6 30.6
6 Single-Family Residential 59.9 33.9
7 Single-Family Residential 62.2 36.2
8 Single-Family Residential 61.5 35.5
9 Single-Family Residential 64.7 38.7
10 Single-Family Residential 61.7 35.7
11 Single-Family Residential 61.4 35.4
12 Single-Family Residential 56.4 30.4
13 Single-Family Residential 49.3 23.3
14 Single-Family Residential 50.1 24.1
15 Single-Family Residential 50.9 24.9
16 Single-Family Residential 53.0 27.0
17 Single-Family Residential 49.7 23.7
18 Single-Family Residential 51.0 25.0
19 Single-Family Residential 43.6 17.6
20 Single-Family Residential 45.4 19.4
21 Single-Family Residential 45.0 19.0
22 Single-Family Residential 44.4 18.4
23 Single-Family Residential 31.5 5.5
24 Single-Family Residential 38.5 12.5
25 Single-Family Residential 38.8 12.8
509
kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
Table 4: Pavilion Event Noise Levels
Receptor No.1 Land Use Modeled Exterior
Noise Level (dBA)
Interior Noise
Level (dBA)1
26 Single-Family Residential 39.7 13.7
27 Single-Family Residential 51.6 25.6
28 Single-Family Residential 54.1 28.1
29 Single-Family Residential 52.0 26.0
30 Single-Family Residential 49.3 23.3
31 Single-Family Residential 48.6 22.6
32 Single-Family Residential 49.8 23.8
33 Single-Family Residential 50.8 24.8
34 Single-Family Residential 53.4 27.4
35 Single-Family Residential 53.6 27.6
Notes:
1. Interior noise levels were calculated assuming an exterior-interior sound reduction of 26 dBA from standard construction practices, per Barbara Locher, et al., Differences between Outdoor and Indoor Sound Levels for Open, Tilted, and Closed Windows, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, January 2018.
Source: SoundPLAN version 9.0. See Appendix A for noise modeling data and results.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1
Noise levels from amplified speakers shall be limited to a maximum of 84 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet, and the speaker location shall be limited to the southeast corner of the Pavilion as shown in Exhibit 2. The DJ, event coordinator, or designated appointee shall complete a noise measurement at 50 feet downstream from (or directly in front of) the amplified speakers prior to event commencement and ensure the noise level does not exceed 84 dBA Leq. The speaker volume shall be iteratively adjusted until a maximum noise level of 84 dBA L eq is achieved.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the project’s operational noise levels would comply with TMC noise standards based on measured noise levels for existing events at the Pavilion. However, Mitigation Measure NOI- 1 is recommended to ensure noise levels from new private events, such as weddings and banquets, do not exceed the City’s noise standards at the surrounding residences. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, a less than significant noise impact would occur.
510
kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
Figure 3: Private Event Noise Contours
511
Appendix A
NOISE DATA
512
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number:95382005
Site No.: Date:6/15/2024
Analyst: Time:2:10 PM
Location:
Noise Sources:
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
48.0 39.4 57.8 87.0
Sound Level Meter:LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F):90 Calibrator:CAL200 Wind (mph):SSW @ 10 mph
Response Time:Slow Sky:Clear
Weighting:A Bar. Pressure:29.83
Microphone Height:5 feet Humidity:36%
Photo:
Equipment Weather
Redhawk Golf Course
ST-1 - Ambient
Miles Eaton
End of cul de sac of Camino Carmago,approximately 450 feet northwest of Pavilion Ambient roadway noises
513
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-_.141.s Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-1.ldbin Meter LxT SE 0007061 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 14:10:49 Duration 0:10:00.0
End Time 2024-06-15 14:20:49 Run Time 0:08:25.4 Pause Time 0:01:34.6 Pre-Calibration 2024-06-15 14:05:04 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 48.0 dB
LAE 75.0 dB SEA --- dB
EA 3.5 µPa²h
LApeak 87.0 dB 2024-06-15 14:15:39
LASmax 57.8 dB 2024-06-15 14:18:13
LASmin 39.4 dB 2024-06-15 14:15:10
LAeq 48.0 dB
LCeq 59.1 dB LCeq - LAeq 11.1 dB
LAIeq 51.5 dB LAIeq - LAeq 3.5 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
48.0 dB 48.0 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
48.0 dB 48.0 dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 48.0 dB 59.1 dB --- dB
Ls(max)57.8 dB 2024-06-15 14:18:13 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min)39.4 dB 2024-06-15 14:15:10 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max)87.0 dB 2024-06-15 14:15:39 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 53.6 dB
LAS 10.0 51.3 dB
LAS 33.3 47.3 dB
LAS 50.0 45.9 dB
LAS 66.6 44.6 dB
LAS 90.0 42.2 dB
514
515
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number:95382005
Site No.: Date:6/15/2024
Analyst: Time:2:41 PM
Location:
Noise Sources:
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
48.1 37.5 60.7 85.8
Sound Level Meter:LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F):90 Calibrator:CAL200 Wind (mph):SSW @ 14 MPH
Response Time:Slow Sky:Clear
Weighting:A Bar. Pressure:29.79
Microphone Height:5 feet Humidity:36%
Photo:
Equipment Weather
Redhawk Golf Course
ST-2 - Ambient
Miles Eaton
Redhawk Golf Course parking lot, approximately 200 feet west of the Pavilion Ambient from roadway
516
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-1.055.s Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-2.ldbin Meter LxT SE 0007061 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 14:41:25 Duration 0:10:00.0
End Time 2024-06-15 14:51:25 Run Time 0:10:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2024-06-15 14:05:02 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 48.1 dB
LAE 75.9 dB SEA --- dB
EA 4.3 µPa²h
LApeak 85.8 dB 2024-06-15 14:43:19
LASmax 60.7 dB 2024-06-15 14:47:30
LASmin 37.5 dB 2024-06-15 14:46:41
LAeq 48.1 dB
LCeq 61.7 dB LCeq - LAeq 13.6 dB
LAIeq 52.0 dB LAIeq - LAeq 3.9 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
48.1 dB 48.1 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
48.1 dB 48.1 dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 48.1 dB 61.7 dB --- dB
Ls(max)60.7 dB 2024-06-15 14:47:30 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min)37.5 dB 2024-06-15 14:46:41 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max)85.8 dB 2024-06-15 14:43:19 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 54.4 dB
LAS 10.0 52.3 dB
LAS 33.3 44.5 dB
LAS 50.0 42.9 dB
LAS 66.6 41.2 dB
LAS 90.0 38.8 dB
517
518
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number:95382005
Site No.: Date:6/15/2024
Analyst: Time:3:17 PM
Location:
Noise Sources:
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
46.5 41.3 65.7 83.3
Sound Level Meter:LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F):90 Calibrator:CAL200 Wind (mph):SSW @ 11 mph
Response Time:Slow Sky:Clear
Weighting:A Bar. Pressure:29.76
Microphone Height:5 feet Humidity:36%
Photo:
Equipment Weather
Redhawk Golf Course
ST-3 - Ambient
Miles Eaton
East of the Pavilion, across the golf course adjacent to residences along Tiburco Drive Ambient
519
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-1.056.s Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-3.ldbin Meter LxT SE 0007061 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 15:17:04 Duration 0:10:00.0
End Time 2024-06-15 15:27:04 Run Time 0:10:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2024-06-15 14:05:02 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 46.5 dB
LAE 74.3 dB SEA --- dB
EA 3.0 µPa²h
LApeak 83.3 dB 2024-06-15 15:17:08
LASmax 65.7 dB 2024-06-15 15:17:04
LASmin 41.3 dB 2024-06-15 15:23:53
LAeq 46.5 dB
LCeq 58.7 dB LCeq - LAeq 12.2 dB
LAIeq 51.1 dB LAIeq - LAeq 4.6 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
46.5 dB 46.5 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
46.5 dB 46.5 dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 46.5 dB 58.7 dB --- dB
Ls(max)65.7 dB 2024-06-15 15:17:04 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min)41.3 dB 2024-06-15 15:23:53 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max)83.3 dB 2024-06-15 15:17:08 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 49.9 dB
LAS 10.0 48.4 dB
LAS 33.3 45.9 dB
LAS 50.0 45.0 dB
LAS 66.6 44.2 dB
LAS 90.0 43.1 dB
520
521
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number:95382005
Site No.: Date:6/15/2024
Analyst: Time:8:05 PM
Location:
Noise Sources:
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
50.0 43.5 58.0 80.8
Sound Level Meter:LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F):72 Calibrator:CAL200 Wind (mph):SSW @ 6 mph
Response Time:Slow Sky:Clear
Weighting:A Bar. Pressure:29.82
Microphone Height:5 feet Humidity:58%
Photo:
Equipment Weather
Redhawk Golf Course
ST-1 - Event
Miles Eaton
End of cul de sac of Camino Carmago,approximately 450 feet northwest of Pavilion Ambient roadway noises. Event music.
522
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-1.057.s Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-1.ldbin Meter LxT SE 0007061 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 20:05:42 Duration 0:10:00.0
End Time 2024-06-15 20:15:42 Run Time 0:10:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2024-06-15 14:05:02 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 50.0 dB
LAE 77.8 dB SEA --- dB
EA 6.7 µPa²h
LApeak 80.8 dB 2024-06-15 20:11:51
LASmax 58.0 dB 2024-06-15 20:06:37
LASmin 43.5 dB 2024-06-15 20:11:07
LAeq 50.0 dB
LCeq 62.2 dB LCeq - LAeq 12.2 dB
LAIeq 52.6 dB LAIeq - LAeq 2.6 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
50.0 dB 50.0 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB 50.0 dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 50.0 dB 62.2 dB --- dB
Ls(max)58.0 dB 2024-06-15 20:06:37 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min)43.5 dB 2024-06-15 20:11:07 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max)80.8 dB 2024-06-15 20:11:51 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 53.1 dB
LAS 10.0 52.2 dB
LAS 33.3 50.4 dB
LAS 50.0 49.5 dB
LAS 66.6 48.5 dB
LAS 90.0 46.2 dB
523
524
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number:95382005
Site No.: Date:6/15/2024
Analyst: Time:8:23 PM
Location:
Noise Sources:
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
50.1 45.9 56.5 83.0
Sound Level Meter:LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F):75 Calibrator:CAL200 Wind (mph):SSW @ 6 MPH
Response Time:Slow Sky:Clear
Weighting:A Bar. Pressure:29.75
Microphone Height:5 feet Humidity:51%
Photo:
Equipment Weather
Redhawk Golf Course
ST-2 - Event
Miles Eaton
Redhawk Golf Course parking lot, approximately 200 feet west of the Pavilion Ambient from roadway, music, patrons
525
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-1.058.s Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-2.ldbin Meter LxT SE 0007061 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 20:23:06 Duration 0:10:00.0
End Time 2024-06-15 20:33:06 Run Time 0:10:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2024-06-15 14:05:02 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 50.1 dB
LAE 77.9 dB SEA --- dB
EA 6.8 µPa²h
LApeak 83.0 dB 2024-06-15 20:32:50
LASmax 56.5 dB 2024-06-15 20:32:59
LASmin 45.9 dB 2024-06-15 20:29:40
LAeq 50.1 dB
LCeq 64.8 dB LCeq - LAeq 14.7 dB
LAIeq 52.2 dB LAIeq - LAeq 2.1 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
50.1 dB 50.1 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB 50.1 dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 50.1 dB 64.8 dB --- dB
Ls(max)56.5 dB 2024-06-15 20:32:59 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min)45.9 dB 2024-06-15 20:29:40 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max)83.0 dB 2024-06-15 20:32:50 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 52.2 dB
LAS 10.0 51.7 dB
LAS 33.3 50.4 dB
LAS 50.0 49.7 dB
LAS 66.6 49.1 dB
LAS 90.0 48.1 dB
526
527
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number:95382005
Site No.: Date:6/15/2024
Analyst: Time:8:41 PM
Location:
Noise Sources:
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
48.7 43.0 55.1 78.8
Sound Level Meter:LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F):75 Calibrator:CAL200 Wind (mph):SSW @ 6 mph
Response Time:Slow Sky:Clear
Weighting:A Bar. Pressure:29.75
Microphone Height:5 feet Humidity:51%
Photo:
Equipment Weather
Redhawk Golf Course
ST-3 - Event
Miles Eaton
East of the Pavilion, across the golf course adjacent to residences along Tiburco Drive Ambient, event
528
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-1.059.s Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-3.ldbin Meter LxT SE 0007061 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 20:41:34 Duration 0:10:00.0
End Time 2024-06-15 20:51:34 Run Time 0:10:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2024-06-15 14:05:02 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 48.7 dB
LAE 76.5 dB SEA --- dB
EA 4.9 µPa²h
LApeak 78.8 dB 2024-06-15 20:41:51
LASmax 55.1 dB 2024-06-15 20:44:48
LASmin 43.0 dB 2024-06-15 20:41:35
LAeq 48.7 dB
LCeq 61.5 dB LCeq - LAeq 12.8 dB
LAIeq 50.7 dB LAIeq - LAeq 2.0 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
48.7 dB 48.7 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB 48.7 dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 48.7 dB 61.5 dB --- dB
Ls(max)55.1 dB 2024-06-15 20:44:48 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min)43.0 dB 2024-06-15 20:41:35 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max)78.8 dB 2024-06-15 20:41:51 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 50.8 dB
LAS 10.0 50.3 dB
LAS 33.3 49.0 dB
LAS 50.0 48.5 dB
LAS 66.6 47.9 dB
LAS 90.0 46.8 dB
529
530
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number:95382005
Site No.: Date:6/15/2024
Analyst: Time:9:00 PM
Location:
Noise Sources:
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
74.6 66.0 80.8 94.6
Sound Level Meter:LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F):69 Calibrator:CAL200 Wind (mph):SSW @ 5 mph
Response Time:Slow Sky:Clear
Weighting:A Bar. Pressure:29.79
Microphone Height:5 feet Humidity:63%
Photo:
Equipment Weather
Redhawk Golf Course
ST-4 - Event
Miles Eaton
End of driveway, north of the pavilion
Ambient from roadway, music, patrons
531
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-1.060.s Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-4.ldbin Meter LxT SE 0007061 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 20:59:46 Duration 0:10:00.0
End Time 2024-06-15 21:09:46 Run Time 0:10:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2024-06-15 14:05:02 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 74.6 dB
LAE 102.4 dB SEA --- dB
EA 1.9 mPa²h
LApeak 94.6 dB 2024-06-15 21:03:07
LASmax 80.8 dB 2024-06-15 21:03:10
LASmin 66.0 dB 2024-06-15 21:05:16
LAeq 74.6 dB
LCeq 83.8 dB LCeq - LAeq 9.2 dB
LAIeq 77.4 dB LAIeq - LAeq 2.8 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
74.6 dB 74.6 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB 74.6 dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 74.6 dB 83.8 dB --- dB
Ls(max)80.8 dB 2024-06-15 21:03:10 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min)66.0 dB 2024-06-15 21:05:16 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max)94.6 dB 2024-06-15 21:03:07 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 77.9 dB
LAS 10.0 77.2 dB
LAS 33.3 74.9 dB
LAS 50.0 74.0 dB
LAS 66.6 73.1 dB
LAS 90.0 71.1 dB
532
533
12 3
4 5
SoundPLAN Receiver
Locations
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
534
Limit Single Points
No.Floor Name Usage Direction Lr,lim Leq,d
[dB(A)][dB(A)]
1 G 1 GR 65 62.8
2 G 2 GR 65 61.9
3 G 3 GR 65 61.7
4 G 4 GR 65 59.2
5 G 5 GR 65 56.6
6 G 6 GR 65 59.9
7 G 7 GR 65 62.2
8 G 8 GR 65 61.5
9 G 9 GR 65 64.7
10 G 10 GR 65 61.7
11 G 11 GR 65 61.4
12 G 12 GR 65 56.4
13 G 13 GR 65 49.3
14 G 14 GR 65 50.1
15 G 15 GR 65 50.9
16 G 16 GR 65 53.0
17 G 17 GR 65 49.7
18 G 18 GR 65 51.0
19 G 19 GR 65 43.6
20 G 20 GR 65 45.4
21 G 21 GR 65 45.0
22 G 22 GR 65 44.4
23 G 23 GR 65 31.5
24 G 24 GR 65 38.5
25 G 25 GR 65 38.8
26 G 26 GR 65 39.7
27 G 27 GR 65 51.6
28 G 28 GR 65 54.1
29 G 29 GR 65 52.0
30 G 30 GR 65 49.3
31 G 31 GR 65 48.6
32 G 32 GR 65 49.8
33 G 33 GR 65 50.8
34 G 34 GR 65 53.4
35 G 35 GR 65 53.6
Redhawk Golf Course Events
Receiver table2 - Receiver table
Kimley-Horn 445 24th St, Suite 200 Vero Beach, FL 32960 USA 1 / 1
SoundPLANnoise 9.0
Kimley-Horn, 1100 Town and Country Rd, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 SoundPLAN Receiver Table
535
Redhawk Golf Course - Specific Plan Amendment
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Appendix B
Traffic Memorandum
536
kimley-horn.com 3801 University Avenue, Suite 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951 543 9868
July 3, 2024
Eric Jones
City of Temecula
Planning Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Traffic Memorandum for the Proposed Redhawk Specific Plan Amendment Project in the City of Temecula
Dear Mr. Jones:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has prepared a traffic memorandum to evaluate trip generating characteristics and a qualitative Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) assessment of the proposed Redhawk Specific Plan Amendment Project (the “Project”).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site is located in the southern portion of the City of Temecula (City). The Project proponent is seeking a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for additional event types to be hosted within the existing Redhawk Golf Course Pavilion. Currently, the Redhawk Golf Course Pavilion is used to host golf-related events. The previous minor modification allowed the existing Pavilion to host up to 144 guests, according to Statement of Operations from the previous minor modification. The golf course is adequately parked with 204 parking stalls total, inclusive of 5 accessible parking stalls. Generally, according to historical operational informatio n provided by the Project Applicant, during events the majority of guests will arrive with multiple people in one vehicle or utilize rideshare services, reducing the demand on parking spaces at the golf course.
The CUP would allow other events similar to the current golf-related events, such as weddings, banquets, birthdays, community outreach events, or any other private events. No new structures are proposed or would be developed as part of the Project. The CUP does not propose changes to the existing hours of operations, lighting, or parking for the Pavilion. Private events would be allowed 7 days per week. Events would continue to be allowed from 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm with all amplified noise ending at 9:45 pm, and subject to the City’s noise ordinance.
TRIPS AND TRAFFIC
A summary of the existing golf course operations trip generation is provided in Table 1, Summary of Existing Project Trip Generation. Trip generation rates were determined based on data provided by the Project Applicant and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. ITE Land Use designations are limited and may not 537
kimley-horn.com 3801 University Avenue, Suite 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951 543 9868
encompass the utility of certain land uses, as not enough real -world data have been collected to provide a representative trip rate. The ITE Land Use for golf courses (ITE Code 430) is used. The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not contain trip generation rates for special events. To provide accurate trip generation estimates, the Project Applicant, Redhawk Golf Course, provided information related to the maximum number of attendees allowed during any specific event.
Under the previous minor modification to construct the Pavilion, up to 144 guests were allowed per special event. The previously defined assumption that guests would arrive one to a vehicle would represent 144 one-way trips per event. However, based on information obtained from the project Applicant, most guests arrive via carpool or ride share services and therefore would result in fewer trips per event. To maintain a conservative analysis, a carpool rate of 40 percent is assumed, resulting in 86 trips in and 86 trips out of each event (172 event trips total), with the incoming trips occurring during the evening peak hour . As events are planned to end at 10:00 pm, the outbound trips would not occur during the evening peak hour.
Table 1, Summary of Existing Project Trip Generation
Land Use ITE
Code Unit
Trip Generation Rates1
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Golf Course 430 Holes 30.38 1.39 0.37 1.76 1.54 1.37 2.91 Special
Events N/A N/A - - - - - - -
Land Use ITE
Code Unit
Trip Generation Estimates
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Golf Course Holes 547 25 7 32 28 25 53
Special Events N/A 172 0 0 0 86 0 86
Total Project Trips 719 25 7 32 114 25 139
1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition.
Project-related traffic would be identical to the existing condition at the Redhawk Golf Course and existing Pavilion. As such, the Project would not increase traffic or trips at the Pavilion for special events; rather, the proposed Project would allow these special events (and associated trips) to be non-golf related events. Further, the Project does not propose an expansion of uses, facilities, or other factors of the existing site that could possibly result in increased intensity of uses and associated trips. Therefore, for the purposes of environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Project would not result in an “increase” in daily traffic at the Redhawk Golf Course or its Pavilion during Project operations. Further, special event guests would likely use carpooling or ride sharing services at a greater percentage than that which has been assumed in this Memorandum.
538
kimley-horn.com 3801 University Avenue, Suite 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951 543 9868
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
SB 743 was approved by the California legislature in September 2013. SB 743 required changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically directing the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop alternative metrics to the use of vehicular “Level of Service” (LOS) for evaluating transportation projects. OPR has updated guidelines for CEQA and written a technical advisory for evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA and set a deadline of July 2020. OPR has recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replace also as the primary measure of transportation impacts. OPR Technical Advisory suggests that the City may screen out VMT impact using project size, maps, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less -than significant impact without conducting a detailed study. The City of Temecula has published the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (May 2020) as recommended guidelines for analyzing transp ortation impacts of proposed projects. The City provides screening criteria for CEQA VMT analyses for land use projects which consist of seven total criteria. These criteria are:
1) Small residential and employment projects
a. Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips (trips are based on the number of vehicle trips after any alternative modes/location -based adjustments are applied) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
2) Projects located near a major transit stop/high quality transit corridor a. Projects located within a half mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor2 may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project:
i. Has a Floor Area Ratio of less than 0.75.
ii. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the City.
iii. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units.
3) Projects located in a VMT efficient area
a. A VMT efficient area is any area with an average VMT per service population 15% below the baseline average for the WRCOG region. Land use projects may qualify for the use of VMT efficient area screening if the project can be reasonably expected to generate VMT per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the VMT efficient area. Projects located within a VMT efficient area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
4) Locally serving retail projects
a. Local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to 539
kimley-horn.com 3801 University Avenue, Suite 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951 543 9868
have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
Local serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel.
5) Locally serving public utilities
a. Public facilities that serve the surrounding community or public facilities that are passive use may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
6) Redevelopment projects with greater VMT efficiency
a. A redevelopment project may be presumed to have a less than significant impact if the proposed project’s total project VMT is less than the existing land use’s total VMT.
7) Affordable housing
a. An affordable housing project may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
Based on the VMT screening criteria and the assumed trips generated as a result of hosting additional events at the pavilion, the Project would meet criterion one as a small residential and employment project as it would not generate or add new trips in excess of 110 daily trips. Refer to Table 1. As previously discussed, the Project is consistent with the existing operations of the golf course special events and Project related traffic would be identical to the existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not result in an increase in daily traffic or VMT at the Redhawk Golf Course. Further, it is likely that special event guests would carpool or use ride share services at a greater rate than what has been assumed for this Memorandum which would have a further VMT reducing effect. Therefore, the Project would not cause a significant impact with respect to VMT.
Conclusion
Per the City of Temecula’s published Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, projects that generate or add fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips do not require a VMT analysis and the VMT impact is considered less than significant . The Project would operate consistently with the existing operations and would not add new trips at the Redhawk Golf Course. As such, the Project impacts related to transportation would be less than significant.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Miles Eaton, P.E.
540
TR
2 3
0 6
3 -
8 MB
2 4
7 /
1 0
-
1 7
ZO
N
E
S
P
-
9 SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
RES
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
TR
2 8
9 8
0 M
B
2 9
1 /
8 4
-
8 7
ZO
N
E
S
P
-
9 SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
I
Y
RES
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
TR
2 3
0 6
3 -
7 MB
2 4
3 /
6 3
-
7 1
ZO
N
E
S
P
-
9 SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
PA
R
C
E
L
1 PM
2 4
3 8
7 PM
1 6
4 /
5 -
2 0
ZON
E
S
P
-
9 GO
L
F
C
O
U
R
S
E
CIVIL ENGINEER:
DATA TABLE:
RAINBOW BRIDGE MANAGEMENT, LLC
PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF P.M. NO.24387 PMB 164/5-70
IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA CALIFORNIA
BUILDING SUMMARY:
EASEMENT NOTES:
LEGEND
OWNER & APPLICANT:
PARKING CALCULATIONS:
UTILITIES:NOTE:
EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
P:\TEC\1100's\1180-1\DWG\1180-1_CUP.dwg, 10/17/2023 11:42:06 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 (INCLUDES REQUIRED 5 ADA SPACES)
7046
194
GOLF COURSE:
6 SPACES / HOLE
REQUIRED SPACES: 108
PA23-0251
5-28-2025 CUP PA23-0251 SHEET 1 OF 3
SITE PLAN FOR
SHEET INDEX
1. SITE PLAN
2. FLOOR PLANS
3. REQUIRED DJ AREA LOCATION
541
EXISTING PROSHOP
EXISTING ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
EXISTING EVENT PAVILION
PLUMBING FIXTURE CALCULATION:
DINING 1140 S.F./30 S.F. = 38 OCCUPANTS
KITCHEN 500 S.F./200 S.F. = 2.5 OCCUPANTS
STORAGE 70 S.F./300 S.F. = 0.2 OCCUPANTS
MEN GUESTS 21
WATER CLOSESTS REQ'D: 1
LAVATORIES REQ'D:1
WOMEN GUESTS 21
WATER CLOSESTS REQ'D: 1
LAVATORIES REQ'D:1
EXISTING CANTINA
PLUMBING FIXTURE CALCULATION:
ASSEMBLY AREA 3,200 S.F./25 S.F.=130 OCCUPANTS
MEN GUESTS 65
WATER CLOSESTS REQ'D: 2
LAVATORIES REQ'D:2
WOMEN GUESTS 65
WATER CLOSESTS REQ'D: 2
LAVATORIES REQ'D:2
1 DRINKING FOUNTAIN REQ'D
PLUMBING FIXTURE FACILITY SUMMARY:
MEN
TOTAL WATER CLOSESTS REQ'D:5
TOTAL WATER CLOSESTS PROVIDED: 3
URINALS PROVIDED 2
TOTAL LAVATORIES REQ'D:5
TOTAL LAVATORIES PROVIDED:5
WOMEN
WATER CLOSESTS REQ'D:5
WATER CLOSESTS PROVIDED:7
LAVATORIES REQ'D:5
LAVATORIES PROVIDED:5
DRINKING FOUNTAIN REQ'D 1
DRINKING FOUNTAIN PROVIDED 1
EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE
P:\TEC\1100's\1180-1\DWG\1180-1_CUP.dwg, 10/17/2023 11:42:09 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 DATE: 5-28-2025 CUP PA23-0251 SHEET 2 OF 3
542
TR
2 3
0 6
3 -
8 MB
2 4
7 /
1 0
-
1 7
ZO
N
E
S
P
-
9 SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
RES
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
TR
2 8
9 8
0 M
B
2 9
1 /
8 4
-
8 7
ZO
N
E
S
P
-
9 SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
I
Y
RES
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
TR
2 3
0 6
3 -
7 MB
2 4
3 /
6 3
-
7 1
ZO
N
E
S
P
-
9 SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
REQUIRED DJ SET-UP LOCATION PER APPROVED NOISE STUDY
P:\TEC\1100's\1180-1\DWG\1180-1_CUP.dwg, 10/17/2023 11:42:06 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
DJ AREA LOCATION
PA23-0251
SHEET 3 OF 35-28-2025 CUP PA23-0251
EXISTING EVENT PAVILION
FLOOR PLAN
DJ
AREA
543
EXISTING EVENT PAVILION
FLOOR PLAN
DJ
AREA
544
1 Denise Jacobo
From:Heather Porter <
Sent:Friday, May 1, 2026 7:27 PM
To:Planning Commission
Subject:Hawks Pointe
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.
City of Temecula Planning Commission
To whom it may concern,
Last month my family was left scrambling to find a location for my brother-in-law’s Celebration of Life after his church could not accommodate the service. As a long-time resident of Temecula living in the Redhawk neighborhood, it was essential to find a venue worthy of a husband, father, veteran, and friend. Outside of wineries, suitable options were scarce, many were beyond our budget, and few met our accessibility and logistical needs.
We found Hawks Pointe at Redhawk Golf Club, and it was immediately clear this was the right place. The venue’s ample parking, accessible restrooms, convenient location, and indoor-outdoor spaces allowed our family to focus on honoring my brother-in-law rather than managing logistics. The setting was beautiful and familiar—reminding many of us of his wedding just a few years earlier—and the staff, led by Robbie and his team, welcomed us in our time of grief and guided the planning with compassion and professionalism.
Hawks Pointe consistently demonstrates responsible event management and a commitment to the community. Allowing events at the golf course supports important local needs:
Community gatherings for memorials, fundraisers, and celebrations Economic support for local vendors and service providers Safe, accessible spaces for residents of all ages and abilities Strengthening neighborhood ties by keeping events local and family-friendly For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission allow Hawks Pointe to continue hosting events at the golf course. Doing so preserves an important community resource that served my family in a moment of need and benefits many others across Temecula.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely Heather Porter
545
546
May 5, 2026
Dear Temecula Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my strong support for Red Hawk Golf Club and the meaningful role it plays within our community.
Red Hawk Golf Club is far more than a golf course—it is a beautiful and welcoming venue that serves as a valuable resource for residents throughout Temecula. Having access to such a well-maintained and inviting space enhances the quality of life for our community as a whole. It provides a place not only for recreation, but also for gathering, celebration, and connection.
In particular, the benefit to the Red Hawk community cannot be overstated.
Having such a lovely venue nearby offers residents a unique opportunity to come together in a setting that feels both special and accessible. It fosters a sense of pride and belonging that is difficult to replicate.
I would also like to express deep appreciation for Robbie Snyder’s generosity and community spirit. His willingness to donate the space for high school sports banquets, teachers’ retirement dinners, and other meaningful events speaks volumes about his commitment to building community. These gestures go beyond simple hospitality—they create lasting memories and provide a beautiful setting where people can honor achievements, celebrate milestones, and recognize one another.
Red Hawk Golf Club stands as a shining example of how a local venue can positively impact a community. Its presence enriches Temecula, strengthens neighborhood connections, and reflects the values of generosity and togetherness that make this area so special.
Thank you for considering my support.
Sincerely,
Annalisa Bujas
Annalisa Bujas
Temecula, CA 92592
547
From:Caroline Del Mazzio
To:Planning Commission
Subject:Fwd: Letter of Support- Hawk"s Pointe
Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2026 9:49:48 AM
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 of Temecula Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my support for the Hawk’s Pointe venue located within the Redhawk Golf Club. I understand that a small number of community members have voiced concerns about Hawk’s Pointe operating as an event space, and I would like to share my perspective as a long time Redhawk resident who values both our neighborhood and our local businesses.
I am a second generation homeowner in Redhawk; my in laws built our home in 1993 during the early development of the community. Over the years, we have watched Temecula grow and evolve, and the Redhawk Golf Club, along with its iconic waterfall, has remained a central and cherished part of our neighborhood identity.
The primary concerns I have heard regarding Hawk’s Pointe involve potential increases in noise and traffic. While these concerns are understandable, they do not reflect my experience as a resident living approximately 0.8 miles from the Golf Club. The venue is situated deep within the “Redhawk/Vail Loop,” surrounded by greenway and natural buffers that help contain sound. Additionally, Hawk’s Poinet is required to follow the City of Temecula’s established noise regulations, and the Golf Club has consistently demonstrated itself to be a respectful and responsible member of the community. I am confident they will continue to uphold these standards.
Regarding traffic, the design of the Redhawk/ Vail Loop—thanks to thoughtful original city planning—supports a smooth and logical flow of traffic. Hawk’s Pointe also has ample on site parking, which further minimizes any potential impact on surrounding streets. Based on the venue’s location, layout, and available infrastructure, I do not anticipate traffic becoming an issue.
As the original generation of Redhawk and Temecula homeowners gradually transitions, it is important that we continue to support the local businesses that contribute to the vitality of our community. Hawk’s Pointe has the potential to serve not only as a wedding venue, but also as a space for school dances, sports banquets, community celebrations, and other events that strengthen our connection as neighbors.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you will view Hawk’s Pointe as an asset to South Temecula and a positive addition to the community we all care deeply about.
Warm regards,
Caroline Del Mazzio
548
Frorn: Claudia Candray - TVEA Membership
Subject: Letter of Appreciation
Date: May 5, 2026 at 9:07PM
To: [email protected]
Bcc:
May 5, 2026
Redhawk Golf Course Cup
subject rhank You for Your Generous support of rvEA Recognition and Retirement Ceremony
Dear Robbie Snider,
On behalf of Temecula Valley Educators Association (TVEA), I would like to e)dend my sincerest gratitude for your generous sponsorship of this year's Temecula Valley Educators Association (TVEA) Recognition and Retirement Ceremony
Your support played a pivotal role in the success of our retirement party for over 48 educators from Temecula Valley Unified School District. Thanks to your contribution of allowing us to use your venue, we were able to honor, recognize and celebrate a lifetime of dedicated individuals who have served our community for decades here in the Temecula Valley.
It is partners like Redhawk Golf course cup that allow us to mntinue to recognize, honor and celebrate the dedication of our certificated staff.
Temecula valley Educators Association (TVEA) is proud to consider the Redhawk Golf Course Cup a valuable partner in our community who is willing to give back to the community.
we would be honored to attach a few photos from the event so you can see the direct impact your support had on the educators of this community. We look forward to the possibility of working together again in the future.
With deep appreciation,
Claudia Candray
TVEA Membership Coordinator
549
TTM ECUTA VAI"I.EY TDUCATOR$ ASSOCMTIOH
ft/lay 5, 2026
To Whom lt May Concern,
I am excited to endorse the venue Hawks Pointe at the Red Hawk Golf Club. As educators throughout Temecula, this venue is a resource to the families, students, and larger community There are few venues that commit to serve the community at large by providing a space to gather and celebrate the accomplishments of the students that are residents and from the surrounding area.
This venue adds value to the Redhawk Communig by providing a safe and reasonable space for community members to hold their events without traveling deep into wine country and competing with out of town visitors and out of reach pricing. That is important for student and family groups who are celebrating rnilestones!
The Temecula Valley Educators Association appreciates the opportunity to partner with a venue and community that values its residents and community members. This venue takes the opportunity to emphasize and highlight the roots it has grown in the larger Temecula community, by investing in the heart of our community, our students.
Sincerely,
Edgar Diaz
TVEA President
Temecula Valley Educators Association
29377 Rancho Califomia Rd Suite 206, Temecula, CA 92591 dffiart$&cfrespaderu* f,e*ei'*d
5i06/CSgS pubirc Hearing
l'"effi #3 "{p&&-a327 Ft zS_BZs1 t
r!{ i J\-rr.-1 .-^-.-.-L ' .--J!4, ;'.'' l '- )f::3
Fla*nlng Ce:r:*:,ission;
ior'''yis*snet F{alim
Csrnr&dr.crrE 5..,&s
i'r{*tsrr
City Sf*ff:
t*rit Peter<iElr"{*os .6t os.i
F,aHdr{A{r,of CDi
Lbt']eb [fu3r:qU't$ iA:*.*{A'looreT}
lr{rrEE4 iS{.e4o'yr$
Er. trit#€.r,g:.'1
926**J*xba Ass{)
Eir.Lr.E:
tase
l$r.,ddrrri*
Fla
550
Frorn: Vivi Souvanlasy
Subject: RedHawks GolfCourse CUP
Date: May 5,2026 at 8:33PM
To: [email protected]
Vivi Souvanlasy
Temecula School Teacher
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to expressmy support for the Conditional Use Permit {CUP) application on behalf of Flobbie Snider for the proposedeventvenueatRedhawkGolfCourse.
This venue represents a valuable resource for local residents. Hal/lng a well-managed, thoughtfully designed event space wifiin the community provides a convenient and accessible location for weddin-gs, celebrations, and ga'theririgs wif-rout requiring residents totraveloutsidethearea. lt offers families and neighbors a place to come togedret celebrate milestbnes, aid build stronber c6mmunityconneCIionsinasettingthatisbothandappropriatelyplanned. ln addition, thg. venue brings meaningtul benefits to the broader Temecula communiry * supporF local economic activity byattractinqeventsthatutilizenearby.vendors, caterers, florists, and small businesses. This type-of deveilopment enhances Temecuia'd reputatioi asadestinationforeventswhilekeepingrevenuewithinthelocaleconomy. lt also cre:ijtes opporturiities for local employmentanaiiinnerinips lmportantly, the proposed location within Redhawk Golf Course appears to have been carefully considered. With ample parking andasettingthatissetbackwithintheproperty, the
design helps minimi2e potential impacts such ai noise or crngestion tor s'uiioun"orng - residents. This balance between functionality and respect for the neighborhood id a key strengnh of tre propdid.
Finally, the addition of this venue add$ value to the Hedhawk cornmunity itself. lt enhances the usability ancl appeal of an existing asset, contributes to property. value stahility, and.offers a shared amenity that iesidents can take pride in. Thoughtful'elnnancemeirts titi6 trli tr-etpcommunitiesremainvibrant, relevant, and connected.
For these reasons, I respectfully encourage the Planning Commision to approve the Redhawk Golf Course as an event venue.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
gryFsr.'/td Crcre+r!*Fe ne*ed
ggJ06l8CA€ FubFe l{*aring
fEm dt3 {F423i032I Fqz*fg6'ti
C t t C \:L*"|ifr !'; : fi ? ; t 5
Fl anning Ssc$e{issi$fi ;
C.tu*psses Ttr'-tq-Y,|Bif,
k'is€-Ctleiif €re6fi ll{Ed
gsftFrftdodr*r *le[ir€
Comrlri5r*ffie.SEfrs
Cs'In&*rner 'if*son
City $taff;
lM F.eter {Bil"*c$Er 6t C$,j
rrrtbn H**:lsru &"4. frr, dl *8]
Ew6, tower {fr n$nu$tErusi
lda*rdr nfurroq{'i* {4d" #y*nqilry}
Rnu l*{ore6d {SbEdsrrf 9lf.t}
Veierie f:rr.*guo {"5r'tit d Exq.:l
Ser*E€ J{l:ob<g i$r- " .drne* Aas{9
F,r*lk ShdEr
551
From: Brandon Rabidou
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 12:45 PM
To: Eric Jones ; Denise Jacobo ;
Scott Cooper
Subject: FW: Request a NO Vote for Amendment to Redhawk Specific Plan Please include.
Brandon Rabidou
Assistant Director of Community Development
City of Temecula
951) 506-5142
[email protected]
TemeculaCA.gov
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 Adams
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 12:45 PM
To: Brandon Rabidou
Subject: FW: Request a NO Vote for Amendment to Redhawk Specific Plan Aaron Adams
City Manager
City of Temecula
951) 694-6419
[email protected]
TemeculaCA.gov
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: Stacey Brown
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 9:30 AM
To: Matt Rahn ; Aaron Adams ; Kevin
Hawkins ; Luke Watson ; Matt Peters
[email protected]>; Betsy Lowrey
Cc: Luisa Saylor
Subject: Request a NO Vote for Amendment to Redhawk Specific Plan Mr. Steve Schwartz, TVUSD School Board Member, called asking for MPT Rahn, then asked for the City Manager (in a meeting at the time), and finally (speaking quickly and sounded angry) said like he would like his message to vote “no” for events at Redhawk to be forwarded to the entire City Council. I recall Mr. Schwartz also said he has lived in Redhawk for 22 years and does not want the noise at night.
Upon my research, I believe Mr. Schwartz may be speaking of the February 4, 2026, Planning Committee Meeting Agenda Item 2 (see screenshot below).
Caller ID Phone:
552
Stacey Brown
Senior Office Specialist
City of Temecula
951) 694-6413
[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. 553
Original Message-----
From: Sandi Kimmel ;
Jessica Alexander ;
James Stewart ;
Mat Rahn
Cc: Council Assistant
Subject: Redhawk Golf Course, Event Pavillion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Do not click links or open atachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Esteemed Members of the City Council:
I am wri ng to ask for your assistance on an issue that is very close to home, literally.
For the past 23 years, I have lived in Redhawk right above the waterfall, enjoying my beau ful, peaceful neighborhood. My backyard is a stone’s throw from the Redhawk Golf Course parking lot, and aside from the occasional noise from a live band when there has been a tournament event at the course, I have had no complaints. Un l now.
I atended the public mee ng in October regarding the permit for the golf course to expand the range of uses for the pavilion for all kinds of events, including weddings, banquets, mee ngs, corporate events and other private events. There were many residents atending, voicing their opposi on. No one wants the golf course to default and close, but neither do we want the disrup on that is already apparent. We were promised that the events would end by 9 PM, and that the speakers would face down to mi gate the sound transmi ng through the neighborhood. I le that mee ng with high hopes.
Unfortunately, there have already been loud par es with music heard throughout the neighborhood.
While they might have been within the city’s noise ordinance level, they were totally unacceptable in my backyard. I am not the only resident who talked about it or called Randy Woods.
Though I cannot atend the mee ng tomorrow morning, February 4, due to a prior commitment, I do want to go on the record as being adamantly opposed to this plan. Not only does the noise from the golf course carry long distances, but the noise a er the events con nues as inebriated par cipants con nue their partying into the parking lot. There is o en yelling, revving engines, and other disrup ve sounds that can be heard even through closed windows.
I moved to Redhawk because it promised to be the kind of neighborhood that would be respec ul of the needs of the residents. I absolutely did not choose to live in a commercial area next to a popular event venue. Please deny the golf course this permit.
Thank you for your aten on to this mater and I so appreciate your considera on.
Sincerely,
Sandi Kimmel
Temecula, CA 92592
554
Original Message-----
From: Aaron Adams
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 12:12 PM
To: Steve Schwartz ; Mat Peters ;
Brandon Rabidou ; Randi Johl
Subject: RE: Redhawk
Mr. Schwartz- email received and I will make sure your concerns are logged as part of the public record for the Planning Commission mee ng scheduled tomorrow.
Regards,
Original Message-----
From: Steve Schwartz
Subject: Redhawk
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, I’m just calling to express my concern about allowing Redhawk to have weddings and other events at night on the golf course. A month or so ago I don’t remember the exact date there was a trial and the noise was horrendous and it was a er 10 o’clock at night. If you’re gonna allow them to have events, they should end by 8 o’clock at the latest. Unfortunately, I can’t come to the mee ng as I am on the school board and I have a School Board mee ng at the same me. Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
555
From: Marcel Tsai
Subject: Opposition to Case Nos. PA23-0251 and PA23-0327 – Redhawk Golf Course Wedding/Special Event Proposal
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 Eric,
Thank you for allowing our voices to be heard. Please see my formal opposition letter to the Planning Commission below.
In short, please imagine this proposal borders right on your backyard. Would you be okay with weddings and events taking place right behind your home three days a week, from noon to 9 p.m.? The noise and crowds would seriously disrupt your weekends among other peace, safety, and property rights concerns.
To: Temecula Planning Commission
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am a homeowner whose backyard directly borders the Redhawk Golf Course. My address is 45408 Calle Los Mochis, Temecula Redhawk. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit that would allow weddings and special events at the golf course (Case Nos. PA23-0251 and PA23-0327).
The proposal would permit events from 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., up to three days per week. While I understand the applicant’s interest in diversifying operations, this plan poses serious and ongoing impacts for residents living adjacent to the course.
My primary concerns are:
Noise: Amplified music, microphones, and large gatherings will disrupt the quiet enjoyment of nearby homes and backyards.
556
Frequency: Up to three events per week, often on weekends, will subject residents to recurring disturbances.
Traffic and Parking: Large events will increase congestion and may push overflow parking into surrounding neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Character & Property Values: Converting a golf course into an event center undermines the residential character of Redhawk and risks diminishing property values.
For these reasons, I strongly urge you to deny this proposal. Please protect the peace, safety, and property rights of the community.
Thank you for your attention and for considering the voices of residents who will be most directly affected.
Respectfully,
Marcel Tsai
Temecula CA, 92592
557
From: Wm Kelley
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 1:26 PM
To: Eric Jones
Subject: Response to RedHawk golf course Proposal for Special Event Outdoor Pavilion Use.
Case No. PA23-0251 and PA23-0327
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 Eric,
I am not sure if I will be able to attend the meeting tonight due to health reasons however I wanted you to have this information.
I am in favor of the proposed RedHawk golf course special event pavilion which can be an asset to the community if the homeowners concerns outlined below are addressed. Please note that RedHawk golf course management has been very cooperative and demonstrates a willingness to address any issues that arise with a sense of urgency.
Per our previous conversation, the major concern from homeowners has been the noise levels of the events. Attached below are voice recordings taken on 10/25/25 from inside my home on Tiburcio Drive which is across from the RedHawk golf course outdoor open air pavilion.
This is one recorded example however there have been other events at the pavilion with similar noise levels.
Homeowners in close proximity to this outdoor open air pavillion do not want the possibility of potentially having to hear this level of noise on Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 12pm to 9pm every weekend. Even if a noise meter determines it is at the noise level approved by the city, the echo across the sloped terrain tends to amplify the sound. The community just wants to maintain the residential quality of life we all value. A safe and peaceful community was a major determining factor in us investing in a home in the RedHawk community.
Not being able to open your windows or enjoy your outdoor space in relative peace is of major concern.
Our homeowners request for your consideration, the following suggested options to mitigate our noise level and safety concerns.
1). Lower the noise level standard, limit the number and/or direction of speakers, no commercial disc jockey, rave or concert level equipment allowed, install sound baffling, enclose the space and any other proposals that will mitigate the noise and reverberations. 2). Homeowners would like to confirm that there is on site supervision from RedHawk golf course event management at all events and that homeowners be given a phone number to contact RedHawk Golf course onsite event management directly should any issues arise during an event.
I am in favor of this proposal if mitigation options are addressed.
We appreciate your attention to our communities concerns. Please feel free to contact me if you need clarification or additional feedback.
Respectfully,
William Kelley
President
The Fairways at RedHawk Homeowners Association
Sent from my iPhone
558
From: Marcel Tsai
Subject: Re: Redhawk Golf Course
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 Eric,
Merry Christmas and happy holidays!
Thank you for hearing me out and for including our community’s voices, including my formal opposition letter, in the Planning Commission packet.
Unfortunately, the February 4, 2026 hearing at 10:00 a.m. is not workable, as it falls during standard work hours for me and perhaps many directly impacted residents.
Our request is straightforward and common sense. The proposal would allow weddings and special events immediately adjacent to residential backyards with the following frequency:
Up to 3 events per week
Up to 9 hours per event (12:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.)
Up to 27 hours of event activity per week
Approximately 12 events per month
Over 150 events per year
Most homeowners would not consider recurring amplified music, large crowds, and event traffic just feet from their homes to be reasonable—particularly on weekends.
We hope the Commission will seriously consider the ongoing impacts to neighborhood peace, safety, and property rights.
Thank you for your time. And wishing you much warmth, peace, and joy this holiday season.
Best regards,
Marcel
Get Outlook for iOS
559
VIA-ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL
[email protected]
Date
Supervising Legal Certification Clerk
County of Riverside
P.O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92501-0751
SUBJECT: Notice of Determination for Planning Application Nos. PA23-0327, an amendment to the Redhawk Specific Plan to provide a revision to uses associated with the golf course and add related standards for those uses. PA23- 0251, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wedding/event center to be operated as part of the existing golf course. The project is located at 45100 Temecula Parkway within the Redhawk Specific Plan
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed is the Notice of Determination for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) please find a receipt in the amount of $2,966.75 for the County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City of Temecula is paying the $50.00 filing fee under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee.
Please email a copy of the Notice of Determination within five working days after the 30-day posting to the email listed below.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Eric Jones at (951) 506-5115 or email at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Matt Peters
Director of Community Development
Attachments: Notice of Exemption Form
Electronic Payment - Filing Fee Receipt
[
T
y
p
e
a
q
u
o
t
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
o
r
t
h
e
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
g
p
o
i
City of Temecula
Community Development
41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590
Phone (951) 694-6400 • Fax (951) 694-6477 • TemeculaCA.gov 560
City of Temecula
Community Development
Planning Division Notice of Determination
TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Division County of Riverside City of Temecula
P.O. Box 751 41000 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Determination in compliance with the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code
State Clearinghouse No.: 2025061421
Project Title: Redhawk Specific Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit
Project Location: Located at 45100 Temecula Parkway
Project Description: PA23-0327, an amendment to the Redhawk Specific Plan to provide a revision to uses associated with the golf course and add related standards for those uses. PA23- 0251, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wedding/event center to be operated as part of the existing golf course.
Lead Agency: City of Temecula, County of Riverside
Contact Person: Eric Jones Telephone Number: (951) 506-5115
This is to advise you that the City Council for the City of Temecula has approved the above-described project on , 2026 and has made the following determinations regarding this project:
1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
2. That a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program was adopted for this project.
5. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was not adopted for this project.
6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and based on an initial study, it has been determined the project will not have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project.
561
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared under staff’s direction by Kimley-Horn and was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, and organizations. The Draft MND was made available for public review and comment for a period of 30 days. The public review and comment period for the Draft MND commenced on June 30, 2025, and concluded on July 30, 2025. Notices were mailed to surrounding property owners, a sign was placed on the property, and a notice was placed in the local paper to provide the 30-day noticing period for the public. The City of Temecula received two written comments and responded to each comment in the Final MND, which includes all timely received written comments and responses thereto. Comments were provided by Southern California Gas Company and Riverside Transit Agency.
The environmental analysis identified 19 areas where impacts were found to be less than significant or had no impact at all. These areas are: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forest 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, Population and Housing, Public Service, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. The MND recommends a feasible mitigation measure for those environmental impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant impact. This mitigation is located in the following area: Noise.
This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments, responses, and record of project approval is available to the General Public at the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590.
Signature: Date:
Matt Peters
Director of Community Development
Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office:
562
Notice of Public Hearing
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below.
Case Nos.: PA23-0327 and PA23-0251
Applicant: Robbie Snider with Hawk’s Pointe (Redhawk Golf Course)
Location: 45100 Temecula Parkway
Proposal: PA23-0327, an amendment to the Redhawk Specific Plan to allow a wedding and special event center to be associated with the golf course and add related standards for those uses. PA23-0251, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wedding/event center to be operated as part of the existing golf course between the hours of Noon and 9:00 p.m. no more than three days per week.
Environmental Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration w/ Monitoring Plan
PLACE OF HEARING: 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA
City of Temecula, Council Chambers
DATE OF HEARING: May 26, 2026
TIME OF HEARING: 3:00 PM
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing.
Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice.
The proposed project application may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center, Community Development Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Eric Jones, City of Temecula Community Development Department, (951) 506-5115 or [email protected].
563
Item No. 17
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Ron Moreno, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: May 26, 2026
SUBJECT: Approve Preferred Traffic Striping Configuration for the Pauba Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project, PW25-05
______________________________________________________________________________
PREPARED BY: Nick Minicilli, Principal Civil Engineer
Erick Escobedo, Associate Civil Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council select and approve a preferred striping alternative for Pauba Road, between Margarita Road and Ynez Road, to be implemented as part of the Pauba Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project, PW25-05.
BACKGROUND: On March 24, 2026, the Department of Public Works presented an agenda report requesting the approval of contract documents, the solicitation of construction bids, and recommendation for road diet striping for the Pauba Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project, PW25-05. This project is designed to rehabilitate approximately 1.4 centerline miles (roughly 440,000 square feet) of roadway between Margarita Road and Ynez Road.
During the March 24th meeting, the City Council approved the Contract Documents and authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit constructions bids; however, the Council did not approve the recommended road diet striping configuration for Pauba Road. Instead, the Council requested that staff develop and present additional striping alternatives for further consideration before a final selection is made.
In response to the Council's direction, this report presents a range of striping alternatives. These configurations aim to balance the City's core values of Transportation, Mobility, and Connectivity while addressing specific Council concerns regarding traffic flow and safety.
The primary objective of this meeting is for the City Council to evaluate the three alternatives provided and select a preferred striping plan. Once a configuration is selected, it will be finalized in the project documents to ensure the project remains ready for contract award and construction.
This project supports the City’s Core Values in the Quality-of-Life Master Plan e.g., A Safe and Prepared Community and Transportation, Mobility and Connectivity.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Pauba Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project is included in the City’s Fiscal Years 2026-30 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget and is funded with Measure A and Road Repair and Accountability Act (RMRA) Funds. Sufficient funds are available in the project account to construct the project. 564
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Pauba Road Striping Plan Alternative 1
2. Pauba Road Striping Plan Alternative 2
3. Pauba Road Striping Plan Alternative 3
565
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
S
I
G
N
A
L
A
H
E
A
D
4 0
SCALE: 1"=30'
YNEZ ROAD
ELINDA ROAD
LA PRIMAVERA ST.
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
B
E
L
O
W
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
T
O
P
R
I
G
H
T
S
H
E
E
T
3 P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
A
B
O
V
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
39 39
39A150'
2 YNEZ ROAD
VIA ALTURAS DR.
VIA ALTURAS DR.
VIA ALTURAS DR.
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
LA PRIMAVERA ST.
11 '
11 '
11 '
8'
5 '
7 '
11 '
1 0
'
11 '
11 '
8'
6'
7 '
11 '
11 '
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
15 '
1 1
'
1 2
'
1 1
'
8 '
7 '
11 '
6'
7'
12 '
11 '
1 1
'
6'
7'
1 2
'
1 1
'
9 '
11 '
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
11 '
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
13 '
11 '
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
SCALE: 1"=30'
SCALE: 1"=30'
38 11
'
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
15 '
3829
39 39
39 39
39 39
39 39
39 29
37B225'
105'
105'
22S
4 TP'40'
1 1
TP TYPE IV (L)
TPTYPE IV (L)
TP TYPE IV (R)
TP TYPE IV (R)
TPTYPE IV (L)
CONSTRUCTION NOTES SIGNING AND STRIPING
#
TP
#
TP
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
22150'
38150'
39A150'
22150'
38150'
39A150'
1 1
TP TYPE IV (L)
TPTYPE IV (L)
2(TYP.)
TPTYPE IV (L)
39A150'
TP TYPE IV (L)
29 39A150'
1 39
TP TYPE IV (L)TP TYPE IV (L)
22150'
38150'
29 29TPTYPE IV (L)
TP TYPE IV (L)
39A150'
TP'40'
22150'
38150'
1 1
22160'
38160'
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
TP TYPE IV (L)
TP TYPE IV (L)
39A150'
TPTYPE IV (L)
55'
60'
5 TP TYPE IV (R)
TP TYPE IV (L)39A90'
6 1
2 3
4 5
6 8
7 10
9 87
10 TP
TP
'AHEAD'
'SIGNAL'
39 PROP. CURB AND
GUTTER PER
PW19-20 PLANS.
PROP. CURB AND
GUTTER PER
PW19-20 PLANS.
1 5
'
27B
11 '
7'
6'
12 '
11 '
9'
10 '
3'
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
11 '
7'
6'
12 '
11 '
6'
3'
120' TRANSITION
120' TRANSITION
11 ATTACHMENT 1: ALTERNATIVE 1
1 3
566
CONSTRUCTION NOTES SIGNING AND STRIPING
#
TP
#
TP
2(TYP.)
TP
39A150'
TP '45'
2(TYP.)
SCALE: 1"=30'
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
B
E
L
O
W
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
T
O
P
R
I
G
H
T
S
H
E
E
T
4 PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
A
B
O
V
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
39 3
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
1 1
'
7 '
8 '
1 2
'
1 1
'
8 '
7 '
SCALE: 1"=30'
1 TRINITY TEMECULA CHURCH
SHOWALTER ROADPRIVATE DWY.
PRIVATE DWY.
BRIGHTON RIDGE LN.
CALLE VENTURA
TEMECULA PUBLIC LIBRARY
FIRE STATION 84
IDENTICAL
POINTS
1 11
'
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
1 39A150'
39 32
39A70'39A150'
2(TYP.)
39 2(TYP.)
39 2(TYP.)39
22 38
TP TYPE IV (L)
TPTYPE IV (L)
300'
300'
22 38
TPTYPE IV (L)
150'
150'
11 '
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
TP '45'
2(TYP.)
39 1
39A
2(TYP.)
39 32
125'
32 32
2(TYP.)39
2(TYP.)
39 2(TYP.)
39 2(TYP.)
39 1
1 '
7 '
8 '
1 2
'
1 1
'
8 '
7 '
11 '
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
1 1
'
7 '
8 '
1 2
'
1 1
'
8 '
7 '
3(TYP.)
TP(TYP.)
39A420'
39 3(TYP.)
TP(TYP.)
39A420'1
1 2(TYP.)
39 29
39A100'
39A220'
39A160'
39420'
39220'
3(TYP.)
TP(TYP.)
22150'
38150'
TP TYPE IV (L)
TPTYPE IV (L)
39A70'
TP TPSIGNALAHEAD
32 29
1 2(TYP.)
39 39
TP'HERE'TP'WAIT'
4 4
S
11 '
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
32 8'
8 '
11 '
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
8'
SCALE: 1"=30'
SCALE: 1"=30'
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
T
O
P
R
I
G
H
T
S
H
E
E
T
2 32
TPTYPE IV (L)
11 '
5'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
10 '
39 38200'
200'29
1 TP TYPE IV (R)TP TYPE IV (R)
11 10
1 2
3 4
5 6
8 7
10 9
11 6
87 4
TPTYPE IV (L/R)
ATTACHMENT 1: ALTERNATIVE 1
2 3
567
SI
G
N
A
L
AH
E
A
D
BI
K
E
L
A
N
E
CONSTRUCTION NOTES SIGNING AND STRIPING
#
TP
#
TP
TP '45'
SCALE: 1"=30'
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
A
B
O
V
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
39 4
11 '
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
1 39A150'
22 38 TP TYPE IV (L)
TPTYPE IV (L)
11 '
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
39A
2932
100'
22200'
38200'TP
TP
SIGNAL
AHEAD
TP'HERE'TP'WAIT'
4 S7
'
8 '
1 1
'
5 '
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
T
O
P
R
I
G
H
T
S
H
E
E
T
3 PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
B
E
L
O
W
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
CALLE CAMELLIA PRIVATE DWY.PRIVATE DWY.PRIVATE DWY.
MARGARIT
A
R
O
A
D
MARGARIT
A
R
O
A
D
PRIVATE DW
Y
.PRIVATE DW
Y
.
11 '
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
8'
15 '
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
11 '
7'
12 '
8'
7'
11 '
1 1
'
1 1
'
1 1
'
1 1
1 1
3(TYP.)
TP(TYP.)
39A200'
39 39A150'
2(TYP.)
4 39120'
38120'
39 39A100'
2 (TYP.)
39 2(TYP.)
39A260'
29 100'
100'
22 38 TP TYPE IV (L)
TPTYPE IV (L)
100'
100'
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
39 39
39 32
39 39
2(TYP.)
39 2(TYP.)
4 4
SCALE: 1"=30'
TP TYPE IV (L)
TPTYPE IV (L)
TP TYPE IV (R)
TP TYPE IV (R)
6 6
87 10
1 1
7 9
TP TP'AHEAD''SIGNAL'
7 9
7 9
7 9
39A150'
1 2
3 4
5 6
8 7
10 9
11 8'
2 (TYP.)
ATTACHMENT 1: ALTERNATIVE 1
3 3
568
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
S
I
G
N
A
L
A
H
E
A
D
S
I
G
N
A
L
A
H
E
A
D
SCALE: 1"=30'
YNEZ ROAD
ELINDA ROAD
LA PRIMAVERA ST.
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
B
E
L
O
W
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
T
O
P
R
I
G
H
T
S
H
E
E
T
3 P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
A
B
O
V
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
39 39
39A150'
2 YNEZ ROAD
VIA ALTURAS DR.
VIA ALTURAS DR.
VIA ALTURAS DR.
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
LA PRIMAVERA ST.
1 1
'
11 '
1 1
'
8 '
5 '
7 '
11 '
1 0
'
1 4
'
11 '
5'
6'
8 '
11 '
15 '
1 4
'
1 0
'
1 1
'
5 '
8 '
11 '
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
11 '
5'
11 '
10 '
11 '
11 '
5'
SCALE: 1"=30'
SCALE: 1"=30'
38 3829
37B225'
105'
105'
22S
4 TP'40'
1 1
TP TYPE IV (L)
TPTYPE IV (L)
TP TYPE IV (R)
TP TYPE IV (R)
TPTYPE IV (L)
CONSTRUCTION NOTES SIGNING AND STRIPING
#
TP
#
TP
2(TYP.)
1 1
1 39
39A150'
1 1
55'
60'
5 TP TYPE IV (R)
TP TYPE IV (L)39A90'
6 1
2 3
4 5
6 8
7 10
9 87
10 TP
TP
'AHEAD'
'SIGNAL'
PROP. CURB AND
GUTTER PER
PW19-20 PLANS.
5 '
27B
11 '
11 '
5'
10 '
12 '
6'
11 1
1 '
ATTACHMENT 2: ALTERNATIVE 2
1 3
569
CONSTRUCTION NOTES SIGNING AND STRIPING
#
TP
#
TP
SCALE: 1"=30'
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
B
E
L
O
W
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
T
O
P
R
I
G
H
T
S
H
E
E
T
4 PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
A
B
O
V
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
3 PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
SCALE: 1"=30'
1 TRINITY TEMECULA CHURCH
SHOWALTER ROADPRIVATE DWY.
PRIVATE DWY.
BRIGHTON RIDGE LN.CALLE VENTURA
TEMECULA PUBLIC LIBRARY
FIRE STATION 84
IDENTICAL
POINTS
1 1
11 '
5'
11 '
10 '
11 '
11 '
7'
1 11
'
5'
11 '
10 '
11 '
11 '
5'
1 1
'
5 '
1 1
'
1 0
'
1 1
'
1 1
'
5 '
1 1
1 4
4 S
8 '
11 '
5'
11 '
10 '
11 '
11 '
5'
8'
SCALE: 1"=30'
SCALE: 1"=30'
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
T
O
P
R
I
G
H
T
S
H
E
E
T
2 11
'
11 '
10 '
11 '
11 '
5'
5'
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 8
7 10
9 11
ATTACHMENT 2: ALTERNATIVE 2
2 3
570
B
I
K
E
L
A
N
E
CONSTRUCTION NOTES SIGNING AND STRIPING
#
TP
#
TP
SCALE: 1"=30'
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
A
B
O
V
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
4 1
11 '
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
39A100'
4 S7
'
8 '
1 1
'
5 '
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
T
O
P
R
I
G
H
T
S
H
E
E
T
3 PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
B
E
L
O
W
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
CALLE CAMELLIA PRIVATE DWY.PRIVATE DWY.PRIVATE DWY.
MARGARIT
A
R
O
A
D
MARGARIT
A
R
O
A
D
PRIVATE DW
Y
.PRIVATE DW
Y
.
11 '
10 '
11 '
11 '
5'
8'
5'
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
11 '
5'
10 '
11 '
5'
11 '
1 1
'
1 1
'
1 1
'
1 1
1 1
4 39120'
38120'
4 4
SCALE: 1"=30'
TP TYPE IV (R)
TP TYPE IV (R)
6 6
87 10
1 1
7 9
'SIGNAL'
7 9
7 9
7 9
1 2
3 4
5 6
8 7
10 9
11 11
'
11 '
11 '
10 '
11 '
11 '
5'
5'
11 '
ATTACHMENT 2: ALTERNATIVE 2
3 3
571
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
S
I
G
N
A
L
A
H
E
A
D
S
I
G
N
A
L
A
H
E
A
D
SCALE: 1"=30'
YNEZ ROAD
ELINDA ROAD
LA PRIMAVERA ST.
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
B
E
L
O
W
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
T
O
P
R
I
G
H
T
S
H
E
E
T
3 P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
A
B
O
V
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
39 39
39A150'
2 YNEZ ROAD
VIA ALTURAS DR.
VIA ALTURAS DR.
VIA ALTURAS DR.
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
LA PRIMAVERA ST.
1 1
'
11 '
1 1
'
8 '
5 '
7 '
11 '
1 0
'
1 1
'
11 '
8'
6'
7 '
11 '
11 '
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
15 '
1 1
'
1 2
'
1 1
'
8 '
7 '
11 '
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
SCALE: 1"=30'
SCALE: 1"=30'
38 11
'
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
15 '
3829
39 39
39 39
39 29
37B225'
105'
105'
22S
4 TP'40'
1 1
TP TYPE IV (L)
TPTYPE IV (L)
TP TYPE IV (R)
TP TYPE IV (R)
TPTYPE IV (L)
CONSTRUCTION NOTES SIGNING AND STRIPING
#
TP
#
TP
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
22150'
38150'
39A150'
22150'
38150'
39A150'
1 1
TP TYPE IV (L)
TPTYPE IV (L)
2(TYP.)
TPTYPE IV (L)
39A150'
TP TYPE IV (L)
29 39A150'
1 39
TP TYPE IV (L)TP TYPE IV (L)
22150'
38150'
29 39A150'
1 1
55'
60'
5 TP TYPE IV (R)
TP TYPE IV (L)39A90'
6 1
2 3
4 5
6 8
7 10
9 87
10 TP
TP
'AHEAD'
'SIGNAL'
39PROP. CURB AND
GUTTER PER
PW19-20 PLANS.
1 5
'
27B
2(TYP.)
2(TYP.)
120' TRANSITION
11 11
'
7'
8'
12 '
11 '
8'
7'
11 '
5'
11 '
10 '
11 '
11 '
5'
11 '
11 '
5'
10 '
12 '
6'
ATTACHMENT 3: ALTERNATIVE 3
1 3
572
CONSTRUCTION NOTES SIGNING AND STRIPING
#
TP
#
TP
SCALE: 1"=30'
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
B
E
L
O
W
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
T
O
P
R
I
G
H
T
S
H
E
E
T
4 PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
A
B
O
V
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
3 PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
SCALE: 1"=30'
1 TRINITY TEMECULA CHURCH
SHOWALTER ROADPRIVATE DWY.
PRIVATE DWY.
BRIGHTON RIDGE LN.CALLE VENTURA
TEMECULA PUBLIC LIBRARY
FIRE STATION 84
IDENTICAL
POINTS
1 1
1 1
1 1
4 4
S
SCALE: 1"=30'
SCALE: 1"=30'
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
T
O
P
R
I
G
H
T
S
H
E
E
T
2 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
8 7
10 9
11 11
'
5'
11 '
10 '
11 '
11 '
7'
11 '
5'
11 '
10 '
11 '
11 '
5'
1 1
'
5 '
1 1
'
1 0
'
1 1
'
1 1
'
5 '
8 '
11 '
5'
11 '
10 '
11 '
11 '
5'
8'
11 '
11 '
10 '
11 '
11 '
5'
5'
ATTACHMENT 3: ALTERNATIVE 3
2 3
573
B
I
K
E
L
A
N
E
CONSTRUCTION NOTES SIGNING AND STRIPING
#
TP
#
TP
SCALE: 1"=30'
PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
A
B
O
V
E
R
I
G
H
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
4 1
39A100'
4 S7
'
8 '
1 1
'
5 '
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
S
E
E
T
O
P
R
I
G
H
T
S
H
E
E
T
3 PA
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
SE
E
B
E
L
O
W
L
E
F
T
H
E
R
E
O
N
CALLE CAMELLIA PRIVATE DWY.PRIVATE DWY.PRIVATE DWY.
MARGARIT
A
R
O
A
D
MARGARIT
A
R
O
A
D
PRIVATE DW
Y
.PRIVATE DW
Y
.
P
A
U
B
A
R
O
A
D
1 1
'
1 1
'
1 1
'
1 1
1 1
4 39120'
38120'
4 4
SCALE: 1"=30'
TP TYPE IV (R)
TP TYPE IV (R)
6 6
87 10
1 1
7 9
'SIGNAL'
7 9
7 9
7 9
1 2
3 4
5 6
8 7
10 9
11 11
'
10 '
11 '
11 '
5'
8'
5'
11 '
5'
10 '
11 '
5'
11 '
11 '
11 '
11 '
10 '
11 '
11 '
5'
5'
11 '
ATTACHMENT 3: ALTERNATIVE 3
3 3
574
Item No. 18
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Matt Peters, Director of Community Development
DATE: May 26, 2026
SUBJECT: Receive and File General Plan Update – Draft Land Use Report and Concepts ______________________________________________________________________________
PREPARED BY: Jennifer Williams, AICP, Planning Consultant
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file a presentation on the General Plan Update and Land Use Report and Concepts, and provide feedback and direction to staff to inform the development of a proposed Land Use Map.
BACKGROUND: On May 27, 2025, the City Council awarded a contract to De Novo Planning Group for the preparation of a Comprehensive General Plan Update, Climate Action Plan, and Program Environmental Impact Report. The project officially kicked off on June 4, 2025.
Since project initiation, efforts have focused on evaluating existing conditions within the City and conducting outreach to identify community priorities. The City shared news and updates about the project through various ways, including mailers, social media, the City’s website, a dedicated project website (TemeculaCA.gov/GeneralPlan), e-mail blasts, facility postings, Channel 3, and City Council/Commission announcements. In addition, notable community outreach and engagement efforts have included:
1. City-wide mailer sent to all business and residential addresses
2. Formation of, and six meetings with, a General Plan Advisory Committee
3. Five visioning open house events
4. City-wide Vision and Values survey
5. Stakeholder interviews
6. Land Use Concepts Public Workshop
7. City-wide Land Use Concepts survey
8. Meetings with City Council and Planning Commission Ad Hoc Subcommittees
9. Pop up events at Michelle’s Place Walk of Hope, The Last Jam, Art in the Park, and Rod Run
Based on the extensive input received from the community, the project team has prepared a Draft Land Use Report (Exhibit A) which will be covered in more detail during the consultant’s presentation. Some key findings and takeaways captured in the Draft Land Use Report include:
575
1. Temecula is largely built-out; the vast majority of Temecula is fully built out with wonderful residential neighborhoods, established shopping centers, and strong employment hubs. The primary goal is not to reinvent the City, but to fuel its economic engine for the next 20 years.
2. The focus is on smart, targeted reinvestment in specific locations rather than widespread change. The goal is to maintain excellence while ensuring the land use plan remains relevant in a changing world.
Staff is seeking feedback from the Planning Commission on the Draft Land Use Report and Land Use Concepts as a whole, but most specifically on:
1. Four study areas which are identified for targeted reinvestment:
South Town – vicinity of Old Town Front Street south of 1st Street and the area just south of Old Town, near Temecula Parkway, Murrieta Creek, and I-15 Innovation Corridor - vicinity of Overland Drive corridor west of I-15, including the Avenida Alvarado area and surrounding industrial, business park, and employment uses near Abbott and Mt. San Jacinto College Temecula Town Center and Tower Plaza - vicinity of Temecula Town Center (Target, Vons, HomeGoods, and nearby retail and restaurant uses) and Tower Plaza (AMC theater, 88 Ranch, Michael’s and surrounding commercial uses) Commerce to College - vicinity of Promenade Mall, Mt. San Jacinto College, Palm Plaza, and nearby commercial and office areas west of Ynez Road)
2. Districts which are proposed to be used as a tool to direct change and to replace the existing broad “Mixed Use Overlay” land use designation. Each district would have a distinct character reflected in their form, density, and building heights:
Mixed Use Edge
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Mixed Use Core
3. Eight site-specific changes:
Site A – City-Owned Site on Diaz Road
Site B – Solana Way Split Zone
Site C – General Plan and Zoning Map Inconsistency off Calle Medusa Site D – Vacant Lot North of Target
Site E – City-Owned Diaz Triangle
Site F – Boys & Girls Club, Rotary Park, and Temecula Community Center Site G – City-Owned Santiago/Ynez Site
Site H – De Portola Split Zone
The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Land Use Plan at its May 20, 2026 meeting and their feedback and recommendations will be recapped in the consultant’s presentation. Feedback 576
and direction provided by the City Council on the Draft Land Use Report and Concepts will guide the consultants to prepare a proposed Draft Land Use Plan to bring back to the Planning Commission and City Council at future meetings. The proposed Land Use Plan will be the basis of analysis for and inform the preparation of the General Plan Update effort.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Draft Land Use Report
577
APRIL 2026
PREPARED BY DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP AND JZMK PARTNERS
DRAFT LAND
USE REPORT
578
[This page intentionally left blank]
579
3City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Table of Contents
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 General Plan Update Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Draft Land Use Report Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Map of Study Areas and Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Arriving at a Proposed Land Use Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Outreach Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Planning Context ....................................................13 Local And Regional Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Trade Area Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Housing Site Identification (RHNA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Existing Development (Assessed Uses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Land Use Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Land Use Concepts .................................................31 Potential Areas of Land Use Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Study Area 1: Commerce to College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Study Area 2: Temecula Town Center and Tower Plaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Study Area 3: Innovation Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Study Area 4: SouthTown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Next Steps ..........................................................53 Appendix A: .........................................................55 580
4 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
[This page intentionally left blank]
581
City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report 5
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Overview
The City of Temecula initiated its General Plan Update process in June 2025. The General Plan provides policy guidance on land use, housing, transportation, infrastructure, community design, conservation, and other development-related topics. State law requires every city and county in California to prepare and maintain a General Plan.
As part of the General Plan Update process, the City must evaluate the current General Plan Land Use Map (Land Use Map) and other maps in the current Land Use Element, and determine if the land uses and development patterns articulated through the Land Use Map and Land Use Element best reflect the community’s vision for the future of Temecula. The Land Use Map is one of the General Plan’s primary mechanisms for shaping the City’s future development pattern. The Land Use Map assigns a land use designation to each parcel within the city which describes the range of uses allowed and the development intensity permitted on associated parcels. The Land Use Map is currently supported by other maps, such as the Land Use Focus Areas map (current General Plan Figure LU-5) which identifies mixed use overlay, rural preservation, and future growth areas.
The purpose of the Draft Land Use Report is to provide the City with a tool to consider and evaluate potential land use and development pattern changes throughout the City that may be desirable over the next 20 years.à 582
6 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
General Plan Update Overview
The Draft Land Use Report (Report) serves as one of the key deliverables that the City and the consultant team are preparing as part of the General Plan Update process. This Report builds off of an analysis of existing conditions, community input, and discussions with stakeholders and City Staff, and is intended to present land use concepts that implement the Quality of Life Master Plan (QLMP). Readers and users of this Report are encouraged to review all complementary products to better understand the complete picture of land use planning in the City.
Quality of Life Master Plan (Complete)
The Quality of Life Master Plan (QLMP), adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2022, serves as a framework of goals and performance measures that the City uses in its planning and budgeting process. The City conducted a robust public engagement process to assist with development of the QLMP. The QLMP includes a Vision Statement, which will also serve as the Vision Statement for the updated General Plan. Each City Department sets annual service goals in the budgeting process and is measured against those goals during the following year’s budget process. In addition, each project included in the Capital Improvement Program is aligned with the QLMP Core Values and must be justified in terms of how it helps to achieve the Core Value objectives.
Existing Conditions Report (Complete)
The Existing Conditions Report (ECR) establishes a baseline of existing conditions for the Planning Area. Specifically, the Report identifies development patterns, natural resources, socioeconomic conditions, and environmental constraints, and identifies the regulatory environment for each topic. The ECR will serve as a companion document to the General Plan.
583
7City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
General Plan (Upcoming)
California State law requires every city and county to adopt a comprehensive General Plan and update it periodically. The City of Temecula adopted its first General Plan in 1993 and last comprehensively updated it in 2005. The General Plan will present the City’s goals, policies, and implementation strategies for the topics covered (“Elements”) by the General Plan, including Land Use, Community Design, Economic Development, Public Safety, Conservation, Open Space, Air Quality, Circulation, Growth Management and Public Facilities, and Environmental Justice.
Together, these Elements serve as a long-range policy guide for how the City of Temecula will make key planning and development decisions over the next 20 years. The General Plan also provides a framework for how the City will coordinate with Riverside County, neighboring jurisdictions, and other local, regional, State, and Federal agencies on shared planning and development issues.
Climate Action Plan (Upcoming)
A Climate Action Plan (CAP) will be prepared concurrently with the updated General Plan to establish a framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the City’s climate- related risks. The CAP will build on the City’s existing greenhouse gas inventory and related planning documents to forecast future emissions, establish reduction targets, and identify measures related to transportation, energy, water, wastewater, and solid waste. The CAP will also evaluate climate vulnerabilities, including drought, extreme heat, air quality, precipitation, high wind, and wildfire, and identify adaptation strategies to improve community resilience.
Once completed, the CAP will serve as a user-friendly tool to guide implementation, monitoring, and future decision-making in coordination with the General Plan. 584
8 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Program Environmental Impact Report (Upcoming)
A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the General Plan and CAP (the "Project") and will respond to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission and City Council will use the EIR during the public hearing process to better understand the potential environmental effects associated with implementing the Project. The EIR will be prepared concurrently with the General Plan and CAP to facilitate the development of policy documents that are largely self-mitigating.
In other words, as environmental impacts associated with the General Plan and/or CAP are identified, goals, policies, and action programs may be incorporated into the documents in order to reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts.
Draft Land Use Report Structure
As we look to the future, the City of Temecula recognizes and appreciates a simple fact:
there is very little vacant land left to develop. Today, the vast majority of Temecula is fully built out with wonderful residential neighborhoods, established shopping centers, and strong employment hubs.
Because Temecula is already working from a great foundation, the primary goal of this General Plan Update is not to reinvent the City, but to make a strong community even stronger. To do this, the City will look at ways to fuel the City's economic engine over the next 20 years. Rather than widespread changes, the City is focusing on a few strategic areas of opportunity. In these specific locations, careful updates to the Land Use Map can help keep the City's land use plan relevant and strengthen our existing commercial centers by surrounding them with the right mix of complementary uses. These locations are illustrated on Figure 1: Study Areas and Site Locations.
In order to assist with consideration of possible changes to the Land Use Map or other maps in the Land Use Element, four “Study Areas” have been identified. These include:
●Study Area 1: Commerce to College
●Study Area 2: Temecula Town Center and Tower Plaza
●Study Area 3: Innovation Corridor
●Study Area 4: SouthTown
For each Study Area, the Report presents a description of the vision for the Study Area and a series of five maps highlighting the urban design framework, current General Plan land use designations (considered the “No Change” or “Business as Usual” scenario), potential land use changes, and potential "opportunity area" (as described later in this Report) applications that could be evaluated through the General Plan Update process.
Beyond these four Study Areas, the Report also identifies a few individual properties— labeled as Sites A through H—where land use changes might also benefit the community.
For each of these sites, we have presented the current conditions right next to the proposed changes so the public can easily review and consider the ideas. 585
9City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report2 3
STUDY AREAS AND SITES
STUDY AREA 1: COMMERCE TO COLLEGE
STUDY AREA 2: TEMECULA TOWN CENTER AND TOWN PLAZA
STUDY AREA 3: INNOVATION CORRIDOR
STUDY AREA 4: SOUTHTOWN
Reimagines the mall area as a mixed-use core with varied densities, connecting MSJC to the Promenade. Expands SP-7 to unify surrounding areas. A north–south open space corridor links the college to this core, supporting a college-to- commerce environment from education to living to jobs, with buildings up to eight stories.
Reimagines the Town Center as a mixed-use district with a density gradient— higher near I-15, transitioning to townhomes toward the east. This approach ensures compatibility with adjacent residential areas while maintaining a cohesive, walkable, and vibrant development pattern.
Reimagines Overland Drive as an Innovation Corridor linking the city’s west edge to I-15, supporting life sciences, technology, and advanced industries.
Anchored by Abbott, it creates a hub for high-quality jobs, education, and long-term economic growth.
Reimagines the area south of the arch as a creative mixed-use district oriented to the creek, with studios, live/work spaces, and workforce housing. Envisions an arts-focused environment with a distinct character, supporting creative industries, vibrant public spaces, and diverse housing options.
A
4 3
2 1
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Site A: City-Owned Property on Diaz Rd.
Stie B: Solana Way Split Zone (Applicant Request)
Stie C: GP/ Zoning Mismatch (Neighbor Request)
Stie D: Vacant Lot North of Target
Ste E: Diaz Triangel (City-Owned)
Site F: Boys & Girls Club, Rotary Park and the Temecula Community Center Site G: Santiago/ Ynez (City-Owned)
Site H: Corona/ Split Zone
1 2
3A B
C
D
E
F G H4
Figure 1: Study Areas and Site Locations
586
10 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Arriving at a Proposed Land Use Map
Temecula community members, the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), Planning Commission, and the City Council will review the information contained in this Draft Land Use Report and provide their feedback on the ideas presented. This feedback will be assembled and consolidated into a citywide map called the “Proposed Land Use Map” which will be a combination of the desirable land use concepts presented in this Report.
Preparation of the Draft Land Use Report, and later the Proposed Land Use Map, does not reflect final policy direction or adoption of a new Land Use Map. The information contained in the Report and direction provided by the community and stakeholders will help guide the path forward on the City’s General Plan Update. Ultimately, the Proposed Land Use Map, along with the entire General Plan and Climate Action Plan, will be comprehensively analyzed in an EIR which will evaluate and document all potential environmental impacts, identify ways to mitigate those impacts, and disclose any significant impacts associated with implementation of the Draft Land Use Report that cannot be fully mitigated. The EIR includes preparation of detailed technical studies including a traffic impact analysis, water and wastewater infrastructure analysis, noise analysis, and air quality/greenhouse gas emissions analysis. Additionally, a fiscal impact analysis of the Draft Land Use Report will also be prepared for consideration alongside the General Plan Policy Document.
The Planning Commission and City Council will review the Proposed General Plan and the EIR at a series of public hearings, which will include time for public comment. These hearings will be noticed in accordance with all public hearing requirements, and ample time will be devoted to considering the project for adoption.
As part of the public hearing process, the City Council can make changes to the General Plan, including the Land Use Map, prior to its approval. It should be noted that if the Council requests significant changes to the Land Use Map, it is possible additional technical or environmental analysis will be necessary to ensure that all potential land use changes are adequately analyzed and considered.
The City of Temecula’s official Land Use Map will only be updated upon City Council adoption of the General Plan and certification of the Environmental Impact Report. Until such time, the City’s current Land Use Map remains fully applicable and in effect.
Outreach Process
The Study Areas and individual parcels analyzed in this Report were identified through an extensive outreach process that included public input received at five community Visioning Open Houses, an online Vision and Values survey, GPAC recommendations, stakeholder input, City Staff insights, and input from the City’s Commissions, Committees, and City Council. Key phases of the outreach approach are described below and are further documented in the Vision and Values Outreach Summary Report available online (the intent of the Summary Report is to present the information received and identify key themes, without assigning priority to individual comments).
587
11City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Community Visioning Workshops
The City hosted five community visioning open houses between September and October 2025. These open houses were held across multiple neighborhoods and were designed to solicit input on the General Plan and CAP. Each open house included a brief overview of the General Plan, including why it’s important and why the City is updating its Plan, along with a series of facilitated activities to solicit input on key topics related to Temecula’s future.
At the open houses, participants completed a land use mapping activity designed to identify geographic locations in the community that may warrant special land use attention; the activity included one citywide map and four larger-scale maps of South, North, Central, and West of I-15 Temecula to make it easier for the public to comment on specific areas of the City. Based on this input, potential areas for future development, areas of concern, and notable urban design features and roadways were identified. More than 150 community members participated across the five open houses. As part of the overall outreach process, the City also gathered input on community assets, challenges, vision, mobility, and sustainability. Input collected from the public formed the basis of the Community Vision Plan that anchors the General Plan, and the outreach summary documents key themes that will inform the General Plan vision, goals, policies, and related land use direction What we hear that the Temecula community values…
●Family-Friendly Atmosphere and Strong Sense of Community ●High Quality of Life, Safety, Cleanliness, and Well-Maintained Neighborhoods ●Parks, Open Space, and Recreation Programs
●Temecula’s Small-Town Charm, Old Town, Wine Country, and Community Identity ●Balanced Growth that Protects Open Space and Community Character ●Mobility, Traffic Relief, and Safe Walking, Biking, Trail, and Transit Connections ●Economic Vitality, Local Jobs, and a Range of Shopping and Dining Options ●Variety of Housing Options
●Sustainability, Resilience, and Infrastructure that Keeps Pace with Growth 588
12 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC)
On September 23, 2025, the City Council appointed a GPAC comprised of 18 residents and stakeholders to represent the community at large. The GPAC works with City staff, the City’s consultant team, and the public throughout the General Plan Update process and will make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. Potential land use changes and broader General Plan topics have been discussed by the GPAC over the course of the Committee’s regular meetings.
As of April 2026, the GPAC has met five times and discussed the following topics: vision and values, circulation, economics, and land use, community character, and urban design. Input from these meetings has helped inform the City’s understanding of community priorities and will continue to shape development of the General Plan, including future land use direction and related policy considerations.
The February 2026 GPAC meeting focused on land use, community character, and urban design. During the meeting, GPAC members participated in mapping and workshop activities to identify opportunity areas, desired land uses, and physical improvements throughout the city. Discussion and input emphasized mixed use redevelopment and adaptive reuse in the mall/Town Center area, Old Town and Uptown, and along Temecula Parkway; improved walkability, trail connectivity, and multimodal access; preservation and enhancement of equestrian character and facilities; and additional employment, hospitality, healthcare- support, and innovation-oriented uses in appropriate locations. Public comments and GPAC discussion also highlighted roadway widening concerns, pedestrian safety, neighborhood character, and the importance of community-serving amenities, open space, and trail connections. Collectively, this input provides a clear framework for refining future land use concepts and policy direction as the General Plan Update progresses. Input provided by the GPAC at their February meeting is summarized and presented as Appendix A.
City Council Input
At their regular meeting on February 24, 2026 the City Council received a progress report on the General Plan Update and concurred with Staff’s recommendation to utilize the Vision Statement prepared for the QLMP as the Vision Statement for the General Plan, thereby further aligning the goals, priorities, and further implementation actions associated with these two key planning documents.
589
City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report 13
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
Planning Context
Local And Regional Trends
The City of Temecula is in southwestern Riverside County in the Temecula Valley, at the southern edge of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region.
For the General Plan Update (GPU), the Planning Area includes the City limits, the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), and adjacent unincorporated Riverside County areas that influence Temecula’s long-range growth, services, and community character. The Planning Area is generally bounded by the City of Murrieta to the north/northwest, unincorporated Riverside County to the east and southeast, the Pechanga Indian Reservation to the southwest, and unincorporated San Diego County to the south.
This regional setting is anchored by Interstate 15 and State Route 79 (Temecula Parkway and Winchester Road), which supports Temecula’s role as a subregional retail, employment, and visitor destination, with distinctive community character shaped by Old Town, Wine Country, and a valley-and-foothill landscape. Temecula’s physical form is strongly influenced by topography: most urban development occurs on the valley floor, while surrounding hillsides and ridgelines constrain development and frame scenic views. Ground elevations in the Planning Area span approximately 800 to 2,100 feet, with higher slope areas frequently preserved as open space or developed at lower intensities.
Temecula experienced rapid growth during the 1990s and 2000s through a robust specific plan framework. More recently, growth has moderated as much of the valley has developed and remaining opportunities are increasingly defined by the availability of infill and redevelopment sites, corridor evolution, and infrastructure and environmental constraints. California Department of Finance (DOF) population and housing estimates indicate that Temecula had approximately 112,220 residents and 38,654 housing units as of January 1, 2025. SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 growth forecast (as summarized by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)) projects continued population growth for Temecula to approximately 120,300 residents by 2050 (about seven percent), while the broader Trade 590
14 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Area1 is projected to grow from approximately 450,185 residents in 2025 to about 507,900 residents by 2050 (about 13 percent), and Riverside County is projected to grow from approximately 2.50 million residents in 2025 to about 2.99 million residents by 2050 (about 20 percent). Employment growth is also projected to outpace Temecula in surrounding areas, even as Temecula’s jobs are projected to increase from about 51,070 (2022) to about 73,100 by 2050.
Temecula’s growth and market context presents several interrelated issues that influence land use planning. As the community approaches a more built-out pattern, limited vacant land and hillside constraints increase the importance of targeted infill and redevelopment and elevate the need to coordinate land use change with infrastructure capacity and environmental requirements. In addition, Temecula operates within a highly competitive regional retail environment; recent fiscal and market indicators show declining sales tax market share over time and suggest ongoing retail leakage and a need to reinvest in and reposition aging commercial centers to remain viable amid changing “brick-and-mortar” demand. Economic trends also reflect jobs-housing and commuting dynamics, where Temecula functions as a subregional employment node while many higher-wage residents commute out and lower-wage workers commute in, reinforcing the importance of protecting and modernizing employment nodes, and supporting economic diversification. Finally, demographic and household shifts, including an aging population and declining household size, are changing housing needs toward a broader range of housing types, including options for young households, generational living, workforce housing, and seniors, while the City must continue to plan for regional housing obligations and household growth forecasts.
These trends reflect Temecula’s more built-out land use pattern and reinforce its long-term planning imperative: continue to build greatness while maintaining excellence in support of providing the highest quality of life for the community. 1 Consistent with the City’s economic development benchmarking and the EPS analysis prepared for the GPU, the Trade Area includes the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Menifee, Lake Elsinore, and Wil- domar; select data also include the community of French Valley. 591
15City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Trade Area Comparisons
Key socio-economic, market, and fiscal trends for Temecula are summarized below in comparison to the surrounding Trade Area communities that most influence (and are influenced by) Temecula’s housing, retail, and employment markets. Trends are also compared to Riverside County overall.
Population Growth
Between 2015 and 2023, EPS reported that Temecula’s population increased by about three percent (from 107,153 to 110,404) while households increased by about eight percent (from 32,835 to 35,423), reflecting shrinking household sizes. Over the same period, the Trade Area grew more quickly, about 15 percent in population and 19 percent in households, illustrating ongoing growth pressure and market competition in Southwest Riverside County.
Aging Demographic
Regional age-cohort patterns indicate a growing share of older residents and a declining share of households with children across Temecula and its Trade Area. EPS reported that the proportion of households with children in Temecula declined from 47 percent to 43 percent between 2015 and 2023, consistent with Trade Area and County trends. As the City matures, this “aging in place” pattern can increase demand for smaller units, accessible housing, and neighborhood-serving services, and it reinforces the importance of land use strategies that expand housing options, particularly attached and mixed use products, while maintaining compatibility with established single-family neighborhoods.
Housing Costs
Temecula’s housing market reflects strong demand and comparatively high prices within Southwest Riverside County. EPS reported that in 2023 the median single-family home price in Temecula was approximately $730,224, about 15 percent higher than the Trade Area ($634,896) and about 35 percent higher than Riverside County ($528,505). Multifamily rents have also increased over the past decade and have recently stabilized; EPS reported average rents of approximately $2,290 in Temecula in 2025 compared to approximately $2,249 in the Trade Area and $1,855 in Riverside County. Temecula’s housing stock also differs from its peers: in 2023, renters represented about 32 percent of occupied units in Temecula compared to 27 percent in the Trade Area, and multifamily units represented about 19 percent of Temecula’s housing stock compared to 13 percent in the Trade Area.
Despite this, Temecula has grown more slowly than the rest of the trade area due to less vacant land. The City has increased the variety and types of units available for development in locations that are near services and/or can serve as a catalyst for redevelopment. 592
16 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Jobs
Temecula functions as a regional employment center within Southwest Riverside County.
EPS reported approximately 51,070 jobs in Temecula (2022 Longitudinal Employer- Household Dynamics (LEHD)) and a jobs-to-households ratio of 1.44, compared to 0.87 in the Trade Area and 0.95 in Riverside County. Key job sectors in the City include accommodation and food services (about 19 percent), retail trade (about 14 percent), and health care and social assistance (about 11 percent). Commuting patterns indicate that Temecula’s economic role is not fully aligned with resident employment; many residents work outside the City in higher-wage industries, with primary employment destinations including the cities of San Diego, Riverside, Irvine, and Los Angeles , where housing costs are substantially higher. Conversely, the City imports workers for key local industries such as retail and accommodation/food services. This dynamic suggests a dual land use priority:
(1) protect and strengthen Temecula’s employment nodes and business parks to expand local job opportunities, particularly in higher-wage sectors aligned with resident skills and (2) support the development of attainable housing choices that can reduce long commutes and improve the City’s jobs/housing relationship over time.
Commercial Real Estate
Commercial real estate conditions provide additional insight into Temecula’s market role and opportunities for strategic land use change. EPS reported approximately 24.35 million square feet of nonresidential building inventory in Temecula as of Q4 2025, with industrial/ flex uses representing the largest share (about 11.05 million square feet, or 45 percent), followed by retail (about 8.34 million square feet, or 34 percent) and office (about 3.98 million square feet, or 16 percent). Market performance differs by sector: EPS reported industrial/flex vacancy of about 4.1 percent (lower than the Trade Area and County), retail vacancy of about 3.5 percent in Temecula (compared to 4.6 percent in the Trade Area and
7.6 percent countywide), and office vacancy of about 4.4 percent (roughly consistent with the Trade Area and County). Since 2010, however, the Trade Area has added industrial and retail inventory at substantially faster rates than Temecula, contributing to intensifying 593
17City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
competition, particularly for retail tenants and consumer spending. While also highlighting regional demand for employment space. A prior market study summarized by EPS (Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., 2024) indicated that Temecula’s retail development capacity exceeds projected 20-year absorption, while industrial and hotel demand could exceed current land use allowances. Potential land use changes should therefore support a targeted commercial real estate strategy: prioritize preservation, modernization, and expansion of industrial/flex opportunity areas; align office space with higher-wage industries; and facilitate selective reinvestment and repositioning of aging retail areas and corridors rather than broad retail expansion.
Retail Market
Temecula remains the primary retail anchor for Southwest Riverside County and is a major generator of local sales tax revenues. The City’s Temecula Overview Report (January 2026) reported that in 2024 Temecula generated $47.4 million in point-of-sale sales tax revenue and achieved sales dollars per capita of $419, approximately double that of neighboring benchmark cities. The City’s retail success is supported by a large retail inventory (about 8.3 million square feet), strong auto and transportation-related sales activity, and assets such as Promenade Temecula, Old Town, and Wine Country that attract regional and visitor spending.
At the same time, retail trends reflect structural shifts in consumer behavior, e-commerce, and growing regional competition. The Temecula Overview Report noted that Temecula’s sales tax market share declined by approximately 10 percent from 2015 to 2024 as neighboring cities expanded retail capacity. Retail leakage analysis identified unmet demand in multiple categories, including electronic shopping/mail order spending (approximately $453 million in unmet demand, with about 89 percent of spending leaving the City), restaurants (approximately $159 million; 87 percent), special food services such as catering and food trucks (approximately $26 million; 75 percent), and home furnishings and automotive parts (approximately $14 million each). Establishment and employment trends also vary by subarea. Between 2019 and 2024, the Mall subregion declined by 17 retail establishments (-23 percent) and 364 retail jobs (-24.7 percent), while Old Town added one retail establishment (+5.3 percent) over the same period, reflecting the continued strength of destination-oriented environments. Land use concepts should therefore support a “right-sizing” approach that reinforces Temecula’s strongest retail and mixed use areas, improves the adaptability of aging centers, and expands opportunities for dining, hospitality, entertainment, and experience-based commercial uses tied to the City’s identity.
Fiscal Sustainability
Sales tax and other economically productive land uses are central to Temecula’s long-term fiscal health. While Temecula continues to perform strongly as a retail center, recent trends show increasing regional competition and shifts within traditional retail formats, which can affect the stability of sales tax revenues over time. EPS emphasized the importance of aligning land use policy with economically achievable strategies that promote long-term resiliency, such as supporting higher-wage employment sectors, strengthening industrial/flex capacity, and encouraging targeted reinvestment and mixed use evolution in appropriate corridor and activity-center locations. Together, these strategies can help stabilize revenues, support community services, and maintain the quality-of-life assets that underpin Temecula’s market attractiveness.
594
18 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Housing Site Identification (RHNA)
California Housing Element law requires local governments to plan for existing and projected housing needs, including accommodating each jurisdiction’s fair share of regional housing need, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In the SCAG region, RHNA allocations are based on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment process and SCAG’s adopted methodology consistent with State law and regional growth forecasts. The 6th Cycle RHNA planning period covers October 2021 through October 2029.
Temecula’s 6th Cycle RHNA is 4,193 housing units across income categories (very low, low, moderate, and above moderate). The City adopted its 2021–2029 Housing Element on February 8, 2022, and the Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on December 15, 2022. Land use modifications evaluated through the GPU must remain aligned with the certified Housing Element’s site inventory, capacity assumptions, and implementation programs, including the provision of realistic sites and development standards that can facilitate housing production across income levels.
Temecula’s existing land use framework includes several implementation tools relevant to housing capacity and feasibility. These include numerous specific plans that provide area- specific development programs and standards, and the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ), which is intended to facilitate affordable multifamily housing through objective standards and by-right processing for qualifying projects. The GPU will support the City’s housing goals, maintain adequate housing site capacity over time, remove or reduce unnecessary constraints, and support housing types appropriate for a changing demographic profile, while protecting neighborhood compatibility and community character.
In addition to RHNA compliance, State housing policy continues to influence land use planning through streamlining requirements, density bonus law, and related statutes that shape local discretion, objective standards, and the timing of rezoning or program implementation. The GPU provides an opportunity to integrate housing policy drivers with land use concepts that focus growth in areas with access to services, employment, and transportation options.
Existing Development (Assessed Uses)
Temecula’s community character reflects its Wine-Country setting and historic Old Town, combined with established master-planned neighborhoods, nodes of employment, and a citywide system of parks, trails, and open space. Old Town serves as a walkable civic, cultural, and visitor hub, guided by a form-based specific plan that supports historic character, adaptive reuse, and infill opportunities. Citywide design guidance emphasizes high-quality gateways and streetscapes, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to parks and open space, and transitions and buffering where higher intensity uses interface with neighborhoods.
The Riverside County Assessor's Office collects information on existing uses based on assessed use data, as shown in Figure 2. Existing land use patterns are dominated by residential neighborhoods on the valley floor, with multifamily clusters generally located near major corridors and activity centers. Commercial uses are concentrated along Winchester Road, Temecula Parkway (SR-79 South), Rancho California Road, Jefferson Avenue, and within Old Town. Industrial and business park uses are focused along Diaz Road and near the Winchester and Nicolas Road corridors. Public and institutional uses occur throughout the 595
19City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
79 79
79 CALLEC
O
N
TENTO
DA
T
E
ST
D E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
THOMPSON RD
RAIN
BOW
CANYONRD
MURRIETA H O T
S
P R I NGS
R
D
REDH
A
W
KP K WY
L A S EREN
A WA Y
PO
U
R
R
O
Y
R
D
YN
E
Z
R
D
AULD RD
O
L
D
T
O
W
N
F
R
O
N
T
S
T
R A N CHO CALIFORNI A RD
M
A
R
G
A
RITA
R
D
BOREL R D
W
ALCO
TT
L
N
B
USIN
E
SS P
A
R
KDR
JED
EDIAH S MITH RD
A
B
E
L
I
A
ST
WI NCHE
S
TER
R
D
MEAD
O
W
S
PKW
Y
NICOLAS RD
LE
O
N
R
D
R AN C H O VIST A R D
SANT I A GO RD
D
I
A
Z
R
D
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
P
A
L
A
R
D
BENTON RD
VAI L RANC
H
P
K
WY
P AU B A RD
AN
Z
A
R
D
B
U
T
T
E
R
FIEL
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
PE
C
H
A
N
G
A
P
K
W
Y
W INC HEST
E
RRD
TEMECULA
P
K
W
Y
15 Temecula City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
County Boundary
Assessed as Vacant
Assessed Use Category
Residential Single-Family
Residential Multi-Family
Mobile Home
Other Residental Lands
Agriculture/Livestock/Ranching
Commercial
Industrial
Public/Institutional
Parks, Open Spaces, and Other
Unbuilt Lands
Common Areas
Miscellaneous Improvements
0 1½Miles
Sources: City of Temecula GIS;
Riverside County GIS.
Produced for the City of Temecula by De Novo Planning Group, September 26, 2025. Revised March 12, 2026.
Figure 2: Assessed Uses
596
20 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Units 1 Population 1
Nonresidential
Square Footage
(SF) 2
Jobs 3
38,654 112,220 24,352,016 51,070
Table 1: Existing Development Estimates
(1) Population and housing units: California Department of Finance (DOF), E-5 Population and Hous- ing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State (January 1, 2025). (2) Nonresidential square footage: CoStar building inventory (Q4 2025), compiled by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) for the Temecula GPU.
(3) Jobs: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2022, compiled by EPS for the Temecula GPU.
community, and large areas of open space and other unbuilt lands are associated with creek corridors and hillsides. Limited agriculture and ranching uses remain within and adjacent to the Planning Area, reflecting the City’s edge conditions and relationship to surrounding rural lands.
Topography and environmental resources continue to shape development patterns and constraints. The Planning Area lies within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area, and conservation objectives along creek corridors and foothill linkages influence the location and design of new development. As the City approaches buildout of many greenfield areas, future development is expected to occur through a combination of remaining entitled development in specific plan areas, selective infill, and redevelopment or repositioning of aging commercial centers and corridors.
When discussing land use, it is important to distinguish between planned land uses (General Plan designations and specific plans) and existing on-the-ground land uses. The Existing Conditions Report prepared for the General Plan Update uses parcel-based assessed land use data and City/County GIS to characterize existing conditions and to establish a baseline for evaluating land use concepts. Assessed land uses illustrate the predominance of single-family neighborhoods, the corridor-based distribution of commercial uses, the concentration of employment uses in business parks and industrial areas, and the role of parks, open space, and unbuilt lands in shaping community identity.
The Planning Area contains limited truly vacant land that is both unconstrained and unentitled; many remaining undeveloped areas occur as open space, habitat lands, infrastructure corridors, or within approved specific plan programs. Baseline conditions will be refined as the GPU progresses and will be further updated for the General Plan EIR to reflect on-the-ground development at the time of environmental analysis. 597
21City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The Temecula General Plan Land Use Element, implemented through zoning, specific plans, and related ordinances, establishes the planned pattern of residential, commercial, employment, public, and open space uses across the Planning Area. Residential designations are defined by allowable density (dwelling units per acre), while nonresidential designations are defined by development intensity (floor area ratio, or FAR). Specific plans and overlays or districts provide additional, area-specific standards and are an important part of Temecula’s land use framework, having guided the design and phasing of many master- planned communities and key districts.
CURRENT AND NEW LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Table 2 summarizes the City of Temecula’s primary General Plan land use designations and current and proposed district tools relevant to the proposed Study Area land use concepts.
As described in the City’s Land Use Element, target density for residential designations and target intensity, expressed as FAR, for nonresidential designations are the development assumptions used for area-wide planning purposes, including land use capacity, population, infrastructure, and service planning. Some development may occur below the target level and some may occur above the target level, particularly where public amenities or other community benefits are provided above minimum City requirements. For the Medium and High Density Residential designations, the City does not establish a target density, although a probable level of development is assumed for area-wide planning purposes. 598
22 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Overlays or districts are supplemental planning tools applied to an underlying land use designation to modify allowed use mix, density or intensity, and development expectations in targeted locations. Under the City’s current General Plan, the Recreation Commercial Overlay may be applied to Open Space lands to allow resort- and amusement-oriented commercial recreation uses. The General Plan also identifies current Mixed Use Overlay Areas in selected infill locations, where the underlying land use designation continues to govern nonresidential uses, while the overlay adds a required residential component and increases the maximum and target FAR, subject to approval of a Development Plan.
The City’s current Mixed Use Overlay Areas are Jefferson Avenue, Town Center/Tower Plaza, and South of Old Town. For smaller areas, the City also uses Planned Development Overlays, while Specific Plans provide the more detailed area-specific framework for larger districts.
Through the GPU, the City is evaluating a more refined framework of land use tools in applicable study areas. In locations now governed by the current Mixed Use Overlay Areas, the GPU would replace that broader mixed use overlay framework with more place-based "districts", including Mixed Use Core, Neighborhood Center, and Edge Neighborhood. Note that the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) is not included in Table 2, as it is a zoning tool rather than a General Plan overlay.
NEW LAND USE DESIGNATION EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATIONS
In the pages following the land use definition table, this Report includes representative images and precedent examples that illustrate the range of building and development types that could support the land use concepts proposed for the new mixed use districts.
These images are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to represent required architecture or specific development standards. Architectural requirements and objective development standards would be established through the City’s Zoning Ordinance, specific plans, and related implementation documents.
599
23City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
79 79
AN Z A RD
D E P O RT O L A RD
DA
TE
S
T
THOMPSON RD
RAINBOW
C
ANYONRD
MURRIETA H O T S P RINGSRD
RE
D
HAW K P KW Y
LA S E R ENA
WA Y
P
O
U
RR
OY
R
D
AULD RD
RANCH O CALIFO R N I A
R
D
P
U
J
O
L
S
T
Y
N
E
Z
R
D
MARGAR
I
T
A
RD
BOREL R D
A
B
E
L
I
A
ST
WI NCHE
STER
RD
M
E
A
D
O
WS
P
KWY
P A U BA R D
N I CO L A S RD
LE
O
N
R
D
R A N C HO VISTA R D
S A NTIA G O RD
D
I
A
Z
R
D
P
A
L
A
R
D
BENTON RD
BU
T
T
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
ST
A
G
E
R
D
PE
C
H
A
N
G
A
P
K
W
Y
W IN C HESTERRD
TEMECULA
P
K
W
Y
15 PO
U RRO
Y R D15
215
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Temecula City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Areas Formerly Included
in the Planning Area
County Boundary
Residential
HR: Hillside Residential
(0-0.1 Du/Ac Max)
RR: Rural Residential
(0-0.2 Du/Ac Max)
VL: Very Low Residential
(0.2-0.4 Du/Ac Max)
L: Low Residential
(0.5-2 Du/Ac Max)
LM: Low Medium
Residential (3-6 Du/Ac
Max)
M: Medium Residential
(7-12 Du/Ac Max)
H: High Residential
(13-20 Du/Ac Max)
Commercial/Office
NC: Neighborhood
Commercial
CC: Community
Commercial
HT: Highway Tourist
Commercial
SC: Service Commercial
PO: Professional Office
Industrial
IP: Industrial Park
Public Uses and Open Space
PI: Public Institutional
Facilities
VA: Vineyards/Agricultural
OS: Open Space
TTL: Tribal Trust Lands
Specific Plan
SPI: Specific Plan
Implementation
0 1½Miles
Sources: City of Temecula GIS;
Riverside County GIS.
Produced for the City of Temecula by De Novo Planning Group, March 27, 2026.
Figure 3: Current Land Use Map
600
24 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Name Definition Notes
Residential Designations1
Hillside Residential (HR)
0.1 du/ac
This designation provides for the development of
very low density single-family detached housing in
areas that are best suited for open space or have
severe constraints to development, such as steep
hillsides with slopes over twenty-five percent, lim-
ited access and public services, fire hazards and
other environmental concerns. The maximum
density is 0.1 du/ac, with typical lot sizes of 10 net
acres on minimally sloped sites. Larger lots may
be required where site constraints exist, and clus-
tering may be allowed to minimize environmental
impacts.
No change
Rural Residential (RR)
0.2 du/ac
This designation provides for development of very
low density housing compatible with light agricul-
tural activities and vineyards surrounding the City.
The minimum lot size is 5.0 net acres with a tar-
geted density of 0.2 du/ac. Larger lot sizes are ex-
pected to be found in areas with steep topography
or other site constraints.
No change
Very Low Density
Residential (VL)
0.2-0.4 du/ac
This designation is intended for single-family de-
tached residential development on large lots. This
designation is also consistent with large lot resi-
dences that keep horses and other animals, or uti-
lize a portion of the land for agricultural produc-
tion. The permitted density is up to 0.4 du/ac with
a targeted density of 0.3 du/ac. Typical lot sizes
are 2.5 acres, however, clustering of development
may be appropriate to minimize grading require-
ments and impacts to environmentally sensitive
areas.
No change
Low Density Residential
(L)
0.5-2.9 du/ac
This designation is intended for single-family de-
tached residential development on larger lots with
a custom character of development. This designa-
tion allows for densities between 0.5 and 2.9 du/ac
with a targeted density of 1.5 du/ac. Typical lot siz-
es range from 0.5 to 2.0 acres; however, clustering
of development may be appropriate to minimize
grading requirements and impacts to environmen-
tally sensitive areas.
No change
Low Medium Density
Residential (LM)
3.0-6.9 du/ac
This designation is intended for typical single-fam-
ily neighborhoods. The range of housing types in-
cludes single-family detached, single-family zero
lot line, patio homes and duplexes. Congregate
care facilities could be approved as a conditional
use in accordance with provisions of the City De-
velopment Code. The permitted density ranges
from 3.0 to 6.9 du/ac, with a target density of 4.5
du/ac.
No change
Table 2: Land Use Designations
601
25City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Name Definition Notes
Medium Density
Residential (M)
7.0-12.9 du/ac
This designation provides for development of
attached and detached residential units. Typi-
cal housing types may include single-family zero
lot line, patio homes, duplexes, townhouses, and
multi-family apartments. Congregate care facili-
ties could be approved as a conditional use in ac-
cordance with provisions of the City Development
Code. The density range is from 7.0 to 12.9 du/ac,
with no target density rate.
No change
High Density Residential
(H)
13.0-20.0 du/ac
This designation provides for the development
of low- and mid-rise attached residential devel-
opments. Congregate care facilities could be ap-
proved as a conditional use in accordance with
the provisions of the City Development Code.
Increases in the density for congregate care may
be allowed under special provisions of the Devel-
opment Code. The permitted density ranges from
13.0 to 20.9 du/ac, with no target density rate.
No change
Very High Density
Residential (VH)
20.1-32.0 du/ac
This designation provides for the development
of mid-rise attached residential developments.
Congregate care facilities could be approved as a
conditional use in accordance with the provisions
of the City Development Code. Increases in the
density for congregate care may be allowed under
special provisions of the Development Code. The
permitted density ranges from 21.0 to 32.0 du/ac,
with no target density rate.
NEW
The GPU recom-
mends creating
the VH land use
designation to
best facilitate fu-
ture Housing El-
ement Updates,
but note that it
has not been ap-
plied to the Land
Use Map and its
application would
require a future
General Plan
Amendment to
apply it to one or
more specific par-
cels.
Commercial, Office, and Industrial Designations
Community Commercial
(CC)
0.25 to 1.0 FAR
This designation includes retail, professional of-
fice, and service-oriented business activities serv-
ing the entire community. Community commercial
areas typically include larger retail uses such as su-
permarkets, department stores, theaters, restau-
rants, professional and medical offices, and spe-
cialty retail stores. The intensity range is between
0.25 to 1.0 FAR, with a target intensity of 0.30 FAR.
Community Commercial uses usually occupy 10 to
50 acres of land, and include in excess of 100,000
square feet of floor area.
No change
602
26 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Name Definition Notes
Highway/Tourist
Commercial (HT)
0.25 to 1.0 FAR
This designation provides for uses located adja-
cent to major transportation routes oriented to
the needs of tourists. Highway/Tourist Commer-
cial development should be appropriately located
and developed as clusters of commercial develop-
ment rather than as shallow commercial frontage
along major streets. Typical uses may include tour-
ist accommodations and lodging facilities, auto-
mobile service stations, restaurants, convenience
stores, gift shops, and entertainment centers. The
intensity range is between 0.25 to 1.0 FAR, with a
target intensity of 0.30 FAR. Facilities should be
well-landscaped, providing an attractive visual im-
age.
No change
Neighborhood
Commercial (NC)
0.2 to 0.4 FAR
Intended for smaller-scale business activities that
generally provide retail or convenience services
for local residents in surrounding neighborhoods.
Typical uses include: traditional small scale food
markets (usually less than 30,000 square feet),
drug stores, clothing stores, sporting goods, offic-
es, hardware stores, child care centers, other retail
and personal service uses, and community facili-
ties. The intensity range is between 0.20 to 0.40
FAR, with a target intensity of 0.25 FAR. Neighbor-
hood commercial centers are usually developed
on sites that are less than ten acres in size. Proj-
ects should be compatible in design and scale with
adjacent residential areas, and should be designed
to encourage pedestrian use.
No change
Service Commercial
(SC)
0.25 to 1.5 FAR
This designation provides for commercial uses
typically requiring extensive floor area. Typical
uses include home improvement stores, discount
retail stores, furniture stores, auto dealerships and
light automotive service. The intensity range is be-
tween 0.25 to 1.5 FAR, with a target intensity of
0.3 FAR. Warehousing and manufacturing may be
incidental uses within a business that is otherwise
consistent with the Service Commercial designa-
tion.
No change
Professional Office (PO)
0.30 to 1.0 FAR
This designation includes primarily single or multi-
tenant offices and may include supporting uses.
Office developments are intended to include
low-rise offices situated in a landscaped garden
arrangement and may include mid-rise structures
at appropriate locations. The intensity range is
between 0.3 to 1.0 FAR, with a target intensity of
0.35 FAR. Typical uses include legal, design, en-
gineering, or medical offices, corporate and gov-
ernmental offices, and community facilities. Sup-
porting convenience retail and personal service
commercial uses may be permitted to serve the
needs of the on-site employees.
No change
603
27City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Name Definition Notes
Industrial Park (IP)
0.30 to 1.5 FAR
Intended to provide well-designed business
and employment centers offering attractive and
distinctive architectural design, innovative site
planning, and substantial landscaping and visu-
al quality. Typical uses may include professional
offices, research and development, laboratories,
light manufacturing, storage, industrial supply,
and wholesale businesses. The intensity range is
between 0.3 to 1.5 FAR, with a target intensity of
0.40 FAR.
No change
Open Space and Recreational Designations
Open Space (OS)
0.01 to 0.10 FAR
Intended to accommodate both public and private
areas of permanent open space for such uses as
parks, golf courses, recreation facilities, natural
open spaces, recreation trails, greenbelts, lakes,
utility easements, active fault zones, and undevel-
opable portions of floodplains along waterways.
The intensity range is between 0.01 to 0.10 FAR.
Only accessory buildings or structures related to
parks and recreation facilities are intended with-
in the Open Space designation. These areas may
also accommodate certain commercial outdoor
recreation uses as a conditional use in accordance
with the City Development Code.
No change
Recreation Commercial
Overlay (RC)
This designation may be applied to properties
designated for Open Space use. This designation
provides for operation and development of resort
or amusement oriented commercial and recre-
ational uses of regional interest that draw visitors
from throughout the City and region. The intensity
range varies. Permitted uses include commercial
recreation, conference centers, golf courses, club-
houses, hotels, resorts (including fractional own-
ership units), restaurants, parks, camp grounds,
open spaces and community facilities. Restau-
rants, hotels, and resort uses are accessory to the
underlying open space uses.
No change
604
28 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Name Definition Notes
Other Designations
Public/Institutional (PI)
0.2 to 0.7 FAR
This designation provides for a wide range of pub-
lic and private uses including schools, transporta-
tion facilities, government offices, public utilities,
libraries, museums, public art galleries, hospitals,
and cultural facilities. The intensity range is be-
tween 0.2 to 0.7 FAR, with a target intensity of 0.3
FAR.
No change
Vineyards/Agriculture
(VA)
0 to 0.2 FAR
This designation promote rural, agricultural, and
vineyard uses of properties located to the east
of the City within the Planning Area. The densi-
ty range is between 0 to 0.2 du/ac, with a target
density of 0.1 du/ac, and the intensity range is
between 0.01 to 0.1 FAR with a target intensity
of 0.03 FAR. Non-residential buildings necessary
to support vineyard or agricultural operations, as
well as retail sales, tasting rooms, restaurants, and
bed and breakfasts are also permitted.
No change
Tribal Trust Lands (TTL)This designation applies to properties within the Planning Area that are held in trust by Federal
agencies. These lands can have important eco-
nomic and environmental relationships to both the
City and area residents. However, properties with-
in this designation may not be subject to City or
County planning, zoning, and building regulations.
Cooperative efforts between the City, County,
and local Tribal Governments are important to en-
suring that areawide issues are appropriately ad-
dressed to the benefit of all local residents.
No change
Specific Plan
Implementation (SPI)
General Plan land use designation applied to ar-
eas governed by an adopted Specific Plan. In SPI
areas, the Specific Plan serves as the primary ar-
ea-specific planning and zoning framework and
establishes the detailed land use program, devel-
opment standards, circulation, public facilities and
services, design guidance, and implementation
requirements for the plan area. SPI is used where
the City intends the adopted Specific Plan, rather
than the standard citywide land use designations
alone, to guide future development.
No change
605
29City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Name Definition Notes
Mixed Use Districts (Formerly Called "Overlays")
Mixed Use Overlay
Areas (MUOA)
Density varies by area,
based on 28 du/ac
residential and 0.35 FAR
nonresidential
Current City overlay applied in selected infill lo-
cations to encourage mixed commercial and res-
idential development. Nonresidential uses are
established by the underlying land use designa-
tion, while the overlay adds a residential compo-
nent and increases the maximum and target FAR,
subject to approval of a Development Plan. The
current overlay areas are Jefferson Avenue, Town
Center/Tower Plaza, and South of Old Town, each
with area-specific development capacity assump-
tions and daily trip caps.
Remove and re-
place with three
new Mixed Use
Districts
Mixed Use Edge District;
20-39 du/ac; 3 story
maximum
New district for the edges of mixed use areas
where lower scale and neighborhood compati-
bility are needed. It would allow residential uses
up to 3 stories, such as townhomes, small multi-
family buildings, and live/work units, and neigh-
borhood-serving commercial uses. Uses may be
mixed “vertically” (on separate floors of a building)
or “horizontally” (in separate buildings) on a single
site or on adjacent parcels.
NEW
Mixed Use
Neighborhood District;
40-69 du/ac; 5 story
maximum
New district for walkable, neighborhood-serving
mixed use areas. It would allow buildings up to five
stories, including multifamily housing, retail and
services, office, and civic uses around an active
public realm. Uses may be mixed “vertically” (on
separate floors of a building) or “horizontally” (in
separate buildings) on a single site or on adjacent
parcels.
NEW
Mixed Use Core District;
70-120 du/ac; 8 story
maximum
New district for the City's highest-intensity mixed
use centers. It would allow buildings up to eight
stories, including multifamily housing, with an em-
phasis on active ground-floor commercial frontag-
es in a pedestrian-oriented urban form. Uses may
be mixed “vertically” (on separate floors of a build-
ing) or “horizontally” (in separate buildings) on a
single site or on adjacent parcels.
NEW
1. The maximum density of the City’s residential land use categories may be exceeded to complement General Plan Housing Element policy in accordance with the density bonus provisions of Section 65915 of the California Government Code, as amended in January 1, 2005 under SB 1818. 606
30 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
40 41
PROPOSED DISTRICTSPROPOSED DISTRICTS
INNOVATION CORRIDOR (MAX. 2.5 FAR)
Light Industrial/ Office/ Commercial
Residential & Mixed Use
MIXED USE CORE
(70-120 DU/AC)
MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD
(40-69 DU/AC)
MIXED USE EDGE
(20-39 DU/AC)
607
City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report 31
La
n
d
U
s
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
Land Use Concepts
Potential Areas of Land Use Change
Temecula is a beautifully built-out city, meaning the era of rapid expansion is largely complete.
With a strong foundation of existing neighborhoods and commercial centers, the City's planning focus has shifted toward smart, targeted reinvestment. This chapter explores specific locations where thoughtful revitalization can guide Temecula’s evolution over the next 20 years, breathing new life into older centers and ensuring the local economy remains vibrant.
A core theme of this chapter is a strict commitment to Temecula's commercial spaces.
The places residents love to shop, dine, and work are staying. However, staying relevant in a changing retail landscape requires adaptation. By introducing complementary uses— like strategic housing and upgraded public spaces—right next to commercial hubs, local businesses gain a built-in customer base. This consistent activity naturally enhances public safety by keeping "eyes on the street," while new pedestrian pathways foster healthy communities by encouraging residents to walk and connect.
The following pages detail potential updates for:
●The Four Core Study Areas: Larger areas (Commerce to College, Temecula Town Center and Tower Plaza, the Innovation Corridor, and the SouthTown) where coordinated visions can create major community benefits.
●Targeted Opportunity Sites (Sites A–H): Smaller, individual properties where updated plans can resolve localized challenges or unlock new potential.
For each location, existing “Business as Usual” rules are mapped directly alongside proposed changes. As the public reviews these side-by-side comparisons, the City encourages residents to consider how these strategic updates can shape an even stronger Temecula. 608
32 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Study Area 1: Commerce to College
Study Area 1 focuses on the vibrant corridor connecting Promenade Temecula and Mt. San Jacinto Community College (MSJC). This area already operates as an economic powerhouse for the City. It features highly successful major retail stores at and around the Promenade, well-utilized office spaces, and an expanding college campus serving the needs of Temecula residents and beyond.
While it occupies a strategic, central location between education, jobs, and established neighborhoods, the landscape is currently defined by surface parking lots and large blocks that can make walking difficult, especially between the mall and college.
The proposed vision builds on this current commercial success to make the area even stronger and accessible. Key elements include:
●A Grand Pedestrian Corridor: A wide, green, and vibrant pedestrian boulevard connecting Promenade Temecula directly to MSJC. As the college grows to over 10,000 students, creating a seamless mobility link between the campus and the mall will bring a boost in economic activity to local shops and restaurants. ●Enhancing Neighborhood Connections: Beyond the green pedestrian corridor, a quieter, nature-focused trail is envisioned along the creek connecting the Promenade to the Meadowview neighborhood. This will give nearby residents scenic, easy access to their favorite commercial spots.
●Strengthening Retail with Strategic Housing: To support a thriving commercial area, limited, workforce, student, and attainable housing would be allowed. By providing housing options for students, seniors, and young professionals right where they shop, dine, and learn, the City can cultivate a lively environment that keeps local businesses bustling year-round while planning to accommodate the City’s future housing needs.
Looking ahead, this area is poised to become a signature Temecula destination where shopping, dining, learning, living, working, and public spaces seamlessly come together.
Important factors for future planning include:
1. Provide existing and new commercial uses greater flexibility to adjust to rapidly evolving consumer shopping habits.
2. Ensuring new designs blend perfectly with existing commercial uses, college, and nearby neighborhoods.
3. Protecting the natural environment around the creek corridors.
4. Improving traffic flow and making it safer to walk, bike, or drive through the area. 609
33City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report4 5
STUDY AREA 1
Commerce to College
Mixed-Use
Residential/Mixed-Use hub
Commercial hub
Central open space
College hub
610
34 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
6 7
STUDY AREA 1
CURRENT LAND USEAERIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE PROPOSED DISTRICT
Commerce to College
0 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.220.03 Miles
Service Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.5)
Community Commercial (FAR
0.25-1.0)
Highway Tourist Commercial (0.25-1.0)
Profressional Office (FAR 0.30-1.0)
Neighborhood Commercial (FAR
0.20-0.40)
Industrial Park (FAR 0.30-1.5)
High Density Residential (13.0-20.0
du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (7.0-
12.9 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential
(3.0-6.9 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9
du/ac)
Very Low Density Residential (0.2-
0.4 du/ac)
Rural Residential (0.1-0.4 du/ac)
Hillside Residential (0.0-0.1 du/ac)
Public Institutional Facilities
Specific Plan Implementation
Open Space
Vineyards / Agriculture
Tribal Trust Lands
Temecula City Boundary
Freeway
611
35City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Study Area 2: Temecula Town Center and Tower Plaza
Study Area 2 focuses on the Temecula Town Center and Tower Plaza. Together, these properties form a highly visible commercial gateway anchored along Interstate 15 and Rancho California Road. As a major hub of retail, dining, and entertainment, the area features the AMC theater, Target, and surrounding retail uses that serve the everyday needs of the community while also acting as a regional draw. While it benefits from excellent visibility and access, the large blocks, surface parking, and existing circulation patterns can make walking between stores a challenge. At the same time, nearby features like the Margarita Recreational Center, trails, and the creek to the north offer a great foundation for a more cohesive environment.
Future planning for this gateway focuses on keeping the retail environment highly competitive and relevant through reinvestment, modernization, and supportive mixed use development.
To realize this goal, the concept features:
●Stronger Commercial Core: Existing commercial uses would remain and be strengthened through reinvestment and repositioning that helps the area stay competitive, attractive, and economically productive over time. As one of the City’s most visible gateways, through flexibility for commercial uses, this area could continue serving as a major destination for shopping, dining, and entertainment.
●Better Connections and Open Space Integration: Improved internal pathways, safer bicycle routes, and stronger green linkages would help tie the area together. Creating physical connections between the Temecula Duck Pond and Veterans Memorial, and the Murrieta Creek corridor would create a more unified community gathering place. ●Walkable Mixed Use Center: A cohesive mixed use core would support retail, dining, employment, and supportive residential uses in a way that creates an active and livable environment. This approach helps strengthen the customer base for local businesses while creating a more vibrant shopper experience.
●Clear Density Gradient and Right-Sized Redevelopment: New development would be organized to concentrate the highest intensity near Interstate 15, then gradually transition eastward to less intense development. This method helps create a dynamic mixed use area while ensuring compatibility with the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the east.
Ultimately, this area will transform into a modernized regional destination where commerce and community life thrive side by side in a pedestrian-friendly setting.
Guiding priorities for this transition include:
1. Maintaining the area’s role as a major economic driver by keeping commercial uses strong and relevant.
2. Ensuring that new development transitions appropriately in scale and intensity toward nearby neighborhoods.
3. Creating safe and inviting connections between commercial areas, open space features, and surrounding homes.
4. Improving internal traffic flow for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. 612
36 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
8 9
STUDY AREA 2
Temecula Town Center and Tower Plaza
Mixed-Use
Residential/Mixed-Use hub
613
37City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
10 11
AERIAL CURRENT LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE (NONE)PROPOSED DISTRICT Service Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.5)
Community Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.0)
Highway Tourist Commercial (0.25-1.0)
Profressional Office (FAR 0.30-1.0)
Neighborhood Commercial (FAR 0.20-0.40)
Industrial Park (FAR 0.30-1.5)
High Density Residential (13.0-20.0 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (7.0-12.9 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (3.0-6.9 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9 du/ac)
Very Low Density Residential (0.2-0.4 du/ac)
Rural Residential (0.1-0.4 du/ac)
Hillside Residential (0.0-0.1 du/ac)
Public Institutional Facilities
Specific Plan Implementation
Open Space
Vineyards / Agriculture
Tribal Trust Lands
Temecula City Boundary
Freeway
0 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.220.03 Miles
Temecula Town Center and Tower Plaza
STUDY AREA 2
614
38 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Study Area 3: Innovation Corridor
Study Area 3 centers on Overland Drive, stretching from the western edge of the City to Interstate 15. Anchored by Abbott and supported by well-utilized industrial and business park uses, this corridor is already a premier employment center for Temecula. It plays a vital role in the local economy and provides a robust foundation for future job growth. While the corridor contains significant employment activity, its physical character and internal pathways do not yet fully reflect its importance to the City. With targeted streetscape upgrades, enhanced active transportation routes, and a clearer sense of identity, the area could truly function as a cohesive innovation center.
The proposed direction for this corridor focuses heavily on job creation and expanding its role as a hub for advanced industries and long-term economic growth. Core components include:
●Hub for Advanced Industries: The corridor is envisioned as a place for life sciences, technology, and advanced industries to grow and cluster. Building on the presence of anchor employers such as Abbott, this approach will strengthen Temecula’s competitiveness and attract additional high-quality jobs. ●Connecting Education with Economy: With MSJC in the community, there is a unique opportunity to connect local higher education with economic opportunity through workforce development, continuing education, and special training. ●Reimagined Overland Drive: Streetscape improvements along Overland Drive will give the corridor a stronger identity and a more unified appearance. Better pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections, combined with high-quality, campus-like development, will tie employment areas together and make the corridor more accessible for workers, businesses, and students.
●Central Node and Stronger Connections: A central node within the corridor would create a focal point for daily activity, services, and gathering spaces, helping the area function as a complete employment environment rather than a series of separate sites.
Improved connections to nearby amenities, including the sports park and creek areas, will further enhance the daily experience for the local workforce. As part of this idea, Murrieta Creek Bridge connecting Overland Drive to Diaz Road is anticipated to begin construction in Summer 2027.
In the coming decades, this area is envisioned as a regionally recognized Innovation Corridor where top-tier employers, high-quality jobs, and a unified public realm support Temecula’s economic future.
Essential elements to guide this growth include:
1. Attracting and retaining employers in life sciences, technology, and advanced industrial sectors.
2. Improving the streetscape and overall identity of Overland Drive.
3. Strengthening transit and trail connections within the corridor and to adjacent community assets.
4. Ensuring that any supportive uses, including limited housing, remain secondary to the corridor’s primary economic development role.
38 39
PROPOSED DISTRICTS
INNOVATION CORRIDOR
MAX. 2.5 FAR
Light Industrial/ Office/ Commercial
615
39City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
12 13
STUDY AREA 3
Innovation Corridor
Innovation Overlay
Central Node
616
40 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
14 15
STUDY AREA 3
Innovation Corridor
CURRENT LAND USEAERIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE (NONE)PROPOSED DISTRICT
0 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.220.03 Miles
Service Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.5)
Community Commercial (FAR
0.25-1.0)
Highway Tourist Commercial (0.25-1.0)
Profressional Office (FAR 0.30-1.0)
Neighborhood Commercial (FAR
0.20-0.40)
Industrial Park (FAR 0.30-1.5)
High Density Residential (13.0-20.0
du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (7.0-
12.9 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential
(3.0-6.9 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9
du/ac)
Very Low Density Residential (0.2-
0.4 du/ac)
Rural Residential (0.1-0.4 du/ac)
Hillside Residential (0.0-0.1 du/ac)
Public Institutional Facilities
Specific Plan Implementation
Open Space
Vineyards / Agriculture
Tribal Trust Lands
Temecula City Boundary
Freeway
617
41City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Study Area 4: SouthTown
Study Area 4, known as SouthTown, is located just south of Old Town, generally bounded by the Old Town Arch, Temecula Parkway, Murrieta Creek, and Interstate 15. This southern gateway benefits from a highly distinctive setting and excellent freeway visibility. Its proximity to historic Old Town and the convergence of Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River gives it a natural character unlike any other part of the City.
While the area has the makings of a unique destination, its current development pattern and major transportation barriers limit access to surrounding neighborhoods and the river environment. However, its strategic location provides a phenomenal canvas for a dynamic, arts-focused area.
The vision for SouthTown leverages these unique geographic advantages through creative placemaking, boutique commercial activity, and a strong orientation toward the waterways.
To achieve this, the concept includes:
●Arts and Creative Area: SouthTown is envisioned as a mixed use environment that supports the arts, creative industries, hospitality, studios, and small-scale commercial activity. By establishing a distinct, human-scaled character, the area can complement Old Town while developing a vibrant identity of its own. ●Creek-Oriented Open Space and Public Realm: Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River will help define the area's identity. New trails, greenbelts, passive recreation areas, and creek-oriented design will tie the open spaces together into a unified framework. This approach will make the waterways a highly visible, celebrated part of the area and support a walkable environment centered on Temecula's natural beauty.
●Improved Livability and Local Access: Better pedestrian and bicycle connections across Interstate 15 and to surrounding neighborhoods, including Los Ranchitos, would help tie the area into the broader community.
As it matures, SouthTown will establish itself as a vibrant cultural extension of Old Town where creative commerce, public art, and preserved river corridors create a highly walkable and engaging destination.
Core objectives for this area consist of:
1. Establishing an area identity that complements, rather than competes with, Old Town.
2. Encouraging boutique-style commercial uses, including small-scale hotels that serve the needs of regional visitors.
3. Protecting and enhancing the natural character of the creek and river corridors.
4. Ensuring that live/work and workforce housing strictly support the area's creative and commercial focus.
5. Improving safe, human-scaled connections across Interstate 15 and to surrounding residential neighborhoods.
618
42 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
16 17
STUDY AREA 4
SouthTown
Mixed-Use Arts District/ Worforce
Housing
Open Space Node
619
43City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
18 19
AERIAL CURRENT LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE PROPOSED DISTRICT Service Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.5)
Community Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.0)
Highway Tourist Commercial (0.25-1.0)
Profressional Office (FAR 0.30-1.0)
Neighborhood Commercial (FAR 0.20-0.40)
Industrial Park (FAR 0.30-1.5)
High Density Residential (13.0-20.0 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (7.0-12.9 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (3.0-6.9 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9 du/ac)
Very Low Density Residential (0.2-0.4 du/ac)
Rural Residential (0.1-0.4 du/ac)
Hillside Residential (0.0-0.1 du/ac)
Public Institutional Facilities
Specific Plan Implementation
Open Space
Vineyards / Agriculture
Tribal Trust Lands
Temecula City Boundary
Freeway
0 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.220.03 Miles
STUDY AREA 4
SouthTown
620
44 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
20 21
City-Owned Property on Diaz Rd.
AERIAL CURRENT LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE
Service Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.5)
Community Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.0)
Highway Tourist Commercial (0.25-1.0)
Profressional Office (FAR 0.30-1.0)
Neighborhood Commercial (FAR 0.20-0.40)
Industrial Park (FAR 0.30-1.5)
High Density Residential (13.0-20.0 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (7.0-12.9 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (3.0-6.9 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9 du/ac)
Very Low Density Residential (0.2-0.4 du/ac)
Rural Residential (0.1-0.4 du/ac)
Hillside Residential (0.0-0.1 du/ac)
Public Institutional Facilities
Specific Plan Implementation
Open Space
Vineyards / Agriculture
Tribal Trust Lands
Temecula City Boundary
Freeway
0 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.220.03 Miles
SITE A
621
45City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
22 23
Solana Way Split Zone (Applicant Request)
AERIAL CURRENT LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE
Service Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.5)
Community Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.0)
Highway Tourist Commercial (0.25-1.0)
Profressional Office (FAR 0.30-1.0)
Neighborhood Commercial (FAR 0.20-0.40)
Industrial Park (FAR 0.30-1.5)
High Density Residential (13.0-20.0 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (7.0-12.9 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (3.0-6.9 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9 du/ac)
Very Low Density Residential (0.2-0.4 du/ac)
Rural Residential (0.1-0.4 du/ac)
Hillside Residential (0.0-0.1 du/ac)
Public Institutional Facilities
Specific Plan Implementation
Open Space
Vineyards / Agriculture
Tribal Trust Lands
Temecula City Boundary
Freeway
0 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.220.03 Miles
SITE B
622
46 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
24 25
GP/Zoning Mismatch (Neighbor Request)
AERIAL CURRENT LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE
Service Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.5)
Community Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.0)
Highway Tourist Commercial (0.25-1.0)
Profressional Office (FAR 0.30-1.0)
Neighborhood Commercial (FAR 0.20-0.40)
Industrial Park (FAR 0.30-1.5)
High Density Residential (13.0-20.0 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (7.0-12.9 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (3.0-6.9 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9 du/ac)
Very Low Density Residential (0.2-0.4 du/ac)
Rural Residential (0.1-0.4 du/ac)
Hillside Residential (0.0-0.1 du/ac)
Public Institutional Facilities
Specific Plan Implementation
Open Space
Vineyards / Agriculture
Tribal Trust Lands
Temecula City Boundary
Freeway
0 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.220.03 Miles
SITE C
623
47City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
26 27
AERIAL CURRENT LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE
Vacant Lot North of Target
Service Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.5)
Community Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.0)
Highway Tourist Commercial (0.25-1.0)
Profressional Office (FAR 0.30-1.0)
Neighborhood Commercial (FAR 0.20-0.40)
Industrial Park (FAR 0.30-1.5)
High Density Residential (13.0-20.0 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (7.0-12.9 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (3.0-6.9 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9 du/ac)
Very Low Density Residential (0.2-0.4 du/ac)
Rural Residential (0.1-0.4 du/ac)
Hillside Residential (0.0-0.1 du/ac)
Public Institutional Facilities
Specific Plan Implementation
Open Space
Vineyards / Agriculture
Tribal Trust Lands
Temecula City Boundary
Freeway
0 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.220.03 Miles
SITE D
624
48 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
28 29
Diaz Triangle (City-Owned)
AERIAL CURRENT LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE
Service Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.5)
Community Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.0)
Highway Tourist Commercial (0.25-1.0)
Profressional Office (FAR 0.30-1.0)
Neighborhood Commercial (FAR 0.20-0.40)
Industrial Park (FAR 0.30-1.5)
High Density Residential (13.0-20.0 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (7.0-12.9 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (3.0-6.9 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9 du/ac)
Very Low Density Residential (0.2-0.4 du/ac)
Rural Residential (0.1-0.4 du/ac)
Hillside Residential (0.0-0.1 du/ac)
Public Institutional Facilities
Specific Plan Implementation
Open Space
Vineyards / Agriculture
Tribal Trust Lands
Temecula City Boundary
Freeway
0 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.220.03 Miles
SITE E
625
49City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
30 31
Boys & Girls Club, Rotary Park and the Temecula Community Center
AERIAL CURRENT LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE
Service Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.5)
Community Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.0)
Highway Tourist Commercial (0.25-1.0)
Profressional Office (FAR 0.30-1.0)
Neighborhood Commercial (FAR 0.20-0.40)
Industrial Park (FAR 0.30-1.5)
High Density Residential (13.0-20.0 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (7.0-12.9 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (3.0-6.9 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9 du/ac)
Very Low Density Residential (0.2-0.4 du/ac)
Rural Residential (0.1-0.4 du/ac)
Hillside Residential (0.0-0.1 du/ac)
Public Institutional Facilities
Specific Plan Implementation
Open Space
Vineyards / Agriculture
Tribal Trust Lands
Temecula City Boundary
Freeway
0 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.220.03 Miles
SITE F
626
50 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
32 33
Santiago/Ynez (City-Owned)
AERIAL CURRENT LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE
Service Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.5)
Community Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.0)
Highway Tourist Commercial (0.25-1.0)
Profressional Office (FAR 0.30-1.0)
Neighborhood Commercial (FAR 0.20-0.40)
Industrial Park (FAR 0.30-1.5)
High Density Residential (13.0-20.0 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (7.0-12.9 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (3.0-6.9 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9 du/ac)
Very Low Density Residential (0.2-0.4 du/ac)
Rural Residential (0.1-0.4 du/ac)
Hillside Residential (0.0-0.1 du/ac)
Public Institutional Facilities
Specific Plan Implementation
Open Space
Vineyards / Agriculture
Tribal Trust Lands
Temecula City Boundary
Freeway
0 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.220.03 Miles
SITE G
627
51City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
34 35
Service Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.5)
Community Commercial (FAR 0.25-1.0)
Highway Tourist Commercial (0.25-1.0)
Profressional Office (FAR 0.30-1.0)
Neighborhood Commercial (FAR 0.20-0.40)
Industrial Park (FAR 0.30-1.5)
High Density Residential (13.0-20.0 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (7.0-12.9 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (3.0-6.9 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9 du/ac)
Very Low Density Residential (0.2-0.4 du/ac)
Rural Residential (0.1-0.4 du/ac)
Hillside Residential (0.0-0.1 du/ac)
Public Institutional Facilities
Specific Plan Implementation
Open Space
Vineyards / Agriculture
Tribal Trust Lands
Temecula City Boundary
Temecula Parkway
0 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.220.03 Miles
Corona/Split Zone
AERIAL CURRENT LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE
SITE H
628
52 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
[This page intentionally left blank]
629
City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report 53
Ne
x
t
S
t
e
p
s
Next Steps
DRAFT LAND USE REPORT REVIEW
Temecula community members, the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), Planning Commission, and the City Council will review the information contained in this Draft Land Use Report and provide their feedback on the ideas presented. This feedback will be assembled and consolidated into a citywide map called the “Proposed Land Use Map” which will be a combination of the desirable land use concepts presented in this Report.
As the map evolves in the coming weeks and months, all materials will be posted on the project’s website. Please refer to the website (TemeculaCA.gov/GeneralPlan) for additional information, including documents prepared for the project, community surveys, and information regarding upcoming meetings to discuss the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including all necessary technical studies, will be prepared for the General Plan Update and will analyze potential impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan. This analysis will be based on the buildout potential tied to the Proposed Land Use Map, as described above. The EIR will clearly and comprehensively evaluate potential environmental impacts; identify mitigation measures and project alternatives that can reduce impacts to a less than significant level, and identify those impacts that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level, state as significant and unavoidable.
The EIR will serve as a “tiering document” to facilitate streamlined environmental review of all subsequent development and infrastructure projects undertaken in the City, which are consistent with the General Plan.
630
54 City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Preparation of the Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report will take several months after the Draft Land Use Report is reviewed by the public and the Proposed Land Use Map is considered by the City Council. Upon completion of these draft documents, the City will begin a public review period of the draft documents so that community members and other stakeholders may comment on the General Plan Update work products.
All material will be posted to the project website and the City will continue to engage the public in-person and online to educate community members about the General Plan and environmental impacts, and solicit input on draft documents. All community feedback on the draft documents will be summarized and delivered to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration alongside the draft documents.
The Draft General Plan and Draft EIR will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council during the public review period to provide the community further opportunities to comment on the documents during the public comment portions of these meetings.
Following completion of the Final EIR and revised Draft General Plan, these documents will be brought to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and to City Council for consideration of adoption.
The City Council can, at any time, request modifications to the draft documents, including the Draft Land Use Report and Proposed Land Use Map, however any significant deviations from the Proposed Land Use Map, once reviewed by the City Council, may necessitate additional technical analysis to ensure all potential impacts are adequately analyzed.
No draft documents should be construed as policy decisions or policy direction until such time as the required public hearings are complete and the City Council has made a decision on the draft documents.
631
55City of Temecula | Draft Land Use Report
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
:
G
P
A
C
L
a
n
d
U
S
e
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Appendix A:
GPAC Land Use
Meeting Summary
632
[This page intentionally left blank]
633
IDENTIFY BOUNDARIES OF INTEREST
AND DESIRED LAND USES/ IMPROVEMENTS
LAND USE AND IMPROVEMENT STICKER KITS
MAP BOARDS
LAND USE MAP KEY MAP
4 AREAS OF INTEREST
ACTIVITY 1 INSTRUCTIONS
1. Review each Area of Interest.
2. What is the focus of where land use changes should occur if any?
3. Draw a boundary around the focus (foci) of this Area of Interest. • Where would you like to see improvements in Temecula? • Should any part of these Areas of Interest change land uses or receive physical improvements?
• What areas can support the future of Temecula?
• What areas can help achieve community goals, City goals and State goals? ACTIVITY 2 INSTRUCTIONS
4. Review each Area of Interest.
5. In what way can this area be improved.
6. Place stickers for each desired land use or physical improvement on the map.
• What uses or improvements should go where?
• How do uses relate to one another?
• What is the appropriate scale or density of uses?
• Where should physical improvements be made? Streetscapes? Gateways? Trails? Industrial
Park
Neighborhood
Commercial
Highway
Tourist
Commercial
Professional
Office
Community
Commercial
Service
Commercial
Mixed-use
(70-120 du/ac)
Mixed-use
(40-70 du/ac)
Mixed-use
(20-40 du/ac)
High Density
Residential
Medium
Density
Residential
Low-Medium
Density
Residential
Low
Density
Residential
Very Low
Density
Residential
Equestrian
Access
Rural
Residential
Public
Institutional
Facilities
Open
Space
Write-in
StickerPlazasParkletParklet
Downtown
Neighborhood
Residential
Trail and Bike Trail and Bike
ONCHTC CC SC 4012070
D H M LLM VL RR
WORKSHOP ACTIVITY INSTRUCTIONS
634
BIG IDEAS
• Repurpose mall area into vibrant mixed-use (70 du/ac) campus district including hotel and arena.
• Add student and multifamily housing (High density) near expanded university.
• Transform underutilized parking lots and auto-oriented retail into walkable mixed-use centers with open space (70 du/ac near Target, 120 du/ac near AMC theatre).
• Convert city owned vacant lot near Duck Pond into mixed-use and open space (40-120 du/ac)
• Open space for Creek
O
NC
HTC
CC
SC
40 120
70 D
H
M
L
LM
VL
RR
5 1
2 3
1 1
2 A
B
C
D
E
A
B
D
C
E
TABLE #1 COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONES 1 & 2
STICKER COUNT
635
BIG IDEAS
• Re-evaluate mall specific plan for long-term adaptive reuse. • Viability of traditional retail mall through 2050 is questioned. • Explore diversified uses beyond retail, including entertainment and dining.
• Recognize mall area as major future redevelopment opportunity. • Housing for MSJC campus.
STICKER COUNT
• Interest in incentivizing/upgrading to more density and mixed-use (120 du/ac) (vacant lot north of Temecula Town Center and in city- owned land near Duck Pond)
• Consider new opportunities for retail or adaptive.
• Request to re-draw lot line
O
NC
HTC
CC
SC
40 120
70 D
H
M
L
LM
VL
RR
2 1
B
C
C
E
D
A
A
B
D
C
E
TABLE #2 COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONES 1 & 2
636
BIG IDEAS
• Consider long-term repositioning as current mall becomes outdated. • Identified Palm Plaza as aging, less user-friendly retail model. • Explore potential residential or mixed-use transition. • Palm Plaza Area
• Potential area for mixed-use urban village.
• Vacant lot (north of Target) for potential mixed-use.
STICKER COUNT
O
NC
HTC
CC
SC
40 120
70 D
H
M
L
LM
VL
RR
C
A B
A
B
C
TABLE #3 COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONES 1 & 2
637
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Transition aging, auto-oriented retail centers into long-term, mixed-use districts anchored by housing, hospitality, entertainment, and campus-related uses. • Convert the city-owned vacant lot near Duck Pond into mixed-use development with open space at 40–120 du/ac,
• Recognize the mall area as a major future redevelopment opportunity, considering long-term repositioning if the current mall format becomes outdated and Palm Plaza continues to age as a less user-friendly retail environment.
• Repurpose the mall into a vibrant mixed-use campus district (70 du/ac) anchored by the expanded MSJC campus, including student housing, multifamily housing, hotel, and arena uses to support university growth.
• Transform underutilized parking lots and auto-oriented retail into walkable mixed-use centers with integrated open space, including: 70 du/ac near Target, 120 du/ac near AMC Theatre. Incentivize higher-density mixed-use development (up to 120 du/ac) on the vacant lot north of Temecula Town Center and other city-owned parcels.
STICKER COUNT
ONCHTC CC SC 4012070 D
H M LLM VL RR
3 32
1 14
2 SUMMARY COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONES 1 & 2
SC
120
120
70 70
70 70
H
70 120
120
H
638
BIG IDEAS
• City lacks designated innovation or medical research zone. • Consider creating an innovation district supporting wet and dry labs. • Encourage medical research, biotech, and life-saving technologies. • Potential site: Industrial area between Jefferson, the freeway, and the creek.
• Interest in Community Commercial land uses on city property. • Interest in mixed-use (70 du/ac) west of Jefferson Ave in SP-14 • Interest in open space along west boundary of the city, southwest of the Water Reclamation Facility.
• Innovation (blank stickers)
STICKER COUNT
ONCHTC CC SC
40 120 70
D H M LLM VL RR
2 1
1 1
A
D
C
B
C
D
A
B
TABLE #1 COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONE 3
639
BIG IDEAS
• Fairground: Reclaim Diaz property as city-led fairgrounds and event destination. Revive historic community events while adapting uses to today’s Temecula.
• Suggest Connection (Overland Dr and Diaz Rd)
• Interest in open space and industrial use on Fairground site.
A
B
ONCHTC CC SC
40 120 70
D H M LLM VL RR
STICKER COUNT
1 1
A
B
TABLE #2 COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONE 3
640
BIG IDEAS
• Potential opportunity to attract tech offices near Diaz Rd. and Murrieta Creek.
• Strengthen local education and workforce training to retain tech talent.
• Support mixed-use, higher-density housing in Uptown with neighborhood retail.
• Consider transit terminus and high density residential in northern part of SP-14.
Interest in mixed-use area (high residential, office, neighborhood commercial integrated with open space) in Uptown area
especially along Jefferson Ave.
Interest in office in Fairground site to attract technology jobs, small offices.
Interest in exploring limited expansion near Rancho California Road without major grading for technology sector offices.
ONCHTC CC SC
40 120 70
D H M LLM VL RR
1 3
11 2
STICKER COUNT
A
A
B
C
D
C
D
B
TABLE #3 COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONE 3
641
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Position the Jefferson Ave – Uptown corridor as a connected terminus and innovation zone - anchoring biotech & tech jobs, workforce development, mixed-use housing, and a re-imagined fairgrounds to drive economic growth and community identity.
• Interest in leveraging city-owned property, particularly the Fairground site, as a destination that revives community identity while integrating community commercial, open space, limited industrial uses, and small-scale office space to attract technology jobs. • Interest in leveraging city-owned property, particularly the Fairground site, as a destination that revives community identity while integrating community commercial, open space, limited industrial uses, and small-scale office space to attract technology jobs. • Interest in applying mixed-use (70 du/ac) east of Jefferson Ave within SP-14, with suggestion to connect Overland Dr & Diaz Rd and consider a transit terminus with high-density residential in the northern SP-14 area. In Uptown—particularly along Jefferson Ave— suggestion for an integrated mixed-use development combining high-density housing, office, neighborhood commercial, and open space.
STICKER COUNT
ONCHTC CC SC 4012070
D H M LLM VL RR
2 2
1 2
2 121
1 Terminus
Hub
SUMMARY COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONE 3
SC
70 70
O
O
NCH
H
H
642
BIG IDEAS
• Underbuilt area near Murrieta Creek offers redevelopment opportunity. • Convert underperforming retail to mixed-use, multi-density clusters around future hotel site.
• Cluster uses to increase walkability and reduce traffic trips. • Appropriate density and intensity can support urban village concept. • Extend “Old Town” area, apply Entertainment Overlay zone
STICKER COUNT
• Potential Hotel and Urban Village site. Interest in trail along the creek to hillside (East of city boundary)
• Interest in open space (Botanical/Community garden). • Interest in open space and trail along the creek (East of city boundary)
• Suggested connection: Fully extend Temecula Pkwy, crossing the Creek.
• Interest in senior living in vacant lot near Park and Ride area.
O
NC
HTC
CC
SC
40 120
70 D
H
M
L
LM
VL
RR
1 2
1 3
A
A
B C
D
E
F
B
C
D
E
F
TABLE #1 COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONE 4
643
BIG IDEAS
• Request to revive the South Side Specific Plan.
• Re-evaluate south Old Town area for more creative uses. • Explore entertainment overlay within existing Old Town district • Consider softening regulations to encourage entertainment businesses. • Interest in revising South Side Specific Plan.
Suggested site for Boys and Girls Club.
STICKER COUNT
A
B
• Interest in Riverside park
O
NC
HTC
CC
SC
40 120
70 D
H
M
L
LM
VL
RR
A
B
C
C
TABLE #2 COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONE 4
644
BIG IDEAS
• Improve multi-modal connections linking Uptown and Old Town. • Preserve wine country and open space while supporting equestrian needs.
• Interest in small-scale grocery and daily services that are neighborhood- serving. (South of U-Haul, along Old Town Front st).
• Suggested connection: Fully extend Temecula Pkwy, crossing the Creek.
STICKER COUNT
• Interest in live-work / mixed-use, retail promenade. Neighborhood Commercial at the end of Old Town Front St.
• Interest in neighborhood commercial, open space. Shuttle service at vacant lot north of Temecula Pkwy near City of Temecula Park & Ride.
O
NC
HTC
CC
SC
40 120
70 D
H
M
L
LM
VL
RR
3 1
1 B
C
A
D
A
B
C
D
TABLE #3 COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONE 4
645
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Underbuilt areas near Murrieta Creek present opportunities for mixed-use clusters supporting an urban village and future hotel, alongside reviving the South Side Specific Plan, enabling flexible entertainment uses in Old Town, improving Uptown–Old Town connections, and preserving wine country and open space. • Interest in developing the vacant lot north of Temecula Parkway near the City Park & Ride with neighborhood commercial and open space, while also exploring a nearby site for senior living to leverage transit access and community amenities. • Interest in extending “Old Town” area, apply Entertainment Overlay zone • Interest in revising the South Side Specific Plan, including a potential Boys & Girls Club near Rotary Park, expanded Riverside park space, and enhanced open space and creekside trails extending east toward the hillside. Suggestions to fully extend Temecula Parkway across the creek to improve connectivity, while interest in neighborhood- serving retail, small-scale grocery, live-work/mixed-use, a retail promenade along Old Town Front Street, alongside a potential hotel, and urban village site to anchor the area.
• Interest in open space (Botanical/Community garden).
STICKER COUNT
ONCHTC CC SC 4012070 D
H M LLM VL RR 1 3
2 3 1
2 SUMMARY COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONE 4
NC
NC
NC
CC
646
BIG IDEAS
• Explore healthcare-related uses near hospital, including extended or hospice care.
• Assess vacant lots along Temecula Parkway for medical support services.
• Desire to create an equestrian center with arena, events space, and trail access.
• Suggested site for Equestrian Center
• Suggested site for healthcare-related use
• Interest in mixed-use (70 du/ac). Explore specific plan or overlay zone for hotel use along Temecula Pkwy.
• Interest in high density residential in future Specific Plan area Y.
STICKER COUNT
ONCHTC CC SC
40 120 70
D H M LLM VL RR
7 2
1 1
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
TABLE #1 COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONE 5
647
BIG IDEAS
• The participants showed favor for the place like Vail Headquarters.
ONCHTC CC SC
40 120 70
D H M LLM VL RR
STICKER COUNT
A
A
TABLE #2 COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONE 5
648
BIG IDEAS
• Zone 5 has limited hotel presence along Temecula Parkway. • Consider lodging near recreational corridors along Highway 79. • Leverage trail and open space access as hospitality asset. • Distribute hotels strategically to avoid overconcentration elsewhere.
• Potential area for mixed-use, urban village/affordable housing along the creek
• Potential area for Hotel.
ONCHTC CC SC
40 120 70
D H M LLM VL RR
STICKER COUNT
A
B
B
A
TABLE #3 COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONE 5
649
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Zone 5 offers opportunities for strategically located hotels along Temecula Parkway that capitalize on trail and open space access, alongside healthcare-support uses near the hospital and a planned equestrian center with arena, event space, and trail connections to reinforce its recreational and service identity.
STICKER COUNT
• Suggest a site for healthcare-related uses and explore the area along the creek—across Temecula Parkway—for a potential hotel, mixed-use development, urban village, and affordable housing opportunity.
• Interest in mixed-use (70 du/ac). Explore specific plan or overlay zone for hotel use along Temecula Pkwy.
• Interest in high density residential in future specific plan area Y. • Suggested site for Equestrian Center
ONCHTC CC SC 4012070
D H M LLM VL RR
7 1 2
SUMMARY COMMENTS & IDEAS: ZONE 5
70 70
70 70
70 70
70 H
650
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Align the parcel’s Very Low Density Residential land use with its Open Space Conservation zoning, reflecting stakeholder intent to keep it as open space. (Barbara Buescher)
• Request to re-draw lot line. (Malinda Smith)
• Resident requests canceling the 2-to-4 lane widening on Ynez and De Portola Roads, citing driveway safety concerns and neighborhood character. (Louis Todd, Los Ranchitos HOA) • Suggestion: Reduce parking minimum and re-purpose Palm Plaza South parking space
• Community Note: Dangerous 4-way intersection during rush hour • Town Center vacant strip mall Plans ? Residential ? Parks ? • Welcoming entrance from Rancho Cal Advertise & Eagle Soar. • Update Murrieta St Connection (Cherry Street extension & Murrieta Creek crossing).
• Walkway or bikeway on other side of Diaz Rd. prevents unexpected crossing to move up or down.
• Suggestion: An open space (park) with nature trail.
• Future wildlife corridor.
• Part of SP-5 Redevelopment for Mixed Use tied to Old Town old buildings, and bike trails / walking trails in need of redevelopment. • Suggestion: A mountain lion corridor.
• Suggestion: Forbid more development westward from the city boundary.
• Consider the lot on the corner of Ynez and Santiago for an equestrian area use, and staging area for trail riding or equestrian center integrated with community garden.
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
2 4
56 9
10 15
12 7
5 8
3 11
13 14
14 SUMMARY: GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS & IDEAS
651
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Suggestion: Amend the policy to require free public parking in and around Old Town, as paid parking discourages visitors and has a chilling effect on local businesses. (Chris Sizemore) • Consider designating the north end of Old Town (west side of the river) as mixed-use, allowing redevelopment that adds housing and walkable access to Old Town and existing trails to create a more complete, walkable community. (Chris Sizemore)
• Apply horse scale to city’s physical improvements such as roads, trails and pedestrian widening, set back for horse safety distance, commercial and retail setback.
• Provide small neighborhood-serving markets within walking distance, instead of concentrating retail only along Highway 79. 16 17
16 17
SUMMARY: GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS & IDEAS
652
Item No. 19
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Aaron Adams, City Manager
DATE: May 26, 2026
SUBJECT: Receive and File Presentation from San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project and Provide General Direction Regarding the Same
______________________________________________________________________________
PREPARED BY: Betsy Lowrey, Assistant to the City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file a presentation from San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula, and provide general direction regarding the same.
BACKGROUND: San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) plans to build, own, and operate 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures along a preliminary route that is proposed through the City of Temecula. Their project is branded as the Golden Pacific Powerlink.
SDG&E is currently conducting public outreach, and has hosted “virtual open houses” on May 12 and May 14 to share information with the general public about their Golden Pacific Powerlink project. SDG&E was invited to present information about their project, including the 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula, to the City Council on May 26. SDG&E indicated they are unavailable and requested exploring a later date. Should SDG&E not be able to reconsider their availability for a presentation on May 26, staff will reach out to SDG&E to set a new date. In the interim, rather than delay presenting information about this proposed significant project to the full City Council, SDG&E’s website is accessible online at https://sdge.com/goldenpacific for review, and outreach materials provided to the City by SDG&E are attached for the City Council to receive and file, and provide general direction regarding same.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. SDG&E postcard mailed to addresses near the project
2. SDG&E Public Outreach Material – Received 4-9-2026
3. SDG&E Public Outreach Material – Received 4-20-2026
More information is online at https://sdge.com/goldenpacific 653
654
Continued on the back
Delivering Tomorrow’s Energy
California is entering a period of unprecedented growth in electricity demand as homes, transportation, businesses, and industry increasingly rely on clean electric power.
San Diego Gas & Electric is planning Golden Pacific Powerlink, a major 500kV transmission investment that will help ensure that even as energy use rises, electricity is there where it’s needed most, whether you’re turning on the lights, charging a vehicle, powering a home, or running critical services.
A NE W 500-K V T R ANSM I S SIO N LINE
Golden Pacific Powerlink
April 2026
This new line will help keep the region’s power supply
stable and allow the state to meet its energy goals as
our energy needs continue to grow.
•Create a vital, new transmission pathway
•Enhance the region’s electrical grid
•Enable greater integration of more electricity generation
Estimated dates
SPRING 2023
CAISO identifies Transmission
project in its annual Plan
New transmission
line begins serving
customers
Construction
SUMMER 2025
SDG&E assumes
responsibility to build, own
and operate the new line
SPRING 2026
Virtual open houses
SUMMER/FALL 2026
In-person open houses
FALL/WINTER 2026
Fall 2029
2032
California Public Utility
Commission Filing
Fall 2026-2029
Permitting and Approvals
Projected Timeline
Estimated dates
655
© 2026 San Diego Gas & Electric Company. Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All rights reserved. S2550030 0126 P.O. Box 129831 | San Diego, CA 92112-9831 | 1-800-411-7343 | Connect at sdge.com Following an environmental review and public participation process, the final route will be determined by the California Public Utilities Commission and relevant federal agencies.
SDG&E’s Commitment to
Safety and Reliability
With over 140 years of experience
delivering energy across the region,
SDG&E has a strong track record of
building and operating critical
infrastructure — from transmission lines
to battery storage. The Golden Pacific
Powerlink will benefit from this expertise,
including SDG&E’s award-winning wildfire
safety program, which has helped
prevent major utility-related wildfires for
more than 17 years. Safety and reliability
will guide every step of the project.
Opportunities for Participation
SDG&E acquired the project and is in preliminary
planning. While the project is being developed, we are committed to gathering public input to ensure the you have an opportunity to engage in the process.
[email protected]
Scan to learn more
or email us at:
Hosting
open houses and
other engagement
opportunities.
Gathering
community feedback
to help inform project
development.
Virtual Open Houses:
May 12 and 14 2026; 12 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.
All events will present the same content
In-Person Open Houses: Later in 2026
656
Continued on the back
Delivering Tomorrow’s Energy
California is projected to use more electricity than ever as homes, transportation, businesses, and industry increasingly rely on electricity. To ensure the state has enough power to meet growing demand, California’s transmission planning process has determined that additional transmission capacity is needed to keep the electric system reliable and resilient.
Through the California Independent System Operator’s (CAISO) rigorous, multi-year transmission planning process, Golden Pacific Powerlink was identified as a required project to strengthen the statewide grid, reduce congestion, and improve the delivery of electricity to where it’s needed most.
Golden Pacific Powerlink is a proposed new 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line that SDG&E will build, own, and operate. The project would connect SDG&E’s existing Imperial Valley Substation to a new substation to be built near the San Diego–Orange County border, creating a critical new high-capacity pathway to help deliver electricity reliably across Southern California.
A NE W 500-K V T R ANSM I S SIO N LINE
Golden Pacific Powerlink
April 2026
This new line will help keep the region’s power supply
reliable and allow the state to meet its energy goals as demand continues to grow.
•Create a vital new transmission pathway
•Enhance the region’s electrical grid
•Enable greater integration of more electricity generation
Estimated dates
SPRING 2023
CAISO identifies and
approves project in its
annual Transmission Plan
New transmission
line begins service
Construction
SUMMER 2025
SDG&E assumes
responsibility to build, own
and operate the new line
SPRING 2026
Virtual open houses
SUMMER/FALL 2026
In-person open houses
FALL/WINTER 2026
Fall 2029
2032
California Public Utility
Commission Filing
Fall 2026-2029
State and federal
permitting and approvals
Projected Timeline
657
© 2026 San Diego Gas & Electric Company. Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All rights reserved. S2550030 0126 P.O. Box 129831 | San Diego, CA 92112-9831 | 1-800-411-7343 | Connect at sdge.com Following a comprehensive environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the final route will be reviewed and approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and applicable federal agencies before any construction can begin.
SDG&E’s Commitment to Safety and Reliability
With over 140 years of experience
delivering energy across the region,
SDG&E has a strong track record of
building and operating critical
infrastructure. The Golden Pacific
Powerlink will benefit from this
expertise, including SDG&E’s
award-winning wildfire safety program,
which has helped prevent major
utility-related wildfires for more than 18
years. Safety and reliability will guide
every step of the project.
Opportunities for Participation
Golden Pacific Powerlink is in early planning and preliminary design. As the project moves forward, SDG&E is committed to engaging with communities and gathering public input to help inform project development and environmental review.
[email protected]
Scan to learn more
or email us at:
Hosting
open houses and
other engagement
opportunities.
Gathering
community feedback
to help inform project
development.
Virtual Open Houses:
May 12 and 14 2026; 12 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.
All events will present the same content
The messages contained on this document are
funded by ratepayers unless otherwise noted.
In-Person Open Houses: Later in 2026
658
Item No. 20
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Aaron Adams, City Manager
DATE: May 12, 2026
SUBJECT: City Council Travel/Conference Report
______________________________________________________________________________
PREPARED BY: Luisa Saylor, Executive Assistant
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file City Council travel/conference report.
On April 22-24, 2026, Mayor Jessica Alexander, Council Member James Stewart and Council Member Brenden Kalfus traveled to Sacramento, CA to attend the League of California Cities 2026 City Leaders Summit Conference. Included in this conference was advocacy/lobbying briefing with State officials on City priorities as well as meetings with State officials in Housing and Transportation.
On May 7-8, 2026, Mayor Jessica Alexander traveled to Palm Desert to attend the 2026 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Conference and General Assembly.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Itinerary – League of California Cities 2026 City Leaders Summit
2. Itinerary – 2026 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Conference and General Assembly
659
660
661
2026 REGIONAL
CONFERENCE & GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
May 7-8, 2026
JW Marriott Desert Springs Resort & Spa
The 2026 Regional Conference and General Assembly is
Southern California’s largest gathering of elected and industry leaders.
Join SCAG May 7-8 at the JW Marriott in Palm Desert for panels, networking, and activities addressing the biggest challenges facing the region in resilience, housing affordability, mega-events, and the emerging AI economy.
REGISTER HERE (HTTPS://CVENT.ME/1XKD23?REFID=WEB)
AGENDA KEYNOTE SPEAKER
EVENT INFORMATION SPONSORSHIPS
SPONSORS
(/)CONNECT SOCAL REAP 2.0
RDP
ABOUT US MEETINGS OUR WORK DATA & TOOLS GET INVOLVED NEWS & EVENTS 662
Agenda
TIME AGENDA
MAY 6 | WEDNESDAY
4 p.m.EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATION
COMMITTEE MEETING
6 p.m.PRESIDENT’S RECEPTION (Invitation Only)
MAY 7 | THURSDAY
8 a.m.REGISTRATION, NETWORKING, AND
CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST
9 a.m.REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING
10 a.m.WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS
11 a.m.GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETING
12:15 p.m.SUSTAINABILITY AWARDS LUNCHEON
(/)CONNECT SOCAL REAP 2.0
RDP
ABOUT US MEETINGS OUR WORK DATA & TOOLS GET INVOLVED NEWS & EVENTS 663
Calendar (/calendar)
SCAG-TV Livestream (/scag-tv-livestream)
NEWS & EVENTS (/NEWS-EVENTS)
News +
Events –
2026 Regional Conference & General Assembly
(/ga2026)
Past Signature Events (/past-signature-events)
Photo Gallery (/photo-gallery)
TIME AGENDA
2:15 p.m.BREAKOUT SESSIONS I
ALIGNING LAND, CAPITAL, AND
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITIES
Sponsored by National CORE
Southern California’s housing crisis requires
holistically addressing systems of housing
production. This panel will discuss how
jurisdictions can effectively align land
availability, financing, and utility capacity to
turn housing goals into reality. Panelists from
municipal leadership, finance, and technical
consulting will demonstrate how integrated
regional resources help communities bridge
planning and implementation. Attendees will
gain practical insights into how this
alignment can accelerate the development
of sustainable neighborhoods across the
region.
Moderator: David Pollock, Executive
Director, Ventura Council of Governments
Panelists:
HARNESSING MEGA-EVENTS TO
ACCELERATE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’S
MOBILITY
Sponsored by WSP
Mega-events like the 2028 Summer
Olympic and Paralympic Games present a
unique opportunity for Southern California
to accelerate mobility improvements,
strengthen regional coordination, and
globally highlight local communities. This
panel will explore how public agencies, local
jurisdictions, and private-sector partners are
advancing multimodal transportation
solutions to prepare for the LA28 Games.
Panelists will discuss the scale of games-
related travel demand and the governance
structures guiding regional planning efforts,
highlight resources and coordination that
support cities and local partners, and share
how communities are leveraging the LA28
Games to advance mobility projects and
improve experiences for residents and
visitors. Together, these perspectives will
illustrate how cross-sector collaboration
Adam Eliason, Trust
Manager/Affordable Housing
Consultant, CivicStone
Alicia Gonzalez, Associate Vice
President, MBI
Mike Balsamo, Chair, Building Industry
Association of Southern California
Paige Montojo, Special Projects
Manager, City of Riverside
(/)CONNECT SOCAL REAP 2.0
RDP
ABOUT US MEETINGS OUR WORK DATA & TOOLS GET INVOLVED NEWS & EVENTS 664
TIME AGENDA
translates mega-event preparation into
lasting mobility, economic, and community
benefits.
Moderator: Aaron Gaul, TDM Principal, Alta
Planning + Design
Panelists:
2:15 p.m.STUDENT SHOWCASE
3:15 p.m.BREAK AND NETWORKING
Bill Panos, Senior Vice President and
Head of Transportation, LA28
Marcel Porras, Deputy Chief Innovation
Officer, LA Metro
Anthony Brenneman, Executive
Director, Orange County Sports
Commission
Michael Krouse, President/Chief
Executive Officer, GOCAL Greater
Ontario California
(/)CONNECT SOCAL REAP 2.0
RDP
ABOUT US MEETINGS OUR WORK DATA & TOOLS GET INVOLVED NEWS & EVENTS 665
TIME AGENDA
3:45 p.m.BREAKOUT SESSIONS II
STRATEGIES FOR PLANNING, BUILDING,
AND FUNDING RESILIENT
INFRASTRUCTURE
Sponsored by Podium
As Southern California faces intensifying
shocks and stressors, jurisdictions are
undertaking the critical work of planning and
implementing resilient infrastructure that can
support both daily needs and future
disruptions. This panel will explore how to
assess infrastructure vulnerabilities, identify
priority projects, and strengthen community
resilience. Speakers will share methods for
evaluating resilience needs, lessons from
recent projects, and practical funding
strategies to help jurisdictions move from
planning to implementation.
Moderator: Alex Wigglesworth, Journalist,
Los Angeles Times
Panelists:
FORECASTING THE FUTURE OF AN AI-
FUELED ECONOMY
Sponsored by Prologis
Economic progress in 2025 was
characterized by AI expanding into an ever-
increasing number of industries. AI
technologies are generating high valuations
and economic output, reducing the need for
positions that have been pathways to stable,
well-paying white-collar careers. However,
AI will also create more high-demand
positions over the next two years that can
help to offset job losses. How are workforce
development and training impacted? What
defensible skills do the current and future
workforce require? How can AI and AI tools
be leveraged in the public sector to promote
data-driven decision making, capacity
building, and increased efficiency and cost
savings? Experts from across sectors will
share strategies to leverage opportunities
and withstand challenges.
Jude Schneider, Senior Advisor,
Business Resiliency, Southern California
Edison
Geoffrey Danker, Public Policy &
Planning Manager, SoCal Gas
Daniel Soltero, Program Manager,
Western Riverside Council of
Governments
Rita Kampalath, Chief Sustainability
Officer, County of Los Angeles
(/)CONNECT SOCAL REAP 2.0
RDP
ABOUT US MEETINGS OUR WORK DATA & TOOLS GET INVOLVED NEWS & EVENTS 666
TIME AGENDA
Moderator: Dara Wheeler, Infrastructure
Advisor, Rawlins Infrastructure Consulting
Panelists:
3:45 p.m.STUDENT SHOWCASE
5:30 p.m.EVENING RECEPTION
MAY 8 | FRIDAY
8 a.m.REGISTRATION
8:30 a.m.BREAKFAST
9 a.m.WELCOME
9:10 a.m.STUDENT SHOWCASE AWARDS
9:15 a.m.KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Biju Kewalram, Chief Strategy Officer,
BrightStar Care of Huntington Beach
Claudia Preciado, Senior Director of
Customer Partnerships & Business
Development, Hayden AI
Kevin Gray, Chief Technology Officer,
Metrolink
(/)CONNECT SOCAL REAP 2.0
RDP
ABOUT US MEETINGS OUR WORK DATA & TOOLS GET INVOLVED NEWS & EVENTS 667
STAY INFORMED
Get the latest updates from SCAG straight to your inbox.
SIGN UP (/SUBSCRIBE-UPDATES-0)
TIME AGENDA
10 a.m.PLENARY PANEL SESSION
THE FUTURE OF REGIONS: INNOVATING
INSTITUTIONS FOR A NEW ERA
Sponsored by HNTB
Regions today face unprecedented
disruption—from accelerating climate
impacts to transformative technological
advances and changing global dynamics.
The forces reshaping communities demand
adaptive, forward-thinking public
institutions, yet many agencies remain
constrained by structures designed for a
different time. This session brings together
innovative leaders to explore how regional
leadership, bold collaboration, and renewed
institutional vision can unlock new pathways
to progress. We will examine approaches
and partnerships that break down silos and
accelerate implementation, providing tools
that rise to the demands of the moment and
the future.
Moderator: Kate Gordon, Chief Executive
Officer, California Forward
Panelists:
11:15 a.m.CONFERENCE WRAP-UP
Kellie Kao Miles, Executive Director,
Urban Land Institute Los Angeles
Chuck Wemple, Executive Director,
Houston-Galveston Area Council
Darrell Steinberg, Former Mayor, City
of Sacramento and Former President
Pro Tem, California State Senate
(/)CONNECT SOCAL REAP 2.0
RDP
ABOUT US MEETINGS OUR WORK DATA & TOOLS GET INVOLVED NEWS & EVENTS 668
© 2026 Southern California Association of Governments. All Rights Reserved.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OFGOVERNMENTS
900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 236-1800
Monday- Thursday: 8:00 AM –
5:00 PM
Friday: 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM
CONTACT US (/CONTACT-
US)
DIRECTIONS & PARKING
(/SCAG-OFFICES)
The SCAG website is best
viewed using Chrome, Firefox,
or Safari. As the Internet
Explorer and Edge Legacy
browsers do not render the
SCAG website correctly, we
strongly advise against their
usage.
REGIONAL OFFICES QUICKLINKS
Imperial County (/scag-
offices)
Inland Empire (/scag-offices)
Orange County (/scag-
offices)
Ventura County (/scag-
offices)
Agendas and Minutes
(/meetings-agendas)
Leadership (/meetings-
leadership)
Committees (/meetings-
committees)
Subcommittees (/meetings-
subcommittees)
Our Team (/about-us-our-
team)
Careers (/careers)
Civil Rights Compliance
( https://scag.ca.gov/get-
involved-civil-rights-
compliance)
Accessibility
(/accessibility)
Privacy Policy (/privacy-
policy)
Terms of Use (/terms-
use)
669
Item No. 21
- 1 -
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Matt Peters, Director of Community Development
DATE: May 26, 2026
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 April 2026.
CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
In April 2026, Planning has processed forty-four (44) new applications (not including Home Occupations) and four (4) Public Hearings were conducted. A detailed account of planning activities is attached to this report.
Tierra Vista Road Townhomes (PA25-0263): A Development Plan application for an approximately 54,444 square foot townhome development that consists of six (6) new buildings that will provide 23 units, a pool, a play area, BBQ area and dog park at an existing vacant lot west of Ynez Road and north of Tierra Vista Road (944-330-008). (MARQUEZ)
Lantern Crest Retail Center (PA25-0355) and Conditional Use Permit for Drive-Thru (PA25-0356):
A Development Plan application for an approximately 12,260 square foot one-story retail center. The retail center will consist of four (4) individual retail units and (1) restaurant with a drive-thru at the east of the building. The project is generally located on the corner of northwest corner of Equity Drive and Ynez Road (APN: 916-400-068) (MARQUEZ)
670
- 2 -
Panera Bread (PA25-0049) and Conditional Use Permit (PA25-0050): A Development Plan to allow for a Panera Bread restaurant (with drive-thru) totaling approximately 3,145 square feet. The project is generally located at the northwest corner of the Temecula Parkway and Bedford Court intersection (APN: 922-170- 035) (MARQUEZ)
Rancho-12 Tentative Tract Map (PA22-0047): The City is processing a 12-lot single-family development located at 31670 Rancho California Road. (JONES)
Be Good Hotel (PA22-0995): The City is processing a Development Plan application to review a four-story hotel featuring nine rooms, restaurant, and subterranean parking. The project is generally located on the northwest corner of Fourth Street and Mercedes Street. (CARDENAS)
Redhawk Specific Plan Amendment (PA23-0327): The City is processing an amendment to the Redhawk Specific Plan to provide a revision to uses associated with the golf course and add related standards for those uses. The project is located at 45100 Temecula Parkway within the Redhawk Specific Plan (related Planning Application number PA23-0251 CUP). The project is scheduled for Planning Commission on May 6, 2026. (JONES)
Front and Main (PA23-0492): The City is processing a Development Plan application for an approximately 13,600 square foot structure totaling three-stories. The project is generally located approximately 130 feet east of the Old Town Front Street and Main Street intersection at APN 922-034-037. (CARDENAS)
Cubesmart AT&T Wireless Antenna Facility (PA22-0470): The City is processing a Wireless Antenna Facility application for a proposed 40’ tall mono-eucalyptus tree located behind the existing CubeSmart Self Storage facility located at 44618 Pechanga Parkway. (CARDENAS)
Tony's Car Wash (PA23-0321): The City is processing a Development Plan application for a proposed 6,828 square-foot car wash facility consisting of a car wash tunnel, detailing tunnel, an office, and vacuums on the vacant 1.99-acre property located approximately 200 feet southwest of Temecula Parkway and Jedediah Smith Road. (CARDENAS)
Vertical Bridge WAF (PA23-0351): The City is processing a Wireless Antenna Facility application (Conditional Use Permit) for a new 77-foot wireless tower facility and associated ground equipment at the Redhawk Golf Course open space area between Camino Rubi and Corte Mislanca. (CARDENAS)
Small Steps Industrial (PA24-0180): The City is processing a Development Plan application for a proposed 8,000 square foot industrial building on the vacant .59-acre parcel located on the northwest corner of Felix Valdez Avenue and Baldaray Circle. (CARDENAS)
MS Mountain View Building 17 (PA24-0246): The City is processing a Development Plan application for Building 17, a 69,095 square foot building located on the west of the corner of Via Industria and Avenida Alvarado. (CARDENAS)
Butterfield Stage Residential: A Planned Development Overlay (PA25-0232), Tentative Tract Map (PA25-0230), and a Development Plan (PA25-0231) to allow for a 158-unit single-family market rate residential project. Units will range in size from 1,615 to 2,434 square feet. The project is generally located on the northeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road. (JONES) 671
- 3 -
Temecula Town Center Residential: A General Plan Amendment (PA25-0331) to remove Table LU-6 from the Land Use Element (Mixed Use Overlays); a Development Plan (PA25-0332) to review 85 attached townhomes within 14 structures, each structure is three stories; and, a Tentative Tract Map (PA25-0333) to reconfigure an existing parcel to allow for an attached residential project. (JONES)
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 Traveled (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 RFP for the General Plan managing consultant was awarded to Sagecrest Environmental (contract approved January 28, 2025). The RFP for the General Plan consultant was released and interviews held with the top applicants the week of April 28, 2025. The selection committee chose De Novo Planning Group to lead the General Plan effort. The contract was approved by the City Council on May 27, 2025. A General Plan visioning workshop is being held in each of the five Council Districts, and the first GPAC meeting was held on October 9, 2025, at the Conference Center. This first meeting focused on presenting the “Vision and Values” that was gathered from 5 District outreach events. The second GPAC meeting was held on November 13, 2025; this meeting focused on the Circulation Element and the priorities of the community regarding transportation. The third GPAC meeting was held on January 8, 2026, and focused on Economics. The fourth GPAC meeting was held on February 12, 2026, specifically focused on Land Use.
Staff and the consultant team presented a draft land use alternatives plan to the CC General Plan Update Subcommittee on March 24, 2026, and followed up on March 31, 2026, based on feedback provided. The fifth (5th) GPAC meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2026, and will focus on these land use alternatives. (PETERS)
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan AB 2140 Compliance (LR25-0056): A proposed City Council Resolution to include reference to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in compliance with AB2140. The proposed resolution would reduce the City’s costs in circumstances where FEMA declares an emergency. Staff is working with the City Attorney's office to ensure documents comply with both state and federal requirements. (COLLINS)
Citywide CWPP (LR25-0464): Staff has drafted an RFP and is preparing to release. (COLLINS)
Administrative Use Permit (LR24-0417): Staff is preparing a draft ordinance to implement an administrative use permit (AUP) specifically for alcohol uses (primary and secondary) that are not permitted by right such as grocery stores, restaurants serving beer and wine, etc. (COLLINS)
ADU Ordinance (LR26-0136): The Ordinance has been drafted to be complaint with updated/new state laws. Staff is preparing supporting documents to include staff report and environmental documents. Once complete will be scheduled for Planning Commission and City Council Subcommittees for their review. (COLLINS)
672
- 4 -
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 of work and timeline. Public Works is drafting new street sections for the Specific Plan. Spurlock Consulting has provided a scope of work for the proposed changes to the Streetscape and Sidewalk Standards and staff has executed the agreement for services and will begin updating the graphics as requested. Planning and Traffic Engineering have been working on updated street cross sections and a map to identify cross section placements. The project is scheduled for Planning Commission on May 6, 2026. (JONES)
Wayfinding Guide (LR23-0167/LR24-0344): The City was working with a consultant, Alta Planning + Design, Inc., to implement a bicycle wayfinding system for the bike lanes and trails throughout the city. The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan that was adopted in 2016 will act as an implementation and style guide to create an interconnected network designed to encourage more residents to use active transportation. Alta drafted a wayfinding strategy memo that outlines best practices for destination selection, sign placement, and sign programming in 2024, however, for ease of production and cost purposes, staff decided to open a contract with Brand Assassins to finish out the project. A kickoff meeting with Brand Assassins was held in February 2025, and designs are underway. Staff and the consultant presented a draft design to the City Council Trails/Open Space Ad Hoc Subcommittee on May 13, 2025. Staff has been working with the consultant on finalizing a design based off of the feedback received. A project update meeting with the City Council Trails/Open Space Ad Hoc Subcommittee was held on February 24, 2026.
The subcommittee directed staff to explore opportunities to rename the trails to ensure the names are more relevant and intentional. Staff had four (4) mockup signs prepared with proposed new design and will present to Trails/Opens Space Subcommittee on May 5, 2026 for review and comment. (COLLINS)
SB 1186 (LR24-0090): A draft Ordinance has been prepared to implement the requirements of SB1186.
This item is scheduled to be heard at the Planning Commission meeting on October 15, 2025, and City Council on November 18, 2025. The City Council tabled the item and requested additional research be completed on the subject and to bring it back at a future date. (COLLINS)
Old Town Parking Sensors (LR22-0857): The project is a continuation of the Old Town Parking White Paper that discussed various technology solutions designed to track and report on parking in Old Town in real time. The white paper recommended that the City utilize parking sensors to monitor parking in Old Town. Staff has circulated a Request for Proposal from companies offering parking sensors. Responses were received and reviewed by staff. The companies that submitted the top two highest rated proposals were invited to provide a demonstration to staff. Demonstrations were held in April and a vendor was selected (Frogparking, Inc.). The agreement for the Frogparking Sensors was taken to City Council on November 12, 2024. Sensor installation for the pilot program (Phase I) was completed on February 11, 2025. The pilot covered parallel parking spaces along Old Town Front Street between Main Street and the northern entry arch. On August 5, 2025, staff made a presentation to the City Council Old Town Steering Committee updating them on the results seen during the pilot program. Staff also discussed with the committee their thoughts on bringing before the entire council a recommendation to move forward with Phase II of the project. The subcommittee was in favor of this idea. Implementation of Phase II was presented to the City Council on October 28, 2025 for consideration. The City Council approved moving forward with Phase II.
Installation began on April 1, 2026. (JONES)
673
- 5 -
Private Paid Parking in Old Town (LR25-0295): Staff presented an update to the Old Town Local Advisory Committee (OTLAC) on January 22, 2026, and received direction related to ongoing concerns surrounding privately owned parking lots within Old Town. At the hearing the 3 committee members were supportive of regulating the legal non-conforming parking lots while ensuring not approved/unpermitted lots would be dealt with through the City’s normal nuisance abatement process. Staff met with the Old Town Steering Subcommittee on March 31, 2026, to provide an update on feedback received from OTLAC and for additional direction. Staff will begin business, stakeholder and visitor outreach and draft an ordinance to implement the Subcommittees direction. (COLLINS)
Shopping Cart Ordinance Amendment (LR25-0444): An ordinance amending Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare) of the Municipal Code to implement the requirements of SB 753 which amends the fees City’s may charge for shopping cart recovery among other changes. Staff is working to identify needed changes and will bring forward an ordinance for subcommittee review in the near future. (COLLINS)
Annual Municipal Code MX Ordinance (LR26-0008): An annual effort to “cleanup” the municipal code by adopting an ordinance to correct minor errors, omissions, and clarify policy that have been identified as deficient. Staff has prepared an ordinance and will present it to the Planning Commission on June 3, 2026 and City Council on July 14, 2026. (COLLINS)
HOUSING
Uptown Temecula Request for Proposal (RFP): The City has been working closely with the Supportive Housing and Services Ad Hoc Subcommittee to create a draft RFP for the City owned vacant land parcel located in Uptown Temecula. The RFP was made live on June 4, 2025. The City received six (6) proposals.
City Council has decided to update the RFP to include two City owned parcel in the RFP which would make the buildable area larger than the original RFP. Staff will be working with the Supportive Housing and Services Ad Hoc Subcommittee to draft a new RFP and re-issue. The parcel is right next to the French Valley off ramp headed south on the I‑15 Freeway and it is planned to be used for an affordable housing project. (URIAS)
BUILDING & SAFETY
Building and Safety statistics for April 2026 are highlighted in the following table. 674
- 6 -
Non-Construction Certificate of Occupancy
Sports Treasures (6,834 SF)
Urban Swirl Frozen Yogurt (1,030 SF)
Innovative Implant and Oral Surgery (5,306 SF)
Tenant Improvement
Carrington College - (1,360 SF)
CODE ENFORCEMENT
During the month of April, Code Enforcement responded to 76 web inquiries. In addition, the division opened 831 code cases and conducted 689 regular inspections.
675
- 7 -
Foreclosure Tracking: Code Enforcement works with the local real estate community to monitor foreclosures, defaults and real estate owned properties.
ATTACHMENT: Current Planning Activity Report
676
PLANNING ACTIVITY REPORT
PA Number Project Address APN
Assigned Planner
Apply Date
Approval
Date Applicant Company Status Owner Plan Type
PA26 -0141 Marcella Mills 04/01/2026 Out LA-Architects 940-330-001 LA-Architects 43517
RIDGEPARK
LLC
PL Modifications 43517 Ridge Park Dr
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: Ridge Park Drive MOD: a Modification Application for the addition of an approximately 130 square foot enclosure to house equipment for an adjacent business located at 43517 Ridge Park Drive.
PA26 -0142 Marcella Mills 04/01/2026 04/16/2026 Approved Thomas Zahn 955-422-008 Denis Kremm PL Modifications 43363 Messina St Temecula, CA 92592
Case Title / Description: Kremm Residence MOD: a Modification Application for the addition of an approximately 143 square foot balcony at an existing residence located at 43363 Messina Street.
PA26 -0148 Yannin Marquez 04/06/2026 Approved Michael
Kavanaugh
921-400-024 JEFFERSON
PLAZA CENTER
PL Massage
Permits
27715 Jefferson Ave , 108
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: MK the Studios MEP: a Massage Establishment Permit for MK the Studios to offer massage services in one room within a salon establishment located at 27715 Jefferson Avenue Suite 108.
PA26 -0150 Marcella Mills 04/06/2026 04/10/2026 Completed Nicole Beltz 921-730-072 Rocket Close LLC
GILMORE
HOLDINGS
PL Zoning or
Planning Letter
42105 Dlr Dr
Temecula, CA 92591
Case Title / Description: 42105 DLR Drive ZL: a Zoning Letter Request for the property located at 42105 DLR Drive (APN: 921-730-072)
PA26 -0151 Marcella Mills 04/06/2026 Out Kyle Stephens 909-310-072 EXETER 41980
WINCHESTER
PL Modifications 41980 Winchester Rd
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: Cart.com Generator MOD: a Modification Application for the addition of approximately 600 linear feet of fencing and an emergency generator at an existing industrial building located at 41980 Winchester Road.
PA26 -0152 Marcella Mills 04/07/2026 Out Ryan Ybarra 910-310-006 KAZI PL Sign Program 27570 Jefferson Ave Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: Sinclair Gas Station SP: a Sign Program to accommodate five new signs at a Sinclair Gas Station located at 27570 Jefferson Avenue, as required by the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
PA Number Project Address APN
Assigned Planner
Apply Date
Approval
Date Applicant Company Status Owner Plan Type
PA26 -0153 Marcella Mills 04/08/2026 Out Michael Marx 922-046-012 Marx Cellars LLC
FI THIRD
STREET 34 LP
PL Entertainment
License
42081 3Rd St , A
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: Humble Somm Class II EL: an Entertainment License application for Humble Somm restaurant to obtain a Class II Entertainment License at 42081 3rd Street Unit A.
PA26 -0154 Marcella Mills 04/08/2026 04/13/2026 Completed Darren Mefford 909-310-072 EXETER 41980
WINCHESTER
PL Zoning or
Planning Letter
41980 Winchester Rd
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: 41980 Winchester Road ZL: a Zoning Letter Request for the property located at 41980 Winchester Road (APN 909-310-072)
PA26 -0156 Marcella Mills 04/13/2026 Plan Review Andrew Hinman 910-300-018 KIMCO PALM PLAZA
PL Conditional
Use Permit
26493 Ynez Rd , Suite B
Temecula, CA 92591
Case Title / Description: Goldfish Swim School CUP: a Conditional Use Permit for a children's swim school to operate within an existing commercial building located at 26493 Ynez Road Suite B.
PA26 -0158 Marcella Mills 04/13/2026 Plan Review Ray Crain 921-060-009 JEFFERSON ETC
PL Modifications 28061 Jefferson Ave
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: Santa Rosa Building Landscape MOD: a Modification Application for the removal of turf and installation of drought tolerant landscaping at the Santa Rosa Building located at 28061, 28011 and 28007 Jefferson Avenue.
PA26 -0159 Jaime Cardenas 04/13/2026 Plan Review Nicole Flint 940-310-059 PL Modifications 1 Better World Cir Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: 1 Better World Circle Solar Carport MOD: a Modification Application for the installation of 456 solar carport modules across the parking lot of the office campus located at 1 Better World Circle.
PA26 -0160 Marcella Mills 04/13/2026 Plan Review BRLS SoCal LLC 940-320-016 BRLS SoCal LLC
SB ALTAIR PL Modifications Pm 18254:23 Temecula, Ca
Case Title / Description: Altair Village C MOD: a Major Modification Application for Village C of the Altair Specific Plan, originally approved under PA23-0440, to change from 212 attached rowhomes to 176 detached single-family dwellings and duplexes.
PA26 -0161 Jaime Cardenas 04/13/2026 05/05/2026 Approved Kimberly Hull 964-640-031 CITY OF
TEMECULA
PL Vendor
License
32101 Sommers Bend
Temecula, CA
Case Title / Description: The Local Candy Cart VL: a Vendor's License Application for a proposed roaming vendor selling packaged candies.
PA26 -0162 Jaime Cardenas 04/14/2026 Approved Gabriel Melo 964-640-031 CITY OF
TEMECULA
PL Vendor
License
32101 Sommers Bend
Temecula, CA
Case Title / Description: Melo's Ice Cream VL: A Vendor License Application to allow a roaming cart selling pre-packaged ice cream.
PA Number Project Address APN
Assigned Planner
Apply Date
Approval
Date Applicant Company Status Owner Plan Type
PA26 -0163 Marcella Mills 04/15/2026 04/16/2026 Approved Chelsea Freeman
921-400-029 OLD
JAYHWAWKER
INV
PL Temporary
Use Permit
27727 Jefferson Ave
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: MOMFest Lionheart Gym TUP: a Temporary Use Permit for Lionheart Gym to host a community event with workout classes, local vendors and family-friendly activities on April 18, 2026 from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM. There is no live entertainment or alcohol proposed.
PA26 -0164 Marcella Mills 04/15/2026 Plan Review Hide Iwagami 910-290-019 Winchester Marketplace
PL Modifications 40705 Winchester Rd , A104
Temecula, CA 92591
Case Title / Description: Kura Sushi Outdoor Patio MOD: a Modification Application for the addition of a nineteen-foot-long metal railing and six metal benches in the outdoor area in front of Kura Sushi located at 40705 Winchester Road, Unit A104.
PA26 -0165 Yannin Marquez 04/15/2026 Applied Jiles Smith 921-480-053 Hiroyuki Matsushita
PL Conditional
Use Permit
27464 Commerce Center Dr ,
C And D
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: Temecula Valley Fine Art Museum and Gallery CUP: A Conditional Use Permit for Temecula Valley Fine Art Museum and Gallery to operate an art museum at 27464 Commerce Center Drive, Suites C and D.
PA26 -0166 Marcella Mills 04/16/2026 04/16/2026 Approved Chelsea Freeman
909-372-032 CALIF
BUSINESS
CONDOS
TEMECULA
PL Temporary
Use Permit
42095 Zevo Dr , A11
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: Lionheart Trivia Event TUP: a Temporary Use Permit for Lionheart Gym located at 42095 Zevo Drive to host a trivia event on April 19, 2026 from 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM with no alcohol or live entertainment.
PA26 -0169 Jaime Cardenas 04/20/2026 Plan Review Shubhangi Ram Zumale
920-080-004 TEMECULA
MARKETPLACE
PL Conditional
Use Permit
40335 Winchester Rd
Temecula, CA 92591
Case Title / Description: Postal Annex U-haul CUP: a Conditional Use Permit for an ancillary U-Haul van (only) rental business to operate in conjunction with the existing Postal Annex located at 40335 Winchester Road, Suite E.
PA26 -0170 Yannin Marquez 04/20/2026 Plan Review Maile Macabio 957-080-027 CARDINAL INV
PROP-SERAPHI
NA
PL Modifications
Temecula, CA
Case Title / Description: Oak Creek Tract MOD: A Modification Application for changes to the entitled plans that include removal of a window at the dining room on the 1st floor of all floor plans and replacement of the fencing material of three small sections near the open space water course from 2" tube steel over 3' block with 5'6" tube steel for the Oak Creek tract homes.
PA Number Project Address APN
Assigned Planner
Apply Date
Approval
Date Applicant Company Status Owner Plan Type
PA26 -0171 Scott Cooper 04/22/2026 Plan Review John Watson 944-370-014 Temecula Village Development, LP
PL Modifications 30003 Rancho California Rd
Temecula, CA 92591
Case Title / Description: A Modification (Planning Review Only) to a previously approved Development Plan (PA20-0325) to add a stair tower ventilation hood to the exterior of each of the six (6) buildings. The project is located on the south side of Rancho California Road, approximately 150 feet west of Cosmic Drive.
PA26 -0172 Jaime Cardenas 04/23/2026 Plan Review Lorena Garcia 922-323-008 William Andrews PL Modifications 45700 Classic Way Temecula, CA 92592
Case Title / Description: Andrews Sunroom MOD: a Modification Application for a 162 square foot sunroom at the rear of the existing single-family home located at 45700 Classic Way.
PA26 -0173 Marcella Mills 04/24/2026 Plan Review Ray Crain 966-010-008 Temecula Pkwy Self Storage
PL Modifications 43920 Butterfield Stage Rd
Temecula, CA 92592
Case Title / Description: Temecula Parkway Self Storage Landscape MOD: a Modification Application for the removal of turf and installation of drought tolerant landscaping at Temecula Parkway Self Storage located at 43920 Butterfield Stage Road.
PA26 -0175 Marcella Mills 04/24/2026 Plan Review Jennifer Rasmussen
921-030-033 Anthony
Bellantuano
PL Modifications 42180 Sarah Way
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: Sarah Way Propane and Generator MOD: a Modification Application for the addition of a 500-gallon propane tank and a generator to the rear of an existing commercial building located at 42180 Sarah Way.
PA26 -0176 Marcella Mills 04/24/2026 04/30/2026 Approved Megan Coleman 922-044-009 FRONT STREET
HOLDINGS
PL Temporary
Use Permit
28676 Old Town Front St
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: Swing Inn Rod Run TUP: a Temporary Use Permit for the Swing Inn Cafe located at 28676 Old Town Front Street to serve food and alcohol during the Rod Run event in the parking lot adjacent to the restaurant. There is no live entertainment proposed. The dates for the event are May 1-2, 2026 from 10:00 AM to 11:59 PM.
PA26 -0177 Marcella Mills 04/27/2026 Plan Review Ray Crain 909-282-007 Dunbar Enterprises LLC
PL Modifications 41740 Enterprise Cir North
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: Dunbar Landscape MOD: a Modification Application for the removal of turf and installation of drought tolerant landscaping at the Dunbar Enterprise Building located at 41740 Enterprise Circle North.
PA Number Project Address APN
Assigned Planner
Apply Date
Approval
Date Applicant Company Status Owner Plan Type
PA26 -0179 Marcella Mills 04/28/2026 Plan Review Micaela Caco-Negrete
959-410-012 Lahaina Partners PL Temporary
Use Permit
32240 Temecula Pky
Temecula, CA 92592
Case Title / Description: Villages Reception TUP: a Temporary Use Permit for a private gathering on the patio of an existing commercial building on May 29, 2026 from 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM, located at 32240 Temecula Parkway. There is no alcohol or live entertainment proposed. Food can be purchased by guests from the surrounding restaurants.
PA26 -0180 Marcella Mills 04/29/2026 Plan Review Andres Campos 920-100-047 LIPT
WINCHESTER
ROAD INC
PL Modifications 39782 Winchester Rd
Temecula, CA 92591
Case Title / Description: Golf Galaxy MOD: a Modification Application for the replacement of awning fabric at a new Golf Galaxy store to be located at 39782 Winchester Road.
PA26 -0181 04/29/2026 Plan Review Rebekah Fox 921-320-062 Blew & Associates
24th Street
Holdings
PL Zoning or
Planning Letter
29400 Rancho California Rd
Temecula, CA 92591
Case Title / Description: 29400 Rancho California Road ZL: a Zoning Letter Request for the property located at 29400 Rancho California Road (APN 921-320-062) PA26 -0182 Marcella Mills 04/29/2026 Plan Review Rebekah Fox 909-270-043 Blew & Associates
24th Street
Holdings
PL Zoning or
Planning Letter
41540 Winchester Rd
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: 41540 Winchester Road ZL: a Zoning Letter Request for the property located at 41540 Winchester Road (APN 909-270-043)
PA26 -0184 Marcella Mills 04/30/2026 Plan Review Ray Crain 966-010-010 BRSC 3 6 PL Modifications 33353 Temecula Pky Temecula, CA 92592
Case Title / Description: Butterfield Ranch Shopping Center Landscape MOD: a Modification Application for the removal of turf and installation of drought tolerant landscaping at the Butterfield Ranch Shopping Center located at 33353 Temecula Parkway Butterfield Stage Road.
PREAPP26-0
144
Jaime Cardenas 04/02/2026 Plan Review Christopher
Campbell
959-050-009 CHAKRA TRUST
DTD 5/21/2013
PL
Pre-Application
Temecula, CA
Case Title / Description: Chakra Mix-Use Pre-app: a proposed General Plan land use proposal for a proposed mixed-use commercial shopping center with retail, medical office, hotel, and drive-thru.
Item No. 22
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: John Crater, Division Chief
DATE: May 26, 2026
SUBJECT: Fire Department Monthly Report
____________________________________________________________________________
PREPARED BY: Tyren Hundley, Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the Fire Department Monthly Report for April 2026.
682
CITY OF TEMECULA
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Operations | Prevention | Training | Emergency Management MONTHLY REPORT | APRIL 2026
TYPE: #
COMMERCIAL FIRE 2
MULTI-FAMILY FIRE 0
RESIDENTIAL FIRE 0
WILDLAND FIRE 1
VEHICLE FIRE 6
OTHER FIRE 7
RESCUE 0
RINGING ALARM 6
FALSE ALARM 106
HAZMAT 1
TOTAL: 129
MARCH CALL BREAKDOWN
TYPE: #
TRAFFIC COLLISION 73
MEDICAL EMERGENCY 692
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS 11
PUBLIC ASSIST 41
STANDBY 13
TOTAL: 830
Medical Emergencies
TC
Fires
Other False Alarm
APRIL 2026
959
2026 Year to Date
Calls
3,692
5 Stations 5 Engines 1 USAR | 1 Truck | 1 Squad Population - 112,194 ISO Rating 22 683
Item No. 23
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Mark Rigali, Captain
DATE: May 26, 2026
SUBJECT: Temecula Sheriff’s Monthly Report (April 2026) ______________________________________________________________________________
PREPARED BY: Jeret McClellan, Sergeant
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file monthly report.
ATTACHMENTS: Monthly Report
684
MONTHLY REPORT
APRIL 2026CAPTAIN MARK RIGALI
1 This report is dynamic in nature, and as such, each monthly report is compiled to take advantage of the latest RMS information being entered at the station level.
As a result, crime totals will not be static from month to month. 685
City of Temecula
PART 1 CRIMES
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/05/26 ** unfounded calls removed Part 1 Crime**March April
Homicide 0 0
Rape 3 0
Robbery 2 4
Aggravated Assault 21 20
Burglary 6 5
Vehicle Theft 15 18
Larceny Theft 114 102
Arson 1 1
Total 162 150
Two Year Data Comparison For April ( 2025 & 2026 )
2 20
1 15
126
2 5 4
20 1 5
102
4 18
0 50
100
150
Aggravated
Assault
Arson Burglary Larceny Theft Rape Robbery Vehicle Theft Two Year Comparison April ( 2025 & 2026 )
2025
2026
1 1
15 5
126
102
4 18
0 50 100 150
2025
2026
Property Crime Comparison (2025 & 2026)
Vehicle Theft
Larceny Theft
Burglary
Arson
20 20
2 5
4 0 10 20 30
2025
2026
Person Crime Comparison ( 2025 & 2026 )
Robbery
Rape
Aggravated
Assault
686
RESPONSE TIME
Priority 1: Involved circumstances that pose, or did pose in the immediate past, a clearly defined threat to human life or property, and which involve a high level of violence or the potential for serious injury.
Priority 2: Involve circumstances of an urgent, but not life-threatening nature. They are generally disturbances with a potential for violence, minor assaults and batteries, etc.
Priority 3: Involve circumstances that are neither urgent nor life-threatening.
Priority 4: Except for a few felonies, most past incidents are classified as Priority 4.
Priority 5 & 9 : Those calls meeting the criteria for Code 5 & Patrol calls ( NOT SHOWN ).
City of Temecula
All Calls for Service for City of Temecula: 5753
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/05/26 ** Response times calculated using Dispatch to Arrive Average Response Time **March April
Priority 1 4.60 5.03
Priority 2 10.9 9.85
Priority 3 17.41 16.61
Priority 4 19.53 20.6
3 *Additional calls not shown are cancelled,
and missing arrival/dispatch times.
72 2036 2380
1202
0 1000
2000
3000
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4
April Calls by Priority
Priority 1, 72, 1%
Priority 2, 2036, 36%
Priority 3, 2380, 42%
Priority 4, 1202, 21%
Priority 1 – 4 calls
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3
Priority 4
687
INVESTIGATIONS
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/05/26
Investigations Team
Activity April
Beginning Caseload 127
Number of Assigned Cases 24
Number of Closed Cases 19
Number of Arrests 1
Number of Search Warrants Written 24
Out of Custody Filings 5
Cell Phone Forensic Exams 8
Supplemental Reports 38
Call Outs 9
Exigency Orders 10
CPS / APS Referrals Received 114
Supplemental Reports Written 38
Forensic Interviews ( Sex & Physical Abuse )6
4 Sex Offenders | Arson Offenders – Southwest Station
Sex Registrant | Arson Registrant Team April
Total # of Sex Registrants 125
Total # of Arson Registrants 10
Total # of Sex Offenders processed 23
Total # of Transient Sex | Arson Registrants 5 | 2
Total # of Sexually Violent Predators 1
In Violation 1
688
INVESTIGATIONS
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/05/26
Notable Cases
5 04/06/26 - Investigators were called out to assist patrol deputies with a school violence threat. A local preschool was threatened by phone by an unknown suspect. Through collaboration with other investigators, the threats were determined to be made by a suspect in Florida. The suspect was identified and arrested by law enforcement in Florida. Case agents: Investigator Gasparini. 4/9/2026 – Investigators were called out to assist patrol deputies with an investigation of a defrauded vehicle sale involving a suspect with a stolen identity. The investigation revealed that a suspect, Brittany Ball, stole a victim's identity and used the stolen identity to obtain a vehicle from a local business. The defrauded vehicle was recovered. The suspect was booked into jail for identity theft charges. Case agents:
Investigator Mills and Corporal Au. TE260990071
4/18/26 - Investigators were called out to assist in a missing 78-year-old male case. A resident went missing, which prompted a Silver Alert. The investigators located the subject in the city of Hemet, and he was safe. Case Agents: Master Investigator Marquez and Deputy Risen.
04/27/26 - Investigators were called out to assist in a missing 12-year-old juvenile case. A local juvenile went missing, which prompted an Ebony Alert. During the follow-up investigation, the juvenile returned home and was safe. Case Agents:
Investigator Oxley
689
SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT TEAM
SET
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/05/26
Team Activity April
On-view Felony Arrests 15
On-view Misdemeanor Arrests 13
Felony Arrest Warrants Served 2
Misdemeanor Arrest Warrants Served 4
Follow – up Investigations / Search Warrants 36
Pedestrian Checks 25
Traffic Stops / Vehicle Checks 99
Contraband Recovered
Firearm / Weapon 5
Stolen Property 0
Vehicles Recovered 0
Cash (dollars)$77,544
Cocaine (grams)2.8
Heroin ( grams )120.2
Pills (count)87
Marijuana (grams)145,190.38 (320.09 lbs)
Marijuana plants 354
Fentanyl (grams)25.2
Ketamine (grams )105
MDMA (g)158.6
LSD (tabs) 19
Methamphetamine (grams)9,421.06 (20.77 lbs)
Psilocybin (grams)318.155
6 690
Notable Cases
SET
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/05/26 7
In January, a suspicious death occurred in the City of Temecula, possibly an overdose death. The Overdose Death Investigation & Narcotics Unit responded and analyzed the victim’s phone. SET assisted, and an investigation resulted in a possible subject who sold the victim cocaine days before she passed. In April, probable cause was established to pursue a search warrant at the subject’s residence. SET & METRO conducted the search warrant. They located an indoor marijuana grow and seized firearms, over 60 grams of cocaine, illegal fireworks, and miscellaneous narcotics.
The following suspects were arrested for multiple narcotics charges:
Michael Del Campo ( Menifee resident), Robert Del Campo ( Menifee resident ), and Angelina Hughes ( Temecula resident ).
691
ROBBERY | BURGLARY SUPPRESSION TEAM
RBST
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/05/26
Team Activity April
Beginning Caseload 53
New Cases Assigned 14
Total Cases Closed 13
Search Warrants prepared / served 30
Arrests 7
Out of Custody Filings 3
8 Notable Cases
692
CORE TEAM
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/06/26
Team Activity April
Reports Written 5
On-Sight Felony Arrests 3
On-Sight Misdemeanor Arrests 3
Felony Arrest Warrants Served 1
Misdemeanor Arrest Warrants Served 13
Traffic / Misc. Citations 6
Area Checks 42
Camp Checks 12
Pedestrian Checks 11
Traffic & Vehicle Checks 35
Outreach Attempts / Success 40 / 2
Over the Counter Reports 2
602 Letters / Properties 12
Business License / 2nd Hand Dealer Applications 3
Community Outreach Resource & Engagement Team
9 Outreach Efforts / Camp Checks
OUTREACH EFFORTS:
In collaboration with the City H.O.T and Social Workers Action Group (S.W.A.G.) 20 subjects were contacted and offered services, all declined.
PROBLEM LOCATIONS/AREAS:
Remington
Business Park
Ridge Park
Sabella
Empire Creek
Solana Way ( ABC Daycare )
Temecula Creek ( Temecula Pkwy )
693
Team Activity
CRIME PREVENTION
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 04/02/26
Team Activity March
Crime Prevention / Neighborhood watch meetings 6
Safety Presentations / Trainings 2
Special Events 2
Residential / Business security surveys conducted 0
Residences / Businesses visited for past crime follow-up 0 Station Tours 2
Planning Review Projects 1
Temp Outdoor Use Permits 4
10 694
METRO TEAM
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/05/26
METRO DISTRICT TEAM
Team Activity April
On-Sight Felony Arrests 2
On-Sight Misdemeanor Arrests 4
Felony Arrest Warrants Served 4
Misdemeanor Arrest Warrants Served 5
Bar / Business Check 90
D.U.I. Arrests 11
Traffic / Parking Citations 171
Firearms Seized 0
11 695
Traffic
TRAFFIC TEAM
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/05/26
Traffic April
Citations issued for Hazardous Violations 1238
Non-Hazardous Citations 218
Parking Citations 250
Stop Light Abuse / Intersection Program ( S.L.A.P.) Citations 160 Seatbelt Citations 10
Non-Injury Collisions 17
Cell Phone Citations 275
Injury Collisions 21
D.U.I. Arrests 30
OTS / City Funded Special Operations 4
Commercial Enforcement Citations 68
Written Warnings Issued 526
Pedestrian Related Collisions 2
Hit and Run 17
11 696
Promenade Mall Police Storefront
PROMENADE MALL
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/05/26
Team Activity April
Total Calls For Service 274
Felony / Arrest Filings 10
Misdemeanor Arrest / Filings 24
Traffic Citations 12
Total Customers Served 545
Fingerprints / Live Scans 114
Total Receipts $6,748
13 Notable Cases
697
SCHOOL RESOURCE DEPUTIES
SRD’s
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/05/26
Team Activity April
Felony Arrest 1
Misdemeanor Arrests 6
Reports 29
Citations 26
Meetings / Presentations 43
14 Programs/presentations conducted by SRD’s: Youth Court 698
Old Town Police Storefront
OLD TOWN STOREFRONT
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/06/26
Team Activity April
Total Customers Served 567
Fingerprints / Live Scan 96
Police Reports Filed 1
VICR Releases 20
Citations signed off 25
Total receipts $7,585.00
15 699
Volunteers
VOLUNTEERS
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/06/26
Team Activity April
Chaplain Hours 39.50
Community Action Patrol ( CAP ) hours 384.55
Reserve Officer hours ( patrol )0.00
Volunteer Patrol hours 28.50
Explorer hours 32.00
Station / Administration 76.00
Mounted Posse Hours 643.50
Total Volunteer hours 1,147.05
Call Out Events 1
Special Event Hours 323.00
Area Checks 30
Traffic / Misc. Citations 3
16 700
EVENTS IN PICTURES
SPECIAL EVENTS
17 Citizens Volunteer Academy Graduation!
Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 04/21/26
Congratulations
Volunteer Christine Payne
701
EVENTS IN PICTURES
SPECIAL EVENTS
18Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 04/21/26
Thank you to the
incredible
dispatchers who
keep us all safe!
April 25th is
National
Prescription Drug
Take Back
702
EVENTS IN PICTURES
SPECIAL EVENTS
19Prepared by CA M. Chiodo 05/05/26
Thank you to our
AMAZING Administrative
staff at SWS!
April 22nd is Administrative Professionals Day!
703
Item No. 24
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Ron Moreno, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: May 26, 2026
SUBJECT: Public Works Department Monthly Report
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION: 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:
http://temeculaca.gov/270/Capital-Improvement-Projects-CIP
704
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
CIRCULATION PROJECTS
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 to Diaz Road from Cherry Street to Winchester Road.
Cost: $17,050,991
Status: The environmental Initial Study has been approved, Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted, and Notice of Determination filed in May 2022. Design is 60% complete. Regulatory permit applications must be resubmitted for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404 Nationwide Permit and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Services (CDFW ) Streambed Alteration 1602 due to the change in scope of the Murrietta Creek Phase 2B Project, headed by ACOE and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&W CD). Current activities include design coordination with utility purveyors (SCE, RCWD, and EMWD) and City project PW16-05 Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive, and RCFC&W CD of regulatory permit applications for SWRCB 401 Water Quality Certification and USACE Section 408. Staff is evaluating mitigation options for Temecula Creek to comply with regulatory permits.
Construction previously anticipated to start in Spring of 2024 is now delayed to late 2027 due to coordination with USACE and RCFC&W CD on their Murrietta Creek Phase 2B Project, and the federal Funding of $2M added to the project for the Federal 26/27 fiscal year. Federal Funding requires completion of certain environmental documentation, such as under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), prior to project construction, which is anticipated to take approximately 1 year to complete once funding is authorized.
French Valley Parkway/Interstate 15 Improvements - Phase II, 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: $139,751,346
Status: The project was opened for public use on April 28, 2025. For detailed information, please visit the project website at TemeculaCA.gov/FVP2.
705
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
CIRCULATION PROJECTS (Continued)
French Valley Parkway/Interstate 15 Improvements - Phase III, PW19-03
Description: Design and construction of the full-width French Valley Parkway from Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road, including the bridge overcrossing of Interstate 15 and the northbound on-ramps.
Cost: $69,256,794
Status: Design, environmental, and right-of-way activities started in April 2025 and are expected to be complete in March 2029.
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: $31,944,641
Status: Design plans are 90% complete. The project has received MSHCP conformance. NEPA approval was achieved in October 2023. CEQA was approved in February 2024. Construction start is anticipated in Summer 2027, depending on the availability of HBP funds. Staff continue to work with Caltrans to advance HBP funds to earlier fiscal years to meet the project schedule. Also, additional coordination with ACOE and RCFC is required, as Murrietta Creek Phase 2B will likely be under construction concurrently with this project. As of May 2024, Caltrans has authorized full funding for PE and ROW Phases, so all preconstruction activities are currently authorized for HBP funds . ROW phase has started and is anticipated to be completed by Summer 2027. On January 27, 2026, the City Council authorized the project to proceed with ROW negotiations with RCFC&WCD.
Overland Drive Widening, PW20-11
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 the installation of the traffic signal at Commerce Center Dri ve and the modification of the traffic signal at Jefferson Avenue.
Cost: $6,857,804
Status: On July 3, 2024, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) started the 30-day public notice for comments. It was completed on August 2, 2024. Design is in progress. The City consultant and staff are working on the project’s right-of-way requirements and temporary construction easements.
706
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
CIRCULATION PROJECTS (Continued)
Rancho California Road Median Improvements, PW23-04
Description: Design and construction of missing raised concrete medians with landscaping between Humber Drive and Butterfield Stage Road. Additionally, there will also be construction of missing improvements on the north side of Rancho California Road, between Riesling Court and Promenade Chardonnay Hills. The improvements will include median curbs, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and landscape and irrigation.
Cost: $5,458,000
Status: Design on hold at 90% because of deficiency in construction funds.
Ynez Road Improvements – Phase I, PW23-02
Description: This project includes widening the easterly side of Ynez Road, from Rancho Vista Road north roughly 1600 feet, to two lanes in each direction, and the completion of missing segments of curb and gutter, sidewalk, and striped medians, in coordination with adjacent development.
Cost: $4,518,787
Status: This project is currently in design, environmental, and right-of-way clearance. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was posted on December 10, 2025. The corresponding public review comment period also commenced on December 10, 2025, and concluded on January 9, 2026 . The MND was adopted on January 27, 2026.
De Portola Road/Jedediah Smith Road Roundabout Project, PW23 -01
Description: This project includes the design and construction of a roundabout on Ynez/De Portola Road at the intersection of Jedediah Smith Road. The improvements include the construction of a raised traffic circle with a desert-style hardscape.
Cost: $4,469,000
Status: This project is currently in design, environmental, and right-of-way clearance. Design completion anticipated early 2026.
707
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
CIRCULATION PROJECTS (Continued)
La Paz Road Roundabout Reconstruction, PW25-04
Description: Redesign and reconstruction of the existing roundabout on Ynez Road at the intersection of La Paz Road.
The improvements include reconstructing the raised traffic circle, entry medians, landscaping, lighting, and the overall alignment of the existing roundabout.
Cost: $3,000,000
Status: Project is currently in design. Construction is anticipated to begin late 2026.
Citywide Slurry Seal, PW25-06
Description: Slurry Seal the following communities: Villages, Rancho Del Sol, Verano, Rancho Solano, Costain Signet, Avendale, Barclay Estates, Woodcrest Country, Ridgeview, and Promenade at Temecula.
Cost: $1,800,000
Status: Contract work was substantially completed on March 26, 2026.
Mercedes Street Sidewalk, PW25-09
Description: This project will construct the missing segment of sidewalk on the west side of Mercedes Street between Main Street and a point approximately 160' south of 3rd Street. The project will also construct crosswalks at 3rd Street and a potential mid-block crosswalk connecting the southern limit of the project to the parking structure.
Cost: $2,400,000
Status: New Project. Design began in December 2025. Once the design is complete, including coordination with private properties, bids for construction will be requested, and construction will follow. The total design and construction budget is estimated to exceed $2M, depending on bids.
708
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Pauba Road Pavement Rehabilitation
Description: This project will rehabilitate approximately 1.4 centerline miles of roadway along Pauba Road between Margarita Road and Ynez Road, totaling approximately 440,000 square feet of pavement. The roadway rehabilitation will consist of grinding three inches of the existing pavement, followed by placement of three inches of new asphalt concrete materials. The work also includes removal of existing pavement delineation, restriping, and replacement of existing curb ramps with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant curb ramps. This project supports the City’s core values, i.e., Transportation, Mobility and Connectivity.
Cost: $3,100,000
Status: Construction documents are complete. Project will be posted to PlanetBids for 4 weeks. Anticipated contract award to take place on June 9, 2026.
Bike and Trail Program – Great Oak Trail Lighting, PW21-16
Description: The 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: $852,808
Status: Staff is working with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to obtain an encroachment permit. Plans and specifications are 90% complete. The project is expected to be bid in Summer 2026.
Fire Station 73 Gym/Garage, PW19-13
Description: The project consists of adding a second garage in the rear of the property to park the squad and Urban Search and Rescue (USR) vehicle, along with a gym and storage rooms. The construction is anticipated to be completed in the Fiscal Year 2025/26.
Cost: $5,165,680
Status: The Joint Project Review (JPR) with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) is ongoing and progressing toward completion, though the review process is taking longer than initially anticipated. Coordination with regulatory agencies will continue once the RCA review is finalized. Project plans and specifications are near completion. Project bidding will follow the conclusion of environmental review activities. The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) has been conducting a Joint Project Review (JPR) for the project since August 6, 2025. Regulatory agencies will have 10 days to conduct their JPR once RCA is complete. The RCA response to latest JPR submittal was submitted in December 2025. Plans and specifications are nearly complete, and bidding is planned to begin in July 2026.
709
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (Continued)
Fire Station 84 Renovation, PW19-14
Description: This project includes the design, construction, and renovation of 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 other necessary improvements to comply with ADA accessibility requirements.
Cost: $3,529,450
Status: Construction started on October 27, 2025. Construction duration is anticipated to take 12 months, through October 16, 2026.
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: $3,630,295
Status: Project has entered the Landscape Maintenance phase. The contractor is responsible for maintaining plants for one year until November 2026.
Sidewalks – Citywide (Pauba Road, Elinda Road to Showalter Road), PW19-20
Description: New sidewalks and street widening on the South side of Pauba Road from Elinda Road to Showalter Road.
Cost: $1,257,124
Status: In construction. Project is complete except for installation of proposed meter pedestal. Item was ordered with a 25-week lead time. Tentative delivery of May 8th. After delivery and installation, project will be 100% complete.
710
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (Continued)
Bike Lane Upgrades - Citywide, PW23-10
Description: This project will install greenback bike lane pavement markings/legends on various bicycle corridors throughout the City.
Cost: $274,500
Status: The construction contract was awarded at the April 28, 2026, City Council meeting. Construction anticipated to begin in June 2026.
Pedestrian Ramp Upgrades - Citywide, PW23-11
Description: This project will install ADA-compliant ramp upgrades at school crossing sites throughout the City.
Cost: $275,000
Status: Construction is largely complete. The contractor is working on minor punch list items.
Traffic Signal - Safety Lights and Signal Communications Upgrade – Citywide, PW23-13
Description: This project will upgrade all traffic signals' safety lights to LED and install communication system upgrades to 42 signals Citywide. Upgraded traffic signal improvements include LED streetlights, signal wiring, vehicle heads, controller cabinets, fiber cable, ethernet switches, wireless radios, and related communication equipment to improve safety and operations with optimized traffic signal timing coordination. Signal timing coordination will be improved along Butterfield Stage Road and Ynez Road corridors.
Cost: $3,255,900
Status: This project is currently in the design phase. Design completion anticipated early 2026.
Traffic Signal Fiber Optic Extension, PW25-01
Description: This project will provide the design and installation of fiber optic communications , including conduit, cable, pull boxes, and related communication equipment for traffic signal operations. Various signalized intersections will be improved along the Margarita Road, Meadows Parkway, Date Street, and Nicolas Road corridors.
Cost: $1,675,000
Status: This project is currently in the design phase. Design completion anticipated June 2026.
711
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (Continued)
ADA Transition Plan Implementation – CDBG Ramps, PW24-07
Description: Replace approximately 40 curb ramps with ADA-compliant curb ramps. & ramps on Ynez Road and the remainder in the Harveston community.
Cost: $403,660
Status: The project construction contract was approved at the March 10, 2026, City Council Meeting. Construction has not commenced and for the convenience of both the contractor and the City, approval to terminate the construction contract will be requested at the May 26, 2026, City Council Meeting. At the same meeting, authorization to re-bid the project will be requested.
712
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS
Long Canyon Creek Park Restrooms, PW23-18
Description: This project provides for the design and construction of a new restroom facility at Long Canyon Creek Park that meets current ADA accessibility compliance standards.
Cost: $1,497,930
Status: Construction started on January 26, 2026. Anticipated completion in August 2026.
Ronald Reagan Sports Park Hockey Rink, PW22-06
Description: This project will include the renovation of the existing hockey rink to install new flooring material, arena - style roof structure, bleachers, and various ADA compliance improvements.
Cost: $4,120,406
Status: The project is substantially complete. The hockey rink has been open to the public since 5:00 PM on January 23, 2026. Staff is working on project closeout.
Ronald Reagan Sports Park Skate Park, PW22 -07
Description: Remove and replace the existing skate park and install state-of-the-art skate plaza elements.
Cost: $6,110,000
Status: Construction started on January 6, 2026. Anticipated completion in November 2026.
Vail Ranch Park Restrooms, PW23-06
Description: This project provides for the design and construction of a new restroom facility at Vail Ranch Park that meets current ADA accessibility compliance standards.
Cost: $1,392,930
Status: Construction started on January 26, 2026. Anticipated completion in August 2026.
713
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
TRACT DEVELOPMENTS
Altair Tract Development
Description/ Location: Construction of approximately 1,750 new residential units and the construction of the Western Bypass (Pu'éska Mountain Parkway) in the western Temecula hills above the Old Town District between Rancho California Road and Temecula Parkway/ State 79 South.
Developer: Brookfield Residential
Status: Currently, precise grading lots and streets for Villages A and B phase 1 on the Northern section of the development, and Villages C1, C2, and C3 phase 2 on the Central section of the development. Maintaining erosion and sediment control measures in the area cleared for Villages phases 3 and 4 on the Southern section of the development . Model construction is underway for Villages A and B. Finalizing sewer tie-in on First Street at Pujol Street within approved road closure. Also, performing road improvements on First Street at Pujol Street and constructing new roundabout West of Pujol Street.
Elderberry Park Tract Development
Description/ Location: Construction of approximately 164 single-family residential homes in the Southeast region of the City, located along Butterfield Stage Road between De Portola Road and Temecula Parkway.
Developer: Taylor Morrison
Status: Currently, precise grading for lots, finalizing storm drain systems. Completing paved interior streets and preparing for the beginning of home production.
Richmond American Homes Tract Development
Description/ Location: Construction of approximately 132 single-family residential homes within three separate parcels in the Northeast region of the City, located along Butterfield Stage Road between Nicolas Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Developer: Richmond American Homes
Status: Currently, precise grading for lots and streets. Beginning home production. Performing offsite improvements on Nicolas Road West of Butterfield Stage Road.
714
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS
Rendezvous Apartments
Description/ Location: Phase two of the Rendezvous apartment complex is located on the south side of Rancho California Road, west of Cosmic Drive.
Developer: Pacific West Development
Status: Constructing both phase 1 and 2 buildings of the development.
Prado Townhomes
Description/ Location: Construction of 204 multi-family units located in the Northwesterly region of the City along the West side of Ynez Road between County Center Drive and Equity Drive.
Developer: Meritage Homes
Status: Currently, precise grading of lots and streets. Continuing home production.
715
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS
Solana Senior Assisted Living
Description/ Location: Construction of a 49,000 square foot senior assisted living facility located along the East side of Margarita Road between Via La Vida and Solana Way.
Developer: Griffin Living
Status: Project now active. Continuing construction on buildings and interior improvements. Code Enforcement currently monitoring progress.
Apollo Storage
Description/ Location: Construction of a 28,000 square foot storage facility located along Madison Avenue at McCabe Court.
Developer: Avidovich Construction
Status: Constructing buildings and interior streets. Performing road improvements on Madison Avenue.
Lantern Crest
Description/ Location: Construction of a 526,762 square foot, 494-unit independent living community located at the southeast corner of Date Street at Ynez Road.
Developer: M Grant Corporation
Status: Currently rough grading site.
Sanborn Gas Station
Description/ Location: Construction of a 10,000 square foot storefront and gas station at the southeast corner of Sanborn Avenue at Jefferson Avenue.
Developer: Western States Construction
Status: Currently rough grading site.
716
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS (Continued)
Amazon Phase II
Description/ Location: Renovation of existing warehouse, parking lot improvements, construction of a new sidewalk and parkway landscape improvements along Diaz Road at Via Montezuma.
Developer: Oltman’s Construction
Status: Preparing to pave interior streets and parking lot. Performing street and parkway improvements.
717
City of Temecula
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
May 26, 2026
INFRASTRUCTURE BY OTHERS (DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS)
Nicolas Road/ Calle Girasol Realignment Improvements
Description/ Location: Construction of the realignment and extension of Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to Joseph Road, including an arch culvert bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek and a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway.
Developer: Woodside Homes
Status: Project substantially complete. Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol are now open to traffic. Developer is currently finalizing punch list items.
Murrieta Creek Phase 2B Creek Restoration Project
Description/Location: Drainage improvements and restorations to Murrieta Creek between Via Montezuma to approximately 600 feet South of Rancho California Road.
Developer: US Army Corps of Engineers
Status: Currently performing grading of slopes and construction of storm drain structure improvements.
Preparing to dredge creek and export soil.
EMWD Wine Country Sewer Expansion Project
Description/Location: Construction of sewer expansion improvements for both Northern and Southern Temecula Wine County. A section of the project in City Limits: De Portola Road from Butterfield Stage Road to East City Limits.
Developer: JW Fowler
Status: Currently performing sewer line inspection and leak testing. Preparing to final pave section of De Portola Road.
718
REQUEST TO SPEAK
FORMS, ELECTRONIC
COMMENTS AND
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
FOR THE RECORD
, REQUEST TO SPEAK
',. .0 CITY OF TEMECULA
'1" ir
1989
Date:
---- z_ 6
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: ,�
Item Description or Item o. --/—*,/ /i `/ 7 /y&% 4/ `` C(/I�/C 7hi4 // ‘' NO-T/ c - ©' J//�/- �7. .�/
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 recor
Name: //'� /�%���& Phone Number:
Address: CJ./,/7/ J / .& 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.
It■ I
REQUEST TO SPEAK
41/4, CITY OF TEMECULA
Date: !moo r
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: 11-' Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. T" gelJ ' Ave , IN n kT 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. l( to Q 1(-ei1 ttf 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
i , f
1989
Date e .$2 .O
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: I1I...
Item Description or Item No. L lIpV �
p � �'� iI. /1/1
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 record.
/ Phone Number: /
Address:
i
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
E,► •
4 . ., CITY OF TEMECULA
1989 - /2L
Date: -----/
2 .
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. 'y + FJYV % i
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: C4>E/' L„i5 pi\6, \--1.7.6\1,.)` 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.
s•..-°F`F""E@ REQUEST TO SPEAK
,� CITY OF TEMECULA
° ,...,. Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: 7
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. 1-ki_dyfit-A--
Name: Phone Number:
Address:
,
If you are representing an organization or gro p, please give the name:
1711-1 S.n Jk
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
"MRNW
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989 Date: 1)51.2C ?QZ
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: I" I Item Description or Item No ,1 IO�( I ttI1� !l- ��v) 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
3IS4 ✓ , C \ 9'7-- 92
Email address: 3ha
you are re resenting an organization or group, please give the name:
Oe i ec(.(o. = 1l=r 1 ki --he v3-eChi
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
iirCITY OF TEMECULA
1989 .
Date:
Public Comment. Non-Agenda Item: 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: ‘4i-\(\ NAL n Phone Number:
Address: �-
If you are representing an organization or group, lease 9ive the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
°k ,f REQUEST TO SPEAK
;.,. - .,, CITY OF TEMECULA
'`'� 5/3\1a / ZG
Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: Er
Item Description or Item No. '✓G-kL" Got Age, "P�c,e c Po�� t n�
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. 1.-7o..rc•k4Ga-5 --- ,,t--ror\-41%- Phone Number:
Address: ` 1F. Lc-.1 a. GIN ‘ 112-S 9-9— Email address: � �
If you are representingt 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.
,''F `I , REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
J'` e
- 2 2 0 2�
Date: lf
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. S h v 5-6 V K v `e c c W \ ,A'e.__V 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. • (
Address: T� IN,t. (so ut¢ °I, 2,.5q 2 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
�,. ij•
i• CITY OF TEMECULA
® ,
�
1989
Date: A 67
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item
Item Description or Item No. S D
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
(I*
/�Name: (� � C�2_k 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
19R9
Date: r),
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:.
Item Description or Item No. F 'a`-1 Fl fi ^'IP1--„-'IL- 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—• - ��+1N 4 S 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.
"t REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
t
19R9 - � ,�
Date: G
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: I X I
Item Description or Item No. /4c /U!
d
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.,
Address: / /6 I/'�Vi/ 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
lot" .,, CITY OF TEMECULA
1989 - ('' 7
Date: S ) Z-VA�Q
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:,Y
Item Description or Item No. S 1' e Powe•- Q.
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: are ! a SSe Phone Number: ( � Address: Te fr.(CC (c► C.,061 ?z-s Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
T-an scar w1 Igo wEr
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
��°F�F,'e��� REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
4tivt2:16/0,Not, ,- . 1;
Date: 572-O L
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: h ,,,,,,,---aG �� Item Description or Item No. / L.. "`/r.
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 spea er is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. C L./rn-a2y
Name: L `'J2` nlc` L t,{ 55 L,e Phone Number:
Address: ( , �E/tZ ✓6.4 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.
Np4'''f�� REQUEST TO SPEAK
v•t . - CITY OF TEMECULA
-1989___:,,,)
Date: ir ( 27‘
/
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No
P-(//44 ' / bv.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 record
Address: �/ % / / IG c/ ; �{-ate�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.
''F %41''li ' . . '-, REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
,,,., 1989
Date: ,
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: 0
Item Description or Item No. S l)G ?iz3 E CT- 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.
Address: ,
Email address:
If you are representing an- organization or group, please give the name:
I0MCCa-"iS` `N-NOCNC CO(k'' xc\ l
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
,may°°F TF"fc�; REQUEST TO SPEAK
44, CITY OF TEMECULA
1989 .�� ,
Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. 401)0 - I--/4/65
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. �-R `�
Name: 62412s V�Kril2 1 L / Phone Number:
Address:
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group. please give the name: i 's"-' T10-w vie4Gcot7, Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
°FREQUEST TO SPEAK
•,► .,' CITY OF TEMECULA
eikS'
1989 s 9/0-6
Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: X
Item Description or Item No. k61(0/an rote- pthAit, IY1
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.
I- ,mil - /
Name: �I L �1'►W�4�(7i 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.
°t'../ e.,, REQUEST TO SPEAK
f,► --:- y: .c, CITY OF TEMECULA
19ti 5
Date: ) ,
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: P
li
�//� / 6
Item Description or Item No. Q� " �,/ /�
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 d� ((� _ Phone Number:
Address: ,
Email address: Non-‘Agenda
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.
"F""cc..4 REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
, i.
°-�,,, 1M\-( 2_641 ,c2c,c1
..,�,,.a.,� Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. I
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.
Name: � ? va
6 QAc) Phone Number: / `�
4K-LC41)kt 1, D� 11,g--
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 . , •,
1989 ,�}� /7(_ .2 0'
DateL.L f TJ J/
d
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: Z.--- 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,thespeaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the recor ,,. ` )
%
Name: 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
itat ,, CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: x.
Item Description or Item No. VD L) /N1LL I 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: ) M 1 l j nrR6c-141z-: 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
i,-altotii:.
1989
Date: g l /i(4
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: I v l
Item Description or Item No. ` 9 It C 1N t N,_1,K Li HE, 1-, DC A- 4Ci--r/ 04/ 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
44004.
4 I J}{t) Z' /y�,4/ �( 2 2
Date: f'f /
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Ite
Item Description or Item No. S /vwe r L\dye5
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.
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.
,„,41' t .. P REQUEST TO SPEAK
,. 04. .,; CITY OF TEMECULA
1989 - Date: 51 \a-(o
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: I- I Item Description or Item No. VC C Ui e'v. ki ` I cJ 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. I,� n �^
Name: 1� 1 & /��, 0 lal �--t.Y l Phone Number:
Address:
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
---re meoola ValLuj LO oe/r9(,)Ei5
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
I
CITY OF TTO PE A
989 Date: oS/2.6/ 2c
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: V
Item Description or Item No. il1 1 9 7C) j'.' r i 1 nk 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. -
Address:
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, pli ase give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
‘,,�.;0F'F`fec,k, REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
\too'
Date: 5
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: 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 reco //�.. ,
Name: i 55J4 .&2f- Phone Number: %/-- / Address:
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: O Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
rF"F<< REQUEST TO SPEAK
461/4 CITY OF TEMECULA
\4, 1989 Date: 5/Z 4-12t6'
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: n
Item Description or Item No. (.1D► ct& Ogc-Wiel S 06 4- C J-ftJevs 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: ,&I C i ita et r ynae k- 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
Date: l C.� /Z,Z
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: 1 Item Description or Item No. C��/ mil %(' Y ` 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. �
Address / ��/ >/ / /7 f MGL% 9 Y - Email address. �
If you are representing an org nization 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
' •�V CITY OF TEMECULA
Date: l 2.10
Public Comment Non Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. `)C, e.-k. V r �G +� F 1 esve-(s 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. //
�?j1j Phone Number:
Name: �i"l'YtQ�-k /
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.
1F„F% REQUEST TO SPEAK
. i�
c, i98
. , CITYOFTEMECULA
9 ,._
Date: _ �lv` 7_
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: 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: < C� 1GL Phone Number: --, Address: �� ( /_ , `-fou.f�t 4 I OA Id-4-," Email address: '\_
Q
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.
I.
,.` �•� ��., REQUEST TO SPEAKCITY OF TEMECULA
Lik
1989
Date: Jam" 31 �p
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: p
Item Description or Item No. 'ov0 6Args
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: / 7 —PAR 14S Phone Number:
Address: % 1> .9z,�'7 2 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
fft K. .� CITY OF TEMECULA
t Aoce-
19ii9 Date: /-
51 Z 4o Z_ 0
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: 'v Item Description or Item No. 5A.,ti'fl_ /peril A Gci/& f i1, i 'I_ / Q(c 9p 1' I i M 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: Mkr (i i - 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.
,.,0 `""ec. REQUEST TO SPEAK
..4 ,,
CITY OF TEMECULA
1. "..''198'9)—
Date: 92
(e/a(e,
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
.v 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. l \ gyp'(�,, /"
Name: L�vc Pr MAW 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.
,�.°,r,F„F,,,4 REQUEST TO SPEAK
c \
4,, CITY OF TEMECULA
',,,1,,,:il,
ivxv Date: //�5 —� j 1 l ,Z
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item,
Item Description or Item No. 6 Al ci L ._- / Gt fif 4 L Pet2701/ / 4ilk- 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. � �
Address: `/' it ilil , ze 6 4 .9Z_ Email address: - If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
l
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
"t "74.,?; REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989
Date: ��-2 ii 1
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: 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: AY / fan l I a w k 2j Phone Number:
Address , Te rhe“i(& , 92- 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.
(uI'
REQUEST TO SPEAK
,,. CITY OF TEMECULA
\, 1989
Date: c/2�' 1 a
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. ( G t L CJ@_/1 `` ` � ?() ��' LA 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. .s l4 sS L
Name: \`(n �- Phone Number:
�
Tc.-11"e u1/4-\
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.
°t'F`'cef. REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
Date: NA1 G` -c
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agen a Item: V.-- RequestV`s.J,91-- .N
Item Description or Item No.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 spe k, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. n CCA14--A0s2
��
Address: % --K---cmTu\(.\ 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.
,0 ""'rt REQUEST TO SPEAK
�„V'. " ���'. CITY OF TEMECULA
1. j )6'
Date: )'a(-Dab•
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:'
Item Description or Item No. e0 L4 �_W- V) Iv g
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.
Address: CCU( C 9 1 Dip J 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.
o"'�� REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
i44- • ' t-
1989 Ay3 2132,
Date: G,
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Iterr
Item Description or Item No. �`\ 4, O"4/ Cf
/
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: j©�i �� ,,, ✓� Phone Number: (. ` — - Address: .--r L'`i `\ l CA ?_,z, Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give th name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
`v0c EAttei\ REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
11 Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No.
6t,h' 4 P4(414 # I "/�w '
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.
/��
Address: C/.'ve,z//it ` 1 ; ' 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 becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
,•�,'F ��"' > � REQUEST TO SPEAK
,A CITY OF TEMECULA
Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: 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 recor .
��1 (
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
,:01 ,,,,v
4 �; CITY OF TEMECULA
ftit198. ���
Date: i
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: 7
Item Description or Item No. I
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: Vat' 1 o1 J�/( 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.
/��`°F rFtiIF�c`
REQUEST TO SPEAK
_ CITY OF TEMECULA
it SSC,
r9s�) -
Date 2 2CZ4_,
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: n
Rem Description or Item No. S r �- -el�1)©-�t----,A 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: L 1SA S i Phone Number:
Address: '� —1 tA- E C-�-� L-/\. .
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
fete", ,g1/41 CITY OF TEMECULA
1989 C i
Date: '_y./(5�C/�,
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. D&—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 re r •
uJ l �'(�
Address: er,
& � '+ , `'L�
-
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.
°" 11jf-I, REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
Date: /\42C) 2 6
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: n
Item Description or Item No. Li i�c' c.Ow) 1)° 36 Go.
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. (
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.
`,.,s", " ,., REQUEST TO SPEAK
�,,. c, CITY OF TEMECULA
1989 1,it..., , i
3 i 0. io,2
6Date: L(n
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. V 0 VJC'r- I:1 A k
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. (� l,,
Address: . 7L,` CCk u.,) JcLv Email address:
If you are representing an or anization or group, please give the n me: II JJ sak,V-e� @ 2C tikl v� . c1 1 kt �h,L, e b'r r-t I►nl�. Cipat (4.itoYl Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
_—
1 ____
31 REQUEST TO SPEAK
.,,, it ��
` CITY OF TEMECULA
'� �`��`� Z (o-- /✓! 24
�.,,..,, Date: '�
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: ) Item Description or Item No.
`7
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.
he- %�djcY u(/ `
Name: ��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.
°t'F"'\, REQUEST TO SPEAK
.11/4, CITY OF TEMECULA
s, 19ri9 - 5 �� Z(4 Date: �' Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
�e
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. �
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.
�°" "%'fe. REQUEST TO SPEAK
--- -.4, CITY OF TEMECULA
ocra`r
Date: - .2 G --- �i�
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: -�—
Item Description or Item No. 6 z-'`t- _.-C ,—,—a
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: --' f't\-1-1,-e.-5 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.
ot IF' REQUEST TO SPEAK
� !1/4 CITY OF TEMECULA
1989 '..,
Date:
/
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. SD 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. �,.\v �` c -
�(
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the me:
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: I, I- Agenda Item:
1 ) , /r� V
—D
P
Item Description or Item No. \ 1� ,:� lam 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.N l
Name: Vl Irf471t) Phone Number:
Address: ' .
Email address: --( CI
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name::^ r r HbA— Please / te-
note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
1s----
°F`F"EQ� REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
141989.)
Date: 3 /UP 240
I
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: 71
Item Description or Item No.
n
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. 1
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.
°` �F."� REQUEST TO SPEAK
�,► �, CITY OF TEMECULA
'°-H.,,.,,•�<.,,•,� Date: M. �
NJ
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. 19
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: 11
6c).Z, L' 1nr►Io p \.a,/ 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
19N9
Date: 7v L(/
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: 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: fi U . kO ,2_, o 1 I 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
LAW
imp /Date: 5!f�O
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No.
��� PR�) � (' �_ lk
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
✓/illok /'J Phone Number: / 'Name:
Address: re.cfric 4 �"2 Email address: /
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: pi+ A // Gw Gil ev,P 5t /cV-u_ M4,
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 6, ✓2 (o
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: X
Item Description or Item No. SD& L ' NAA
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: Y Met
Phone Number: `
Address: - . ITV i Ac6 , CA S 1 ` LUd c)(--S ti-\ —✓tQ c- Email address: -
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
'F"f�c� REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989NE wow
Date 5 -
Public Comment. Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No r l�
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. � a�
Address: `�-�'l, 2_6go 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.
```��F �-yp�4? REQUEST TO SPEAK
L
CITY OF TEMECULA
luau <+`/ / /0
Date: /672,Oz
(e,
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. /9
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. _J�
Name: rot i it) P LC ► \ ( 1 v Phone Number:
Address: / TSB 'Q C Ll,l let
(�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.
"t�,'�`,/ REQUEST TO SPEAK
,. ., CITY OF TEMECULA
wxv
Date: 5/2'/ 2 o 2(0
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. howl-e r l Il'l K - i d b I i C re n¢meerf 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: S�ra(/N GfIger 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.
°F T"` REQUEST TO SPEAK
!k CITY OF TEMECULA
4 989'''° •,._% Date: 1 0 2 ir/J
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: IN
Item Description or Item No. p .
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.
Address: • -fQ/ QCiL( "' 0, Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please, ive the name: nn cv�`l nI11y (� N 'b hy-r\-e_b-Al s , U\) i T I-\ '1 1 e.,t, `, , r , k Qc)aX//,,� C� V\A, A�A- C-Ct- e .
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
co: F"€e REQUEST TO SPEAK
., CITY OF TEMECULA
riH9
Date: 5 i if/ a 0
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:11
i f
Item Description or Item No. 0 y l L.:: tea - 1,r.,� 3,b(dlw P� L) 1 t, dwu-kt t ,!\ t< 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. I
Name: �.r3i1 `)ar"Tt Phone Number:
Address: + ��n,�C'+(ii, 1aj`1 a, Emailaddress: ,., If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
f
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
cys°F rt"` REQUEST TO SPEAK
fps -I'‘ CITY OF TEMECULA
1989 Date: 5/'2 6/2 0 7 e
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: I/,
Item Description or Item No. lI I
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. 1 r
Name: 1,p..,e<I V 6-1vri t.(e, L Phone Number: ?? Address: k :. L c . . 7 ? S"Y 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
ma's, 19R9 —
Date: LV2Y-Z-JallN
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item, Agenda Item: IS(
Item Description or Item No. —.)�"e'1" 1c1 S (� 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: ryklrh (� �/I t' " 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.
"F `F"ecse REQUEST TO SPEAK
i' CITY OF TEMECULA
��z()/z-t
Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: N
Item Description or Item No. / 7 p6c-Je-i-- c4,,u-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: ��fi� !�(7 -•�� Phone Number: � Address:
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
fs'k',e Vc(( 1'61A/
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
1989it_As'011:
6 \,>4.1
7 Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: 1 /'
Item Description or Item No. OQ T�r� \1' ' '\ �L$ 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 reco d. nn
Address:
Email address:
._
If you are representing an organizationLt5i.group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
w Al
‘,S°F'-11-c REQUEST TO SPEAK
, CITY OF TEMECULA
1989 Date: 51 Z4,./zA
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: 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. O
Name: 5" V'6t44.A 5A-vu 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
.:
otow,
wse
Date: /\AA'>)
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: 7
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: V LA-0 cAA
�
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.
TF"e REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
„ , 2 0-7
Date: 7_,GA,6
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. l ) `D
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 or
Name: (AR""C/V' 4)-eisi'p LA J‘1 Phone Number:
Address:
t 6yvw C;4J t-o• CA
If you are representing an organization or group, tease give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
°t � REQUEST TO SPEAK
' CITY OF TEMECULA
19N9 () - mil/
Date: -2 V,
Public Comment Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. Th.9
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. I �.rr''^�
Address: r t�T �25 c7 z 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 V
Date: Z. V��I..J//
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: 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: ��1n ° V Ut✓ ��f� � 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.
ov I E`� REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
i�sv /la Z.(0 Za
Date: �(
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: xi
Item Description or Item No. t 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 record. �"
Name tr. L�1 (� bOrAco- L.iU?-Zo 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.
From:Meghan Green
Subject:Golden Pacific PowerLink
Date:Wednesday, May 27, 2026 11:34:00 AM
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 reaching out to you as a local Temecula citizen in hopes that you will help protect our city and its natural beauty.
I was born and raised in this town and have watched it grow over the years, expanding and changing, but still keeping its heritage of ranching and rustic charm alive. Hearing about the Golden Pacific Powerlink project has me worried about the preservation of that charm.
The construction alone will destroy habitat both now and in the future. It has the potential to cause bird deaths, increase accidental fire hazards, and fragment habitat. Not only that, but it will impact our local wildlife in a critical habitat, the riverbeds and riparian zones on the edge of town. As someone who drives down that 15 freeway hill into the Temecula Valley I know just how beautiful the view of our city is. The addition of this transmission line will deeply impact this view.
Our city is fortunate enough to have a large amount of utilities underground, both protecting our power grid and protecting property value.
For all of the coats that Temecula will face, we will not get any of the benefits as the power line will not even provide energy to us.
I understand the need for a stronger California power grid, however this is not the solution.
Our city, neighboring cities, and state parks needs a different plan.
Thank you for your time. I hope you feel the same about protecting our city.
Best,
Meghan Green
From:Luke Watson
To:Betsy Lowrey; Randi Johl; Brandon Rabidou
Cc:Aaron Adams; Matt Peters
Subject:Fw: Follow-Up Thoughts on Today’s Meeting
Date:Wednesday, May 27, 2026 9:27:53 AM
FYI
Luke Watson
Assistant City Manager
City of Temecula
Cell: (
Office: (951) 694-6415
[email protected]
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Visit our Website
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: Michael Naggar
Cc: Aaron Adams ; Luke Watson
Subject: Follow-Up Thoughts on Today’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.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Great job today. I watched the entire meeting from home and thought you all did an excellent job raising the important issues. I wanted to share a few observations and thoughts, in no particular order.
1. The project representatives seemed very scripted and evasive. They talked a lot without really saying much, and they avoided directly addressing concerns.
2. I strongly suspect there may be a bait-and-switch happening with the proposed routing.
Running towers down Temecula Creek and the Santa Margarita River seems unrealistic for several reasons, including geography, Camp Pendleton concerns, and likely opposition in Fallbrook. Temecula Creek isn’t 1,000 feet wide, so how exactly do they expect to fit these
towers there? My guess is they eventually pivot to what they’ll call the “least impactful” alternative farther south, likely around or beyond the Pechanga Reservation.
3. The representatives repeatedly referenced “studies,” but never clearly identified what studies were actually completed.
4. I’m still unclear how a final route can realistically be selected by December if meaningful study and analysis have not yet occurred. It almost sounds like the route gets selected first, and the real studying happens afterward, which is probably the case.
5. This situation reminds me a lot of the Valley-Rainbow/Liberty Quarry fight. Save Our Southwest Hills organized effectively, raised substantial funding — including support from the City — and ultimately prevailed before the CPUC with the help of the law firm Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger.
6. You may already be looking into this, but there is likely tremendous value in either engaging that firm again or obtaining their files and strategy materials. There’s no reason to start from scratch.
7. When speaking publicly, the real audience is the CPUC. SDG&E and ISO are going to pursue their objectives regardless. The key is building a strong record that demonstrates inadequate study, lack of transparency, and significant impacts to Temecula and the region.
Identifying a lack of good faith is very important as well. Armed Security!(?). Sounds like bullying to me. Put it in the reso.
8. Along those lines, everything should be documented and challenged. Missing maps, inconsistent presentations, vague answers, shifting narratives — all of it matters. The goal is to demonstrate that the process was not thorough or transparent. Put it in the reso.
9. I thought the council’s tougher questioning today was effective. Holding the project team accountable and pressing them on specifics is important. The more their lack of preparation or incomplete analysis is exposed, the more influential that will be before the CPUC.
10. I was surprised CEQA was barely mentioned. When will the Notice of Preparation be filed? When will scoping sessions occur? Those timelines matter.
11. Finally, there were many excellent public comments today. I understand the need to balance time, but one minute per speaker feels too limited for an issue of this magnitude. More detailed public testimony will ultimately help create a stronger administrative record.
At the end of the day, I believe everything from this point forward should be focused on influencing the CPUC, which will likely be the lead agency. The pressure needs to remain on SDG&E and ISO to be thorough, transparent, and accountable. If they fail to provide information, document it. If they present inconsistent materials to different audiences, document it ( put it in the reso). The objective is to build the record and identify any area that lacks good faith.
Again, excellent work today. Please keep it up.
Be well, and God bless,
Mayor Mike
PS- It's nice to play councilmember from my desk!
PPS- In your reso, consider mentioning those homeowners that are directly affected by the mere mention and speculation of this project. They will have to disclose this to any buyer. It has already affected their home value. Give them some ammo in your reso that will help them in any of their future lawsuits.
Michael Naggar
DRE NO. 886278
Mike Naggar and Associates Inc.
Temecula, CA 92592
From:Michele Johnson
To:Randi Johl
Subject:Power lines
Date:Wednesday, May 27, 2026 5:55:48 AM
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.
Could not make the meeting but so thankful many did who are opposed to having these large power stations run thru our city.
We have been here 40 years and have seen lots of change. Not all that we agree with(constant building when we have vacant housing and infrastructure to handle the growth) but having these power lines here are a negative in so many ways. Many of which you have heard at the meeting. Please fight this for the residents and hear our voice.
Thank you.
Take Care, Michele Johnson
From:Michael & Natalie Garcia
To:Zak Schwank; Jessica Alexander; Brenden Kalfus; James Stewart; Matt Rahn; Randi Johl Subject:KUDOS!!!
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:10:26 PM
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 & City Council Members,
I attended the City Council meeting today and I just want to say how very PROUD I am of our local government! You ALL nailed it! You were prepared, researched & informed, and held SDG&E accountable demanding answers, alternative routes, & a push for upgrading existing infrastructure with modern technology. We will continue to unite as a community and do our part to show up, speak up, and STOP the Powerline Project from happening anywhere near Temecula. Not underground, not above ground, NOT AT ALL! As the mayor said...... #peopleoverpower THANK YOU for your leadership and strong support opposing this project and protecting Temecula! I will volunteer and do anything needed - we must shut this down sooner than later before it goes any further starting with those alternative routes that do not involve T town, AKA our town! Sincerely,
Natalie (18-year Temecula resident/homeowner in Redhawk)
From:Ellen Hubbell
To:Randi Johl
Subject:Hi Randi:
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 8:22:46 PM
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 live in Temecula not far from wine country. I just wanted to be one of the many objecting to the PUC and SDGE imposing on "US". Not only do I object to this project, I would like to know why any project would run power lines ABOVE GROUND !!! Please add my name as one who does not want this or any such project in Temecula or Murrieta! Thank you,
Ellen and Craig Hubbell
From:David Sola
To:Randi Johl
Subject:Public Comment from today’s meeting
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 8:15:47 PM
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 Evening,
I was unable to stay to give my public comment but wanted to get it on the record:
Good evening Madam Mayor and Council,
My name is David Sola, and I want SDG&E to understand exactly who the people of Temecula are.
We are proud people. We are families who worked hard our entire lives to move here, raise our children here, build businesses here, and create a community we are proud to call home.
We may disagree on politics from time to time. We may disagree on policy. But make no mistake, when it comes to protecting Temecula, this community stands together.
And that is exactly why residents are deeply concerned about proposed 500-kV transmission lines being routed near our neighborhoods and near Vail Ranch Middle School.
California’s own Title 5 regulations establish a 350-foot setback between school sites and 500 to 550-kV transmission line easements. The State recognized these concerns for a reason. Parents should not have to wonder whether massive high-voltage infrastructure belongs anywhere near their children’s school environment.
Temecula is not an industrial shortcut between population centers. We are a community. We are wine country. We are neighborhoods, schools, and small businesses. And once towers like these go up, the damage to the character of this city is permanent.
Madam Mayor said tonight this will be the first of many meetings on this subject. I want you to know that I am a retired Marine Master Sergeant who gave the best years of my life serving this country so my family and fellow Americans could live in peace and security. I never imagined that after all those years of service, I would find myself standing here fighting against Americans who are trying to undermine the very communities we worked so hard to protect.
So to SDG&E: be prepared.
Because you are going to see the people of Temecula show up every single time to fight for our homes, our schools, our families, and our community.
Thank you.
From:Paradees B
To:Council Comments
Subject:Follow-Up Public Comment Regarding the Proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:36:05 PM
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 Mayor and Councilmembers,
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak during public comment regarding the proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink. Due to the large number of speakers and limited speaking time, I was only able to share a shortened version of my remarks. I respectfully ask that the following thoughts be included in the public record.
My name is Paradees Barona, and I’m writing as a resident, a parent, and someone who genuinely loves this community.
My family chose Temecula for the same reason so many families do — it feels different here.
There is still open space, natural beauty, and a true sense of community identity that has become increasingly rare in Southern California.
We take pride in the fact that people travel to our city for some of the most meaningful moments of their lives — weddings in wine country, anniversaries, weekends with friends, horseback riding, golfing, and hot air balloon rides at sunrise. Temecula has become a destination because it still feels preserved, intentional, and unique.
That identity did not happen by accident. This city has spent decades building and protecting it.
Today, Temecula welcomes millions of visitors each year and generates more than $1.1 billion in tourism spending, supporting nearly 10,000 local jobs. Our economy thrives because people value the beauty, open space, and character that make this community special.
That is why so many residents are deeply concerned about the proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink and the placement of massive 500-kilovolt transmission towers through highly visible and environmentally sensitive areas of our city.
According to publicly shared project information, these towers could range from approximately 120 to 190 feet tall — taller than many 15-story buildings — running near SR- 79, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River corridor. These are not minor infrastructure changes. They would permanently alter the visual landscape and character of key areas that residents and visitors value most.
Additionally, SDG&E representatives have publicly stated that this transmission line is not intended to directly serve Temecula’s energy needs. That means our community would bear the visual impact, disruption, and wildfire concerns while the primary benefit goes elsewhere.
Wildfire concerns in our region are not theoretical. Many residents here have personally experienced evacuations and the fear that comes when smoke fills the sky and families must leave quickly. Any project that introduces large-scale overhead transmission infrastructure
near open space, evacuation corridors, and wildfire-prone areas deserves serious scrutiny and robust public review.
This is not about opposing progress or energy reliability. Most residents understand the importance of modernizing infrastructure and expanding the grid responsibly. But responsible growth must also include protecting communities, preserving environmental and tourism assets, and seriously evaluating safer alternatives where possible.
I respectfully ask the City Council to continue taking an active role in this process by:
1. Passing a formal resolution opposing the currently proposed route through Temecula.
2. Requesting a fully studied alternative that routes outside of Temecula and reflects the clear opposition already expressed by councilmembers, while prioritizing existing utility corridors and undergrounding in sensitive areas wherever feasible.
3. Formally intervening in the CPUC proceedings on behalf of Temecula residents to ensure our community’s concerns are represented early and clearly.
Other California communities have successfully advocated for undergrounding and route changes in environmentally or culturally sensitive areas because local leaders spoke up before decisions became finalized. Temecula deserves the same level of advocacy and protection.
Thank you again for your time, your service, and your willingness to listen to the concerns of your residents.
Sincerely,
Paradees
From:
To:Council Comments
Subject:Towers
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:25:11 PM
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.
One of the topics not covered was that the Santa Margarita River carries our drinking from Vail Lake to the Temecula aquifer.
We cannot contaminat our water supply.
Sent from AOL on Android
From:Rebecca Shinneman
To:Randi Johl
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:48:55 PM
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. https://www.google.com/gasearch ?
q=do%20500%20volt%20transmission%20systems%20cause%20fires&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5
From:
To:Randi Johl
Subject:PowerLink
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:27:45 PM
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 Randi
Please represent my disapproval of the Power link project at the upcoming SDGE meeting
Thanks and Have a Great Day!
Rocky Rovedatti
From:Franki Boker
To:Randi Johl
Subject:Golden pacific power link
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:03:34 PM
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.
Resident near Old Town Temecula, would be so sad to see power lines disrupting our city and landscapes.
Best,
Francesca Boker
From:info domainechardonnay.com
To:Council Comments
Subject:SDG&E Agenda Item #19 Comment
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:47:52 PM
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 esteemed Council Members,
Have you ever stood next to one of these massive electrical towers? Not only unsightly and somewhat terrifying, but they constantly emit a loud and eerie electrical buzz.
They are potentially dangerous as well as ugly, and they will absolutely unfairly destroy all the property values lining its path all the way through Temecula.
SDG&E has identified Temecula as its ‘PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE’, their least expensive alternative..and the only densely populated residential area proposed for the SDG&E power transmission lines to cross through.. but they are WRONG about us Temeculans.
THEY NEED TO FIND A BETTER SOLUTION FOR THEIR PROJECT AMD RE-ROUTE IT OUTSIDE OF TEMECULA!
During their recent zoom conversations ‘with the public’ they would not let any of us speak or be seen, and did not even address Temecula’s involvement at all. They did not even answer any of our 4 questions and comments saying at the end of their internal dialogue, that there were not anymore questions and they stated that they had answered them all. Complete BS.
They are gas lighting us.
We CANNOT allow SDG&E to desecrate our beautiful town. We have all worked too hard to make this place so special and beautiful to let this happen.
We demand ALL our city and County politicians stand FIRMLY against allowing this to happen.
We residents will not allow it!
Laura Stearn Wieters
Proprietor and Resident,
Domaine Chardonnay
(
www.domainechardonnay.com
From:Anthony Boudreault
To:Council Comments
Cc:Amanda Boudreault
Subject:Oppose SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink Project
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:40:15 PM
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 members of City Council,
I am writing to strongly oppose the SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink Project. I am a homeowner in the Wolf Creek neighborhood of South Temecula at 31947 Lodge House Ct.
This project provides no benefit to Temecula residents, who are served by Southern California Edison, yet our community will bear the risks and impacts. As a California real estate broker and investor, I have seen firsthand how high-voltage transmission lines negatively impact property values and marketability. In addition, placing 500-kV lines in a high-wind fire zone will only worsen California’s insurance crisis through higher premiums and policy cancellations.
The proposed route behind Great Oak High School and through the Temecula Creek corridor also raises serious safety and cultural concerns, including impacts to lands significant to the Pechanga Band of Indians.
As both a real estate professional and a father of two young children, I urge you to reject this project or require a complete reroute outside of the Temecula Valley.
Sincerely,
Anthony Boudreault
Realtor- Broker Associate
DRE#01960145
Coldwell Banker Realty
ATTENTION FRAUD ALERT: **Be aware! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email containing WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS, call your escrow officer to verify the information prior to sending funds.** I will never request you wire or send funds or personal information through an email. If you receive an email request such as this, please notify me immediately before taking any action.
From:Amy Shuster
To:Randi Johl; Brenden Kalfus
Cc:Matt Rahn; Zak Schwank; Jessica Alexander; [email protected]; Scott Shuster Subject:NO TO POWERLINK
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:35:58 PM
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,
As South Temecula residents for the past 14+ years, we respectfully request that the Temecula City Council exercise every available legal and procedural authority to oppose, restrict, reroute, or substantially modify any proposal that would place industrial-scale transmission towers near established communities including Morgan Hill, Redhawk, Temecula Creek neighborhoods, Vail Ranch Middle School, and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve corridor.
The proposed scale of these towers would permanently alter the visual character, environmental integrity, and safety profile of our community. Temecula residents purchased homes and raised families here with the expectation that our neighborhoods, schools, preserves, and scenic corridors would be protected from industrial-scale infrastructure intrusion.
This issue extends far beyond aesthetics. It directly impacts:
- wildfire safety (if a fire started along Temecula Parkway there would be catastrophic devastation to nearby neighborhoods, businesses and lives), - evacuation reliability (it is near impossible to enter the 15 from Temecula Parkway during rush hour, we cannot imagine if all of South Temecula needed to evacuate at once), - property values,
- community planning,
- safety for students in nearby schools/daycares
- environmental preservation,
- and quality of life for thousands of Temecula residents Thank you for your consideration and continued commitment to protecting the residents and character of Temecula.
Sincerely,
Amanda and Scott Shuster
Temecula Residents
From:Reina Waller
To:Randi Johl
Subject:Temecula SDG&E Powerlinks - Big NO!
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:22:42 PM
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 Randi,
I hope this message finds you well.
This email is to express our concerns regarding the new proposal from SDG&E in Temecula.
My family and I moved to Temecula 16 years ago from LA area. We fell in love with this town because of the quiet hills, wildlife, creek views, and safety — not to live next to giant power towers.
We stand strongly against SDG&Es proposed Powerlinks running through Temecula creek. They are a massive eyesore, but most important, it raise serious health concerns and fire danger! We don't want Temecula to become the next Palisades.
Unfortunately, I was not able to attend due to not having a sitter, but I hope you can address everyone's concerns!.
Thank you so much,
Reina Waller
Get Outlook for Android
From:
To:Council Comments
Subject:Golden Pacific Powerlink Project by SDGE
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:21:54 PM
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’ve lived in Temecula for over 35 years and am deeply concerned about the Powerlink Project.
There are numerous reasons why this project should not be approved for Temecula - *. Increased home insurance (fire and seismic danger)
*. Financial burden due to decreased home value
*. Health Concerns - EMF etc.
*. Threats to wildlife and open space
*. Negative impact on city tax base - due to decreased tourism etc. *. The city of Temecula is not benefiting from this project despite carrying the burden and the major risks to our beautiful city
Please don’t allow this horrible project to be constructed in Temecula.
Sincerely,
Marianne Mcdougal
Temecula Ca 92592
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
From:Debbie Chesney
To:Council Comments
Subject:Golden Pacific Powerline Project
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:20:52 PM
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've been a southern Temecula homeowner for 27 years & am gravely concerned about negative impacts on my community & home from the Golden Pacific Powerlink Project proposed by SDG& E, including:
*increased homeowner insurance due to increased wildfire risks *seismic safety concerns
*declining propert values/increased financial burden
*EMF & public health concerns
*threats to wildlife & open space
*negative impact on city tax base due to decreased tourism *lack of direct benefit to Temecula & its residents despite carrying major risks
Please don't allow this horrific project to impact our beloved community.
Sincerely,
Debbie Chesney
From:Alison James
To:
Cc:[email protected]; Council Comments; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:Stop the Powerlines in Temecula
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:16:03 PM
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.
My name is Alison James, and I am a resident of Temecula living in Paloma del Sol. I am writing tonight on behalf of myself, my family, and the growing coalition of residents with Save Temecula: Fight the Powerlink.
We urge you to formally oppose the proposed high-voltage transmission project. This line places permanent, devastating burdens on our community of over 113,000 residents, while offering absolutely no direct local benefit. SEMPRA and SDG&E are quite simply putting corporate profit over our people, our health, and our safety.
This industrial corridor introduces severe, unacceptable risks to Temecula:
Wildfire & Seismic Peril: The proposed route runs adjacent to the San Jacinto Fault—one of Southern California’s most active seismic systems. Combining severe earthquake risks and soil liquefaction with high-voltage infrastructure in a high-fire-risk zone is a recipe for catastrophe.
Financial & Property Hardship: Homeowners are already facing skyrocketing fire insurance costs. This project will trigger further uninsurability, plummeting property values, and invasive utility easements on private land.
Economic Devastation: Temecula’s economy relies heavily on our scenic beauty. Defacing our landscape with massive towers directly threatens our wineries, tourism, weddings, and local businesses—ultimately decimating the city’s own tax base.
Health Hazards: We are deeply concerned by the long-term public health impacts of EMF exposure, especially where the line encroaches on our schools, parks, and neighborhoods.
We chose to live in Temecula because of its preserved rural character and pristine open spaces. We cannot allow our quality of life, our safety, and our local wildlife corridors to be sacrificed.
Alternative routes and technologies exist that do not lay waste to our city. We look forward to working alongside you to aggressively defend Temecula. Please stand with your constituents and reject this project.
Thank you for your time and your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Alison James
From:Mark Garcie
To:Zak Schwank; James Stewart; Matt Rahn; Jessica Alexander; Brenden Kalfus Cc:Randi Johl
Subject:Power transmission lines public comment
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:06:01 PM
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 and council
Due to an appointment this afternoon, I cannot attend the council meeting, however, I would like my opposition to this proposal be entered into the public record.
Thank you
Mark Garcie
Temecula CA 92591
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark Garcie <
Date: May 7, 2026 at 9:22:15 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: GP Powerlink comment
Good morning
After reading the information regarding the proposed path of the power transmission lines through the city of Temecula, I would like to comment on this proposal, and have my comment placed in public record.
While I agree that an increase of power transmission lines maybe warranted, however this proposed project runs those lines through pre-existing urban heavy populated communities within the City of Temecula.
High power transmission lines pose a potential health risk, as well have interfered with urban interface Wildland fire suppression operations should a fire occur. In fact, part of the path proposed has a history of annual fires.
As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to the proposed route of this project, and encourage a change of route through a less populated, rural area.
Thank you
Mark Garcie
Temecula CA 92591
Sent from my iPad
From:Katie Blair
To:Randi Johl
Subject:No Power link Line
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:01:43 PM
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’m writing as a concerned citizen regarding the proposed Power link line. Please add my name to the growing list of residents who strongly oppose this plan. Temecula landscape will be forever changed, homes in danger of fire, and our health will all be at risk. And for what? Temecula is not the spot for this. Please do everything in your power to stop this absurd project.
Thank you-
Katie and Joseph Blair
From: Dave Baxter
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 2:48 PM
To: Council Comments
Cc: Stephani Baxter
Subject: Request to Speak on Agenda Item 19 - Temecula City Council Meeting - May 26, 2026 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.
Speaker:
Stephani Baxter will be in attendance.
Thank you!
Shop Our E-Commerce Store SHOPV
1.21 relevant.com
Dave Baxter
Vice President of Business Development--21
Engineered Solutions
relevant■ ® [email protected]
949-887-0090
A FAMILY OF COMPANIES
.,
C RelevantSolutions.com
Your Partner For Relevant Solutions
For after-hours assistance,please call 1-800-779-1414.
1 From:Lenore Leitch
To:Council Comments
Subject:Golden Pacific Power link meeting
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 2:37:39 PM
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 City Council members,
I would appreciate you taking my comment and question to the city council meeting today at 3 PM regarding the proposed Golden Pacific power link project.
I used to live in San Diego and had a property near high voltage power lines. When I went to sell that particular property, it was mentioned that I lived near high voltage power lines. Now as homeowner in Temecula, not far from the proposed route for the high voltage power lines, I am deeply concerned about the all the potential impacts to the residents, but specifically what it could do to our home values.
My question for SDG&E is does this proposed high voltage power line have any connection to the proposed AI data center in Imperial Valley? In looking at the map of the current proposed route it looks like it’s originating near that area.
Thank you,
Lenore Leitch
Sent from my iPhone
From:Evaline Ramos
To:[email protected]; [email protected]; Randi Johl; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Zak Schwank; Jessica Alexander; James Stewart; Brenden Kalfus; Council Assistant
Subject:Re: Protect Temecula: Opposition to Proposed 500-kV Transmission Corridor Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 2:37:17 PM
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.
Adding the Temecula council members to this email for visibility. Thank you.
On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 2:29 PM Evaline Ramos < wrote:
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally oppose the proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink 500-kV transmission corridor through the Temecula Creek corridor and surrounding Temecula Valley communities.
This proposal represents a profound threat to our environment, public safety, local economy, and quality of life. The placement of massive industrial transmission infrastructure through one of Southern California’s most beautiful and environmentally sensitive regions is unacceptable.
First and foremost, the environmental consequences of this project would be devastating.
The Temecula Creek corridor and surrounding open spaces support sensitive ecosystems, wildlife habitats, riparian corridors, native vegetation, migratory bird pathways, and countless species that rely on these lands for survival. Constructing a 500-kV transmission corridor through these areas would permanently fragment habitats, destroy ecosystems, disrupt wildlife movement, and scar the natural landscape for generations. Once these ecosystems are damaged, they cannot simply be restored.
Equally alarming are the wildfire risks associated with this proposal. Temecula is already designated as a high fire-risk area, frequently impacted by extreme winds, dry vegetation, and dangerous fire conditions. Introducing additional high-voltage transmission infrastructure into this environment significantly increases public safety concerns. California has already witnessed the catastrophic consequences that utility infrastructure failures can have, including the tragic Paradise Fire, which destroyed an entire town and claimed dozens of lives. Our region cannot afford to increase the likelihood of a similar disaster.
Many residents in Temecula already struggle to obtain affordable homeowners insurance due to wildfire risk classifications. This project would only worsen those concerns, further impacting families financially and placing additional burdens on homeowners who are already facing rising insurance costs and reduced coverage options.
Public health and safety concerns must also be taken seriously. Placing a 500-kV transmission corridor essentially a stone’s throw from residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, and family communities raises serious long-term concerns regarding prolonged electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, especially for children. Families should not be forced to live under or adjacent to industrial-scale transmission lines carrying this level of voltage.
Residents deserve transparency, caution, and protection when it comes to potential long-
term health impacts.
In addition, the constant audible humming and noise generated by high-voltage transmission lines would permanently alter the peaceful character of our neighborhoods and rural communities. Residents should not be subjected to continuous industrial noise pollution in areas intended for homes, recreation, schools, and agriculture.
The economic consequences of this proposal are equally concerning. Numerous studies and real estate analyses have shown that high-voltage transmission corridors can significantly reduce nearby property values. Properties within the direct viewshed of these industrial towers can experience value reductions of up to 40%, homes within approximately 1,000 feet can see decreases of up to 20%, and surrounding areas may still experience measurable losses in value. For many families, their home is their largest financial investment. This project unfairly places that investment at risk.
Beyond individual homeowners, the broader economic impacts to Temecula would be substantial. Our regional economy depends heavily on tourism, scenic beauty, agriculture, wine country, and outdoor recreation. Placing 20-story industrial transmission towers across our gateway corridors would permanently degrade the landscapes that attract visitors from around the world. The visual blight caused by these towers would directly impact tourism, hospitality, wineries, recreation, and local businesses that rely on Temecula’s natural beauty and rural charm. The overall economic vitality of the region is at threat.
Additionally, the economic destabilization caused by declining property values, increased insurance costs, and diminished tourism could contribute to broader community challenges, including housing instability and increased homelessness. As housing affordability continues to worsen throughout California, projects that erode property values and increase financial strain on residents should not move forward.
Temecula residents should not be forced to sacrifice their safety, environment, health, economy, and quality of life for a project of this magnitude.
I strongly urge SDG&E, the CPUC, and all decision-makers involved to reject the proposed Temecula Creek corridor alignment and protect our community from the irreversible damage this project would cause.
Sincerely,
Evaline Ramos
Temecula Resident
From:Erik Kalfus
To:Randi Johl
Cc:Brenden Kalfus
Subject:SDG&E power link project
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 2:36:57 PM
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.
As a resident of temecula for over 36 years I do not want this power link project to be built.
Not only do they create an increased fire risk in an area that’s already extremely high risk, but these high voltage transmission lines give off levels of EMF’s are that are literally unhealthy.
These levels can physically be measured. These EMFs are actual poison. This project also impacts land of cultural and historical significance to the Pechanga Band of Indians. I, and many others, do NOT want these to be put in. I want to keep our city safe, and this proposed build threatens to ‘poison the well’ that our city has fought hard to keep clean throughout the entirety of my life here. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Erik
From:Laurel LaMont
To:Randi Johl
Subject:Public Comment Regarding Agenda Item 19 – SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 2:12:15 PM
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 and Council Members,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 19 concerning the proposed SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink transmission project.
Like many residents, I have serious concerns regarding the visual, environmental, and community impacts associated with placing 500-kV transmission infrastructure through Temecula, including areas near SR-79, Temecula Parkway, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River.
Residents deserve transparency regarding the long-term impacts, the true public benefit to Temecula, environmental considerations, project necessity, alternatives considered, and the financial realities tied to California’s growing energy demands.
This discussion also highlights a larger issue that communities across California continue to avoid.
Modern suburban development patterns require enormous amounts of energy and infrastructure to sustain. Larger homes, long commutes, increasing electrification, air conditioning demands, warehouse logistics, EV charging, and continued outward growth all require expanded infrastructure somewhere.
Communities frequently oppose infrastructure expansion while simultaneously resisting the kinds of planning decisions that could reduce long-term strain on transportation systems, energy consumption, and regional sprawl.
Temecula continues struggling with meaningful attainable housing options for the local workforce. Many essential workers are forced into longer commutes, creating additional traffic, environmental strain, and infrastructure demand across the region.
If we want stronger communities, lower emissions, reduced traffic congestion, and a more sustainable future, then housing, infrastructure, transportation, and energy policy must be discussed together rather than treated as isolated political battles.
I strongly encourage the City to demand accountability, transparency, and meaningful public engagement from SDG&E while also approaching this discussion with long-term honesty about the realities of growth, infrastructure, and regional planning.
Respectfully,
Laurel LaMont
Temecula Resident
Founder, Upward Community
Candidate, Temecula City Council District 5
From:Tracy Lee Nash from Within The Light
To:Randi Johl
Subject:THE SDG&E PROJECT
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 2:06:54 PM
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 day,
I am voicing my concerns and objections below with regards to the SDG&E power line project and I hope you take the time to read this email.
I am one of the early residents of this valley, having moved to Temecula in 1977 and spending nearly 25 years there before relocating to Menifee. To say that Temecula was an incredible place to live would be an understatement because it was, in fact, an amazing place to grow up, that is, until it became a scene for political tripe and controversial ideology over the years and once again, we're having to fight. Fight the
corporate greed and interests with this possible SDG&E project.
We have already lost and continue to lose several things as it relates to the "growth" of Temecula Valley including,
but not limited to, it's natural beauty, agricultural distinctiveness, ecological environment and overall eclectic character,
and the citizens, as a whole, will not sit by to avoid being an inconvenient hindrance for "the powers that be" and simply
watch the place we call home be reduced to another corporate takeover with this type of invasive endeavor SDG&E
plans. It certainly doesn't benefit the residents, but it does benefit those who desire profit over people and unfortunately,
it always seems to come down to money.
We don't need this type of infrastructure nor the negative impact it will have on our overall environment and most citizens
in this valley, the state as a whole if we're going to be honest, are SICK and TIRED of the power moves and grabs, the
arrogance and dismissiveness of subject matters such as placing powerlines in towns, cities, counties, that the city council,
corporations and quite frankly, any other entities are seeking to construct, while pretending to care what the resident's think,
when they truly don't care and that's evident by the fact that most projects are approved even when a majority of the people
state they don't want it.
So...
LISTEN to the people. NOT the profiteers. LISTEN to those who will be most affected by this project; the homes they live
in, the businesses they own, the communities they desire to retain. NOT those who are solely focused on profitability. Make
a difference by actually being different. By being leaders, not followers, by having the backs of the town's occupants-not the
occupiers, aka corporations.
Thank you for your time,
Tracy L. Nash
From:Julie Malone
To:Randi Johl
Subject:PacificPower
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 2:04:27 PM
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 Randi, I am not able to attend the Council meeting today, however, this is such a huge horrible issue to our beautiful Temecula and nearby communities. We all live out here to get away from Large City Standards. I've been coming to Temecula since the 70's, being raised in Los Angeles, this was the Valley of Dreams and do own a gorgeous home here. Please protect us. I feel it is full of danger! Thank you. Julie Malone, Temecula, CA 92592 - On my knees saying prayers
From: Adam A. Ruiz <
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 1:28 PM
To: Council Comments
Subject: SDG&E Project
Attachments: TAC Golden Pacific Powerlink Opposition.pdf 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. Please see the attached letter on behalf of the Temecula Advocacy Coalition, submitted to be part of the official record.We will also be in attendance today to make a verbal comment.
Thank you,
Adam
Adam A. Ruiz RINCON
VICE PRESIDENT PUBLIC AFFAIRS S t- r a t t , 1 Q s ( 3835E Thousand Oaks Blvd,Ste R-560 [email protected] Westlake V Ilag..CA 91362 RI N CONSTRATEGIES.COM
1 Temecula Advocacy Coalition | 2026 | Page 1 of 2
May 27, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Re: Opposition to the Proposed Route, SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink On behalf of the Temecula Advocacy Coalition (TAC), we strongly oppose the proposed route of the SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink through the Temecula Valley. While TAC recognizes the regional need for transmission infrastructure improvements, the proposed corridor poses unacceptable and lasting harm to the scenic landscape, public safety, and visitor economy that sustain our community.
SDG&E’s Golden Pacific Powerlink is a proposed 500-kilovolt high-voltage transmission line with a current route alignment that crosses some of Temecula Valley’s most economically and scenically significant landscapes, including the State Route 79 corridor, Vail Lake, Galway Downs, the De Portola Wine Trail, and areas along Temecula Parkway. The project, which SDG&E is currently developing, directly affects the land and viewsheds that define the Temecula Valley visitor experience.
Tourism is the economic foundation of the Temecula Valley, generating more than $1 billion in annual visitor spending and supporting thousands of jobs across hospitality, food and beverage, retail, agriculture, and events. This economy is directly tied to the scenic integrity of the wine country landscape. Visitors come to Temecula because of its rolling hills, vineyard vistas, and unspoiled open spaces. Industrial transmission towers cutting across those viewsheds would permanently and materially diminish the destination appeal that drives our regional economy. TAC urges the Council to join us in treating that $1 billion economic engine as the asset it is and protecting it accordingly.
Beyond the economic impact, the proposed route introduces serious wildfire risk. The corridor traverses high-severity fire hazard zones in Southern California’s backcountry, where overhead high- voltage lines have a documented history of ignition. Placing 500-kilovolt infrastructure through active agricultural and recreational land in these conditions puts vineyards, hospitality workers, visitors, and residents under an elevated and unnecessary threat. This is not a speculative concern in Temecula Valley, where fire risk is a present reality.
Temecula Advocacy Coalition | 2026 | Page 2 of 2
This is not the first time these concerns have been raised. The City of Temecula opposed a comparable transmission proposal, the Valley Rainbow Line, in 2001 and 2002 on substantially similar grounds. The economic and cultural stakes are significantly higher today. The wine country, agri-tourism, and hospitality sectors that were emerging two decades ago are now mature, nationally recognized industries. TAC respectfully urges the Council to act with that context in mind.
For these reasons, the Temecula Advocacy Coalition strongly opposes the proposed route of the SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink. We respectfully urge the City Council to formally oppose this route alignment and to call on SDG&E to evaluate alternative corridors, including existing utility rights-of- way or freeway alignments, that do not traverse the wine country landscape, Vail Lake, or the State Route 79 and Temecula Parkway viewsheds. TAC welcomes the opportunity to discuss this matter further and to support the City’s engagement on this issue as it advances.
The Temecula Advocacy Coalition is a unified advocacy body formed by Visit Temecula Valley (VTV), the Old Town Temecula Association (OTTA), and the Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association (TVWGA). The Coalition was established to advance a coordinated, credible voice on legislative and regulatory matters affecting the Temecula Valley’s tourism, hospitality, agricultural, and small business communities. Together, our member organizations represent the backbone of the region’s visitor economy and are committed to policies that grow visitor spending, support tourist-based businesses, and protect the unique character of the Temecula Valley.
Sincerely,
Chris Bailey
Chair, Visit Temecula Valley
Krista Chaich
Executive Director, Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association Julie Ngo
President, Old Town Temecula Association
From:Bob Cormack
To:Council Comments
Subject:SDGE comments
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 1:27:29 PM
Attachments:Towers in Creek Comments B. Cormack.pdf
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 from my iPhone
1 Towers in Creek – Comments to city B. Cormack
Thank you to our Temecula City Council for your supporting us in this battle.
I’d like to address 2 areas of concern, HEALTH RISKS and FIRE RISKS. I am a retired L.A. CO. Fire Captain with 41 years of experience, including 25 years managing Hazardous Materials incidents.
First, the Health Risk
High voltage equipment produce (Electromagnetic fields, or EMFs), and time, distance and shielding will protect you.
Time- limit your exposure
Distance-keep a safe distance
Shielding- stay behind shielding object
Studies have shown an increased EMF exposure risk for children within 200 meters of high voltage lines.
Our Temecula Creek is less than 200 meters wide. We have children living within the specified “Danger Zone” on either side of the creek. We also have a concentrated group of children at Vail Ranch Middle School, 5 days a week.
Children living in high EMF exposure distances (less than 200 meters), get leukemia twice as much as children who don’t.
These “World Health Organization” statistics are available on line to look up.
Are we willing to risk our kids and our families to a known threat?
2 Secondly, Fire Risk
Between the years of 2016 and 2020, only 10% of the total California wildfires were attributed to high voltage distribution lines and equipment.
That doesn’t sound like a lot, but consider the fact that half of the most destructive fires, those with the largest losses, were caused by power-line fires.
Why? Because drainages, like creeks, where power companies like to put their towers, significantly influence wind driven wildfire behavior. The proposed powerlines are directly targeting a drainage with heavy vegetation, that runs the length of our city, with homes on either side.
Every day we have strong winds flowing through the creek in one direction or the other depending on weather.
Let me list some of these fires:
In 2018, The Camp Fire, the deadliest in California history with 85 fatalities and 18,000 structures.
2021, The Dixie Fire, the largest in California history at 963,000+ acres 2017, The Thomas Fire, 281,000 acres
2019, The Kincade Fire at 77,700 acres plus hundreds of structures. 2020, The Zogg Fire at 56,000 acres and 4 fatalities
2025, The Eaton Fire, also known as the Altadena Fire, only burned 14,021 acres but destroyed 9000 buildings, mostly homes, and killed 19 people.
This was in an area very similar to ours.
The cost is too high to our families and community in the lives and property threatened by this project.
From:Rebecca Shinneman
To:Randi Johl
Subject:Talking Points for agenda
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 1:23:01 PM
Attachments:City Council Meeting Talking Points.docx
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 Randi,
Zak said you could attach this to today's agenda. I'm not very good with public speaking but I'm asking that my concerns be noted.
SIncerely,
Rebecca Shinneman
Temecula Creek Resident
CITY COUNCIL MEETING TALKING POINTS – May 26, 2025
1. Introduce yourself and your stake “My name is Rebecca, I live in the Temecula Creek area, directly behind the proposed transmission corridor.”
2. Core Issue “The Golden Pacific Powerlink would place 120–190 � high-voltage towers through Temecula Creek, Temecula Parkway, and the Santa Margarita River corridor — some of the most sensi�ve and cherished areas in our city.”
3. Impacts:
• “This alignment increases wildfire risk in an already fire-prone region.” • “It threatens riparian habitat, wildlife corridors, and protected open space.” • “It impacts tribal cultural resources that must be respected.” • “It places industrial-scale infrastructure directly behind homes, harming property values and quality of life.”
4. “Temecula does not receive electricity from SDG&E. This is a bulk transmission project that benefits the region, but the burden is placed squarely on our neighborhoods.”
5. “I’m asking the City of Temecula to:
1. Pass a formal resolu�on opposing the current route;
2. Demand full CEQA analysis of alterna�ve routes and undergrounding;
3. Coordinate with Riverside County, tribal governments, and environmental groups;
4. Advocate directly to the CPUC and state legislators.”
6. “Our community is organized, informed, and ready to par�cipate. We need the city to stand with us.”
From:Erin Low
To:Council Comments
Subject:No to power lines
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 1:12:42 PM
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 City Council,
We are small business owners in the community who also live here. These power lines should only be UNDERGROUND! Our fire insurance is already through the roof and I fear this would make things worse, especially with the intense winds we get here. We love living here because there aren’t big ugly power lines all over the place and it’s green and beautiful.
Please do not ruin our beautiful city!
Thank you,
Erin low
From:
To:Council Comments
Subject:SDG&E"s 500 kv Power Link
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 1:05:54 PM
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 really don't have anything different to say than what has already been said to oppose the above. Reasons for opposition include:
Habitat destruction and fragmentation
Extensive vegetation and tree removal
Fire risk, flood risk - properly maintained lines can cause fires as California has already experienced
Increased insurance for homeowners
ecosystem change
no local benefit
It's hard to understand why something like this would even be considered based on the wildfires we have already seen California go through. Properly maintained lines can not guarantee no fire. And what about home owner insurance? Is SDG&E going to cover those costs?
And the ecosystem - how is destroying wildlife and the habitat beneficial for anyone? Thanks for listening,
Monah Hanson
From:Shannon Flynn
To:Council Comments
Subject:SDG&E
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:43:14 PM
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 request that the City Council do whatever is in its power to stop the San Diego Gas & Electric's Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. This project would adversely impact all aspects of life in Temecula as we know it in a negative way.
Regards,
Shannon Flynn
Temecula, CA 92592
From:renee guevara
To:Randi Johl
Subject:No!
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:17:47 PM
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.
NO to
Golden Pacific Powerlink project
Sincerely,
Renee Guevara
From:Shawnda Kovacs
To:Council Comments
Subject:golden pacific powerlink
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:13:39 PM
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 project is near to my home and is a direct threat to me and my families health . We moved to Temecula *for* our health. We chose our house with purpose. This defeats all of our choices and having a voice in what we are exposed to.
As a concerned resident of Southwest Riverside County, I respectfully urge the County to take immediate and aggressive action regarding any proposed 500 kV transmission corridor involving approximately 200-foot industrial transmission towers near Temecula-area neighborhoods, schools, evacuation corridors, and protected ecological lands.
While the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) may ultimately oversee portions of transmission line permitting, Riverside County possesses substantial authority and influence related to land use compatibility, public safety, wildfire risk, emergency evacuation planning, environmental review, transportation impacts, regional planning consistency, and protection of County-managed open space resources.
I respectfully request that Riverside County exercise every available legal and procedural authority to oppose, restrict, reroute, or substantially modify any proposal that would place industrial-scale transmission towers near established communities including Morgan Hill, Redhawk, Temecula Creek neighborhoods, Vail Ranch Middle School, and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve corridor.
Specifically, I urge the County to pursue the following actions:
• Adopt formal County resolutions opposing above-ground 500 kV transmission towers within close proximity to residential communities, schools, and ecological preserves. • Establish and advocate for minimum setback standards including:
- 1,500-foot minimum setbacks from residential communities, - 2,000-foot setbacks from schools and youth facilities, - and 2,500-foot setbacks from ecological preserves, riparian corridors, and scenic open-space areas. • Require comprehensive wildfire risk analysis addressing:
- ignition potential,
- tower collapse scenarios,
- impacts to aerial firefighting operations,
- evacuation bottlenecks,
- and cumulative fire behavior in high wind events.
• Utilize County authority under CEQA to demand full Environmental Impact Reports evaluating:
- biological impacts,
- visual degradation,
- public health concerns,
- cumulative environmental impacts,
- property value impacts,
- and feasible undergrounding alternatives.
• Advocate that all feasible residential-adjacent portions of any transmission corridor be undergrounded. • Protect County scenic corridors, trails, preserves, habitat linkages, and recreation areas from industrial visual intrusion and fragmentation.
• Coordinate opposition efforts with local cities, school districts, fire agencies, tribal governments, conservation organizations, and affected residents.
The proposed scale of these towers is fundamentally incompatible with the rural-residential and community-oriented character of Southwest Riverside County. These are not minor utility structures. They are industrial-scale facilities that would permanently alter community character, scenic landscapes, wildfire safety conditions, and quality of life for thousands of residents.
This region already faces extreme wildfire danger and evacuation concerns. Introducing massive transmission infrastructure near densely populated neighborhoods and constrained evacuation corridors creates serious long-term public safety concerns that deserve the highest level of scrutiny.
Residents deserve meaningful protection, transparent review, and full consideration of less harmful alternatives.
I respectfully ask Riverside County to stand firmly in defense of its communities, environmental resources, wildfire safety priorities, and long-term planning objectives by using every available authority to oppose or significantly restrict placement of 500 kV industrial transmission towers near Southwest Riverside County residential communities and preserves.
Thank you for your consideration and service to the residents of Riverside County.
Shawnda kovacs
Sent from my iPhone
From: Krista Chaich
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:10 PM
To: Council Comments
Subject: Statement for Record
Attachments: SDG&E Powerline Opposition Statement.docx 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'd like to enter this statement for the public record.
Thank you!
Krista Chaich II Executive Director
Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association
P.O. Box 1601
Temecula, CA 92593
P: 951.699.3626 ext. 101
E: [email protected]
www.temeculawines.org
•
Temecula WWines
Temecula Valley, ers Association
'4a� `��wee
zerna � Y11C""`e""0
HOSPITALITY V
V AWARD IMIER
0 s�ry v MIST
ASSOSAITKOI
A\- " _/�
1 Good afternoon, Mayor and Council Members,
My name is Krista Chaich, and I serve as Executive Director of the Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association.
I am here today in opposition to SDG&E’s proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink route through Temecula Valley and our wine country.
Temecula Valley Wine Country is more than just a tourism destination. It is an agricultural preserve, an economic engine, and a source of pride for our community. Families, vintners, and local businesses have spent decades building a world-class destination centered around scenic beauty, hospitality, agriculture, and outdoor experiences.
The proposed 500-kilovolt transmission lines threaten all of that.
Massive industrial towers cutting through our wine region would permanently damage the rural character and visual landscape that attract millions of visitors each year. Our wineries, resorts, restaurants, and small businesses depend on preserving the natural beauty of this region.
Equally concerning is the increased wildfire risk associated with placing high-voltage infrastructure in a high fire severity area. Our residents, visitors, vineyards, and agricultural lands should not be subjected to unnecessary danger for a project that provides no direct local benefit to Temecula.
We respectfully urge the City Council to formally oppose this proposed route and advocate for alternative alignments that avoid Temecula Valley Wine Country and our tourism corridors entirely.
Protecting our region today means protecting its economic sustainability, agricultural heritage, and quality of life for future generations.
Thank you for your time.
From:
To:Randi Johl
Subject:Power Line
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:06:13 PM
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.
Randi Johl,
Please enter my comments into the record.
“We cannot allow these power lines through Temecula. We are not serviced by SCGE and it is of no benefit to us. It will cross over sensitive ecological areas, it will be in high risk fire zones, tourism will be affected, wine country will no longer be beautiful, hot air balloons will have more obstacles in their way, property values will decrease, it will cross sacred Native American sites. What guarantees do we have that the power lines will not emit dangerous electromagnetic waves. Too close to schools and hospitals, ruin the views of wine country and the hills to the west. If these lines are necessary, then SCGE needs to build them in their own service area, not in any part of Riverside County. What scares me is that they are acting like this is a done deal and we have nothing to say about it. The threat of eminent domain is scary. Please encourage whatever agency that has power to deny them running through, and ruining, our beautiful valley and city.”
Thank you,
Patricia James
From:Kathryn Indiek
To:Randi Johl
Subject:No to SDGE please
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:16:32 AM
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.
Please add my voice against the SDGE project.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Laura Vazquez
To:Randi Johl
Subject:SDG&E Project
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:08:53 AM
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 Randi,
I am writing to formally request investigative coverage and a comprehensive environmental review regarding the proposed high-voltage transmission infrastructure planned within the Temecula area and surrounding communities.
Many residents are deeply concerned about the significant environmental, wildlife, public health, and community impacts this project may create. Given the sensitivity of the area and the close proximity to homes, schools, parks, trails, and natural habitats, we respectfully ask for immediate public attention and thorough environmental oversight.
Specific concerns include:
• Increased wildfire risk in the dry Southern California climate due to high-voltage transmission infrastructure
• Potential impacts to Temecula Creek and surrounding riparian ecosystems • Wildlife habitat destruction and large-scale vegetation clearing • Potential impacts to local wildlife including hawks, owls, hummingbirds, quail, herons, egrets, ducks, rabbits, coyotes, bobcats, mountain lions, deer, lizards, frogs, turtles, snakes, bats, pollinators, native fish, and sensitive riparian habitat species • Damage to oak trees, sycamores, cottonwoods, native vegetation, and established wildlife corridors
• Concerns regarding declining property values and long-term community impacts • Massive visual impacts from industrial-scale transmission towers in residential and scenic areas
• Permanent environmental damage and loss of open space • Concerns regarding electromagnetic fields (EMF), potential long-term health impacts, constant electrical buzzing/corona noise, stress impacts on nearby residents, and the placement of high-voltage infrastructure near neighborhoods, schools, parks, trails, and homes • Lack of transparency, insufficient public notification, and limited community engagement throughout the planning process
Residents deserve transparency, scientific review, and meaningful opportunities for public input before irreversible environmental and community impacts occur.
We respectfully request:
1 Investigative media coverage into the project and approval process 2 A full independent environmental review and impact assessment 3 Increased public outreach and transparent communication with affected residents 4 Careful evaluation of alternative routes and less damaging solutions This issue affects not only the environment and wildlife, but also the health, safety, and quality of life of Temecula families and future generations.
Thank you for your time and attention to this urgent matter. We hope you will help bring awareness and accountability to this issue.
Sincerely,
Laura V.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Colleen Cadogan
To:Council Comments
Subject:SDG&E Concerns
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:57:49 AM
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.
Council Members,
I am writing as a concerned Temecula resident to strongly oppose the proposed SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink route through our community. I live in an area where the Powerlink will directly impact .
The idea of massive 500-kV transmission towers being placed near residential areas, Temecula Creek, the Santa Margarita River corridor, and surrounding neighborhoods is deeply concerning. This project would permanently alter the beauty, character, and safety of our community. Not only does it increase wildfire risk it will directly impact my property value and increase our community's fire insurance .
Temecula is known for its natural beauty, family neighborhoods, wine country, and outdoor spaces. Projects of this magnitude do not belong in the heart of our community.
I respectfully urge the City Council to continue fighting against this proposed route and advocate aggressively on behalf of Temecula residents to oppose this Please stand with the residents of Temecula and protect our community from a project that could permanently change the landscape and character of our city.
Thank you for your time and representation.
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:[email protected]; Randi Johl; Council Comments Subject:Golden Pacific Powerlink
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:35:53 AM
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.
Attn: Randi Johl - City Clerk,
This email is submitted for the public comment portion of the city council meeting scheduled for 3 pm. today May 26, 2026,
I started the poll on the local website NextDoor about the Golden Pacific Powerlink proposal.
It asked do you support, oppose, or need more information. In little over a 24-hour period the responses were:
Support 12 4% Oppose 290 93% Need more information 11 3% Rules for Polling on NextDoor:
All poll votes are completely anonymous. Even the poll's author cannot see individual votes.
You may only vote once. Once you've voted, your vote cannot be changed. There is no way to edit a poll.
Please see the attached photo to document the polling numbers.
Thank you,
Earlene Bodman
Temecula, CA 92592
EarIene B.
..,....:.. wad
Lake Viftage - 23 hr ago
. p;►'
"F .II ���;,rliiyhil i�u li,ilu�iiu'li I�Ii1 i''11 1 Do you support or oppose the proposed 0 2 days left
Golden Pacific Po rlink consisting of
500ku above ground power lines
running through Temecula? This poll will
Abe submitted to the City of Temecula
prior to the 3 pm meeting tomorrow t
city hall.
support 4%(12)
11 'M III I (290)
Need ir.toare information 4% (11)
. ...... .. . .....
0,1 I
III
6 D 1
IIIL'
( ]; Post tnsiyhts Pin a comment
°�. raaich l rra. 211'1 Edited Rancho Vista
Really, is there anyone supportingit Bigger question is what can we do to stop it. Try artificial intelligence in how to stop it and what has worked in past..„.CPLIC has history of disregarding community desires and pushing these through, regaar-dless of polls and complaints:.
Q Like 0 Reply Share
1saree�ioume l fir�
..
rraichael m. 2h Rancho Vista Wet
m 1 d 1
i�,nnm iioirnlimi nnmm�mni hNllll Il 11 II ',111Im1'14P!INS,,m1� 11111111I II IPIIh1,1d 1'T"Ihi� 'r i, i� P, � �I i I "� �l m
From: Jessica Chadwell
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 7:49 PM
To: Randi Johl
Subject: Opposition to the Golden Pacific Powerlink Protect 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 express my strong opposition to the proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink project and the possibility of 500 kV high-voltage transmission towers and power corridors being placed through or near our Temecula community.
Temecula is valued for its charm, scenic beauty, and unique character. Residents and visitors are drawn to our town because of its open spaces,welcoming neighborhoods, and small-town atmosphere. Large industrial-scale transmission towers running through the middle of our community would permanently alter the appearance and character of Temecula and detract from what makes our city special.
I am also deeply concerned about wildfire risks associated with major power infrastructure. Southern California communities already face significant fire dangers, and adding high-voltage transmission facilities near residential areas raises understandable public safety concerns that deserve serious consideration.
Additionally, quality of life matters. Many residents chose to live here to enjoy peaceful neighborhoods and outdoor spaces. The thought of looking out into views dominated by massive transmission towers, along with concerns about the constant buzzing or humming noise associated with high-power electrical lines, is troubling and would negatively impact residents' enjoyment of their homes.
There are other potential routing options that could avoid placing this project through the heart of our quaint town. I strongly urge decision makers to pursue alternatives that minimize impacts to established residential communities and preserve the beauty, character, and safety of Temecula.
Please consider the voices of residents who care deeply about protecting our community for future generations.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jessica Chadwell
Temecula Resident
With warm regards,
Jessica Chadwell, RN, BSN, PHN
School Nurse
RVA.Hemet Quest.Pathfinder.Rancho Cucamonga.Enterprise.MSC.Hemet LC.Cherry Valley.Vrrtuat/HorneschuoiiCompass/Connections Students with Last Na're,A-I
27740 Jefferson Ave.
Temecula, CA 92590
[email protected]
Office: (951) 234-3776 . . Fax: (951) 489-0494 Click here for Health Services Forms and Information
S� prings
ARTER SCHOOLS
HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Every child is one caring adult away from changing their narrative- be that caring adult.
Statement of Confidentiality. The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are Intended solely for the addressee.
The information may also be confidential and/or legally privileged. This transmission is sent for the sole purpose of delivery to the
intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction, or dissemination of this transmission is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message
along with its attachments.
Statement of Confidentiality: This email is generated by Springs Charter Schools and is intended for school business use only. The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. This transmission is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC SS 2510-2521. We comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act(CCPA) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act(FERPA). 2 From:Romie Basu
To:Council Comments
Subject:Against SDG&E Powerlines
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:27:37 AM
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 the Temecula City Council,
I am deeply disturbed and disappointed that the SDG&E Powerlink project has progressed as far as it has. This project poses serious risks not only to our wildlife and natural environment, but also to the safety and well-being of the people and communities it would impact directly.
The proposed placement of these power lines near homes, businesses, schools, parks, and residential neighborhoods presents a significant wildfire hazard. Given the increasing threat of wildfires in California, moving forward with a project of this magnitude in such close proximity to populated areas is both irresponsible and dangerous.
Beyond the safety concerns, the visual impact of these massive power lines would permanently alter the beauty and character of Temecula. I chose to purchase my home in this community because of its natural beauty, peaceful atmosphere, parks, and family-oriented environment — not to look at large industrial power lines cutting across our landscape.
This project would undoubtedly diminish property values and negatively affect the quality of life for residents throughout the area. Temecula is known for its scenic beauty, wineries, open spaces, and thriving tourism industry. People visit Temecula to enjoy nature, recreation, and the unique ambiance our city offers — not to see towering power lines dominating the landscape.
I also believe this project could have long-term negative consequences for our local economy, which has been growing and prospering because of the very qualities this project threatens to destroy.
I strongly oppose the SDG&E Powerlink project and urge the City Council to do everything within its authority to protect our community, environment, and future generations from its harmful impacts.
Sincerely,
Romie Basu
From:Cristina Bracamonte
To:Council Comments; Randi Johl; Jessica Alexander; Brenden Kalfus; Zak Schwank; James Stewart Subject:PLEASE ANNOUNCE: Message from the Save Temecula Coalition Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:15:53 AM
Attachments:Screenshot Petition #.png
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 Mayor and Council Members,
The community you were elected to serve and support look forward to working with you to defeat the Powerlink project.
Save Temecula, a soon to be filed and established 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and its sister 501(c) (4), have emerged as the "one-stop shop" to connect the city and the community to this issue.
We respectfully ask that you read the following statement at the Council Meeting in support of our joint efforts to continue to create awareness and capture feedback from the public via the petition that seeks to stop the Powerlink as currently planned.
Mayor to read:
"The Temecula City Council stands firmly with our residents in opposition to SDGE’s proposed Golden Pacific Project as it is currently planned. In just a matter of weeks, __6104____ (update with current number in the AM) residents and community members have signed a citizen-led petition voicing serious concerns about the project’s impacts on our neighborhoods, environment, public safety, property values, and quality of life. This overwhelming response sends a clear and undeniable message: our community does not support this Powerlink project in its current form. The City calls upon all impacted agencies, elected officials, and decision-makers to review the petition, listen to the voices of the people they represent, and stand with the communities and individuals affected by this ill-conceived and poorly vetted project. Temecula will continue to advocate aggressively for transparency, accountability, and meaningful public involvement throughout this process. Our residents deserve to be heard, respected, and protected before any project of this magnitude moves forward." ~The Save Temecula Coalition
--
Cristina Bracamonte, PT, DPT
Braca PT & Wellness
Founder and Physical Therapist
https://bracapt.com/
~Getting to the root of it so you can feel better, faster ~
From:Eileen Caulfield
To:Randi Johl
Subject:No Towers!
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:11:56 AM
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 live and own a home in Temecula.
I strongly oppose the SDPG&E proposed towers through Temecula. I would like my opposition to be noted and placed in the public comment record.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Eileen M. Caulfield
The Task Fairy, LLC
Temecula, CA
Personal assistance for all of Life's Tasks!
Status
New
Work Order
#3246454
Reporter Name
Ariel Gebhard
Email
Phone
Report Submitted
MAY 24, 2026 - 6:15 PM
From:Temecula
To:Randi Johl
Subject:Assigned - Temecula-#3246454 City Clerk [30846] Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:08:36 AM
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
Report Assigned to Staff Member - #3246454
Main Staff Randi Johl assigned to Workorder #3246454
Issue Type
City Clerk
Staff Member(s)
Randi Johl
Notes
Opposition to Proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink Route Through Temecula
Open Report
Please do not change subject line when responding.
Status
Change Issue Type
Work Order
#3246454
Reporter Name
Ariel Gebhard
Email
Phone
Report Submitted
MAY 24, 2026 - 6:15 PM
From:Temecula
To:Erika Ramirez; Randi Johl
Subject:Temecula-#3246454 City Manager"s Office [30846] Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:08:34 AM
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
Issue Type Changed - #3246454
Workorder #3246454 Issue type changed from City Manager's Office to City Clerk.
Issue Type
City Manager's Office
Staff Member(s)
Erika Ramirez,Randi Johl
Notes
Opposition to Proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink Route Through Temecula
Open Report
Please do not change subject line when responding.
From:bahar fazeli
To:Council Comments
Subject:SDG&E tower project opposition
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:07:21 AM
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'm a resident of Temecula and am on call at Rancho Springs Hospital today so cannot attend the 3pm meeting, but would like to voice my vehement opposition to the Golden Pacific Powerlink project that will affect our community. I don't understand how anyone could think that erecting 140 miles of 150ft towers and power lines through a town of families and ecological reserve is acceptable. It's an environmental hazard and a significant health hazard. Everyone in this area will be negatively affected by this project, which has zero benefit for the community. As a physician working in an underserved area, I will most definitely move out of this area for my own health and the health of my children. Having worked in the hospitals in the Temecula valley for the past 11 years - I know first-hand how short staffed we are for physicians in this area and how difficult it is to hire good physicians. Erecting these towers and going forward with this project will just exacerbate this problem and cause undue health risks for the residents in our community. The leaders in Temecula need to stake a stand for their home, their neighbors and their community and halt this project by any means necessary.
Sincerely,
Bahar Fazeli, MD
Get Outlook for iOS
From:Ashley Garing
To:Council Comments
Subject:Public Comment OPPOSING SDG&E Golden Pacific PowerLink through Temecula Creek Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:05:35 AM
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 Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a concerned Temecula resident to strongly oppose SDG&E’s proposed Golden Pacific PowerLink project and the placement of above-ground 500 kV transmission towers through the Temecula Creek and Temecula Parkway corridor.
For the last 18 years, my family has chosen to live in Temecula (specifically the Morgan Hill community) because of its natural beauty, family-oriented neighborhoods, and quality of life.
This proposal threatens all of those things.
First and foremost, I am deeply concerned about the proximity of these massive transmission towers to schools, homes, parks, and residential communities. As a parent, I do not believe our children should be subjected to the potential long-term risks associated with high-voltage transmission infrastructure and electromagnetic field exposure so close to where they learn and play. Regardless of the ongoing debate surrounding these impacts, our community should not be used as a testing ground for uncertainty.
Additionally, this project would permanently alter the visual landscape and character of our city. Temecula Creek is one of the few remaining natural corridors that contribute to the beauty and environmental integrity of our community. Industrial-scale transmission towers would damage wildlife habitats, disrupt sensitive ecosystems, and diminish the open-space character residents have worked hard to preserve.
As the wife to a Fire Chief from the North County San Diego Fire Protection, we are very well aware of the significant wildfire concerns. Southern California already faces devastating fire risks, and adding above-ground electrical infrastructure near residential neighborhoods creates unnecessary danger to families, homes, and natural resources.
Beyond safety and environmental concerns, many homeowners are understandably worried about declining property values and the long-term economic impact this project could have on surrounding neighborhoods.
I respectfully urge the City Council to stand with Temecula residents and strongly oppose this proposed route.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ashley Garing
From:Adriana Morales
To:Randi Johl; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Council Comments
Subject:SDG&E- Opposition
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:03:12 AM
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 team,
I am writing to formally state my strong opposition to the proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink.
This powerlink project will have negative impacts on the community, local environment, health, and property values.
I urge the Commission to reject the current proposal and thoroughly examine alternative solutions, such as undergrounding the lines, that do not compromise the safety and aesthetics of Temecula and surrounding regions.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Adriana Morales
Murrieta, Ca 92562
From:Amanda Palmer
To:Council Comments
Subject:NO Power Link in Temecula
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:55:28 AM
Attachments:Letter for City Council-NO Power link in Temecula.pdf 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,
Please see my attached comments for today's meeting.
Thank you,
Amanda Palmer
From:Lindsay Bingham
To:Council Comments
Subject:SDG&E electric towers
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:54:05 AM
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 this may concern,
As a long time Temecula resident, a mother of 4, an RN who has served in the community, the wife of a Firefighter, and a home owner who plans to remain in the community for years and years to come, I’d like to share that I am strongly opposed to the SDG&E’s plan for electric towers that will line Temecula Creek.
What a disappointment to see that the city of Temecula is considering approving a project that will put its residents in harms way when it comes to fire risk (in an area that already has a poor evacuation route), impact public health and quality of life, increase financial stress by decreasing home values while increasing the risk of insurance carriers cancelling homeowner policies (in a geography that already pays sky-high insurance premiums to have coverage). Of course, with any project one must consider the risk vs. benefit profile. This should be a quick consideration as Temecula does not benefit whatsoever from this project.
Please listen to your community. Do not turn your backs on the individuals who make the city of Temecula the amazing place that it is.
Thank you,
Lindsay
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From:Kristy Llewellyn
To:Council Comments
Subject:STOP SDG&E
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:53:06 AM
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 this may concern:
I am writing on behalf of my family and neighbors in regards to strongly opposing the SDG&E plan to put power lines in our neighborhood.
These are extremely dangerous in high winds and are a threat to the neighboring homes and schools. The Eaton fire was caused by power lines. This will also increase our already extremely high home insurance rates.
Housing prices will crash in this area seeing that majority of families do NOT want to live near these power lines.
That will also affect our schools and funding.
There are absolutely no benefits of this power lines being ran in our backyards. The health concerns are also very important to us and our family.
We have so much land in San Diego county and Orange County, since this will primarily be for them.
If this passes, there will be a major shift in change in what Temecula was built for. The young families will leave.
Home value decreases. Shopping centers will suffer. I know SEVERAL families that have all said they will put their home up for sale the second this passes. Including me and my family.
Do better for the city of Temecula and all that love this place and call it home.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Kristy
From:Erin Washington
To:Randi Johl
Subject:Golden Pacific Powerlink
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:45:39 AM
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 City Council and City Clerk Randi Johl,
I am writing to formally oppose the Golden Pacific Powerlink project.
I strongly believe this project raises serious concerns regarding the safety, environmental impact, health implications, and overall quality of life for Temecula residents and surrounding communities. Many families chose this area because of its beauty, open space, and community atmosphere, and projects like this could permanently alter that.
Please consider the voices of the residents who live here and do not want this project moving forward.
Thank you for entering my comment into the official public record.
Sincerely,
Erin Washington
From:Amélie Gagné-Pjontek
To:Council Comments
Subject:Power lines in Temecula comment
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:40:30 AM
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 writing this email to oppose the proposed power lines running through Temecula especially in the Temecula creek. My home backs to the creek and it would directly impact our family and neighbors. I am concern for health issues, noise, visual impact and most importantly value decrease of our home. Having a view of huge power/transmission towers in my back yard will definitely impact the value of our property.
Please consider residents of Temecula and relocate the route where homes and residents are not directly impacted.
Sincerely, Amelie Pjontek
Get Outlook for iOS
From:Megan
To:Council Comments
Subject:Opposition to the Proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink Route Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:27:48 AM
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 Mayor and Members of the Temecula City Council,
I am writing as a Temecula resident and taxpayer to formally oppose the proposed route of SDG&E's Golden Pacific Powerlink and to urge the Council to take a vocal stand against it on behalf of our community.
The project would install 145 miles of 500-kilovolt transmission lines on towers up to 190 feet tall, running directly through Temecula Creek, Temecula Parkway, and SR-79 South. SDG&E has acknowledged that none of this power goes to Temecula or Southwest Riverside County customers. We absorb the towers. Someone else gets the electricity.
The concerns are clear: Temecula Creek is a documented wildlife corridor with deep cultural significance to the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians. Our tourism economy, which generated over $1.1 billion in visitor spending in 2024 and supports approximately 9,570 local jobs would be permanently scarred by industrial-scale infrastructure through wine country. Visit Temecula Valley and the Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association have both formally opposed this route for exactly these reasons.
This has also been fought before. A prior council opposed and defeated a similar proposal through this same corridor. We should do it again.
SDG&E plans to file its CPUC application in 2026. The public outreach phase happening right now is when opposition matters most. I urge the Council to formally oppose the current proposed route and actively engage the CPUC review process before the window closes.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Megan Hackney
Temecula, CA
From:
To:Council Comments
Subject:Electric towers!
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:27:06 AM
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,
The project to run electric towers through Temecula Creek is a major disaster waiting to happen. I beg you not to allow this ridiculous, unsafe project to ruin our city and communities.
I just moved here to Temecula after losing everything in the Palisades fire. Electrical lines were proven to be a big part of the disaster. And, not just in the Palisades but also many other cities across the country where fire has devastated communities.
Which is why the push towards Solar and all wires being underground are the current solution. What SDG&E are purposing is not only outdated but it is setting up a potential disastrous future.
Please do not put your name on such a dangerous project, it could not only haunt you later and ruin your careers but ruin the lives of the community.
Send it back to them and tell them to do better! Come up with a better, modern solution not an outdated, 3rd world, cheap way to create power.
May your world always be filled
with colorful and inspiring art
CHERYL KLINE
Artist / Author / Educator
www.cherylkline.com
Temecula , CA 92592
(
www.klineacademy.com
From: Betsy Lowrey
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:26 AM
To: Diane Valdez
Cc: Council Comments
Subject: RE: TUES, MAY 26, 3PM, City Hall Public Meeting: Transmission Lines/Structures Proposed in Temecula
Hi Diane -Thank you for your feedback. I'll pass them along to the City Council.
We are advising all: For your information,the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE:While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager's Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend,you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item, the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so,you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
Betsy Lowrey
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Temecula
(951)693-3959
betsy.lowrey(a�TemeculaCA.gov
TemeculaCA.gov
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: Diane Valdez
Subject: Re: TUES, MAY 26, 3PM, City Hall Public Meeting: Transmission Lines/Structures Proposed in Temecula 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.
The city of Del Mar just pulled down their transmission electric lines to put everything under ground for esthetics and didn't supply any perches for the osprey falcon and the endangered king fisher bird .Also 40 Billion from California To put the coastal train tunneled under the street of Del Mar while we need transportation up and down the 15 freeway due to heavy traffic commuters Well guess what , Bill gates lives there now and so do other wealthy people that believe they can do what ever they want at the cost of the working people that keep 1 California alive and well. I hope we can fight this . San Diego is not more privileged and Important than the citizens of Murrieta and temecula
And in fact quite the opposite ! Best of luck to all!!
Sent from.Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Sunday, May 24, 2026, 4:55 PM, City of Temecula wrote:
2 4
\.
4-4.1. iNb;444;. CUST, \
lir ‘ ‘I .,,t4
'ikv. , :41
07) \
.k' tii,%,
Ai,iiii/1.4
a fir Zr'.-—-A'.V. ''% \
.),A441 p:4 Iti:44 4,P\
.�e�- .4
P.'S -' `‘'-•
yrrINII,.0#1
c ;;
THE SDG&E PROJECT WILL
BE PRESENTED AT THE NEXT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC WELCOME TO ATTEND
TUESDAY, MAY 26, 3PM
Transmission lines & towers/structures
proposed by SDG&E through Temecula
3 SDG&E's proposed powerline project will be presented at the City Council Meeting this Tuesday, May 26, at 3 PM.
If you would like to make a public comment, please plan to arrive at Temecula City Hall Council Chambers early to fill out a speaker slip.
The community is welcome to come hear about, and provide commentary on, the 500- kilovolt electric transmission lines & tower/pole structures currently proposed through Temecula.
NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager's Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 PM start time to best accommodate the public.
Background:
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) is proposing the Golden Pacific Powerlink —140 miles of 500-kV high voltage transmission lines and tower/pole structures that will run through Temecula, specifically near/along SR 79, Temecula Pkwy/Temecula Creek, and De Luz/Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve/Santa Margarita River.
This directly impacts our City.
Here is their map:
Ti N
Or',P "' Temecula kk - liall \.,.. �,ti p ••• •• ,. " •• C3S •• ••• .4RtV�ersie�e: • .r.• • rill ide County
Proposed • • • • • --• .. • ••••'San'Dkgo C an-ly, e •r Imp,i l County..-..
NortS`upstaatObnGs Failtaook P.M.cYu.na ••`o. ,a , '1 e• • •• r.. ►.• Past Palomar Mountain % `' ■ • r • ` • Lot E DI ■ L
Bonsai; I Salton
0 a .a;� ia •• ...,. _ •.. Sea p,,,,.. CI Valley Center • • 7 , r_ •a Oceanside Vista r •.
1 limo "I
�L
Carlsbadts� •t•i I.
Nfta • e L. L
iolo
wad a
The Golden Pacific Powerlink , L Ramona. j e 1 .• Preliminary Route Corridor CO •
IE
....v.r.n..•ury O I.Cdrlddr ! -
1 •
A Lusting
Sutstatn ' -
O Proposes Substation 0 ,/ •
ro UMW,La Sant"
e/ 'C ..�s' •
a is rarest ar t svlce endtli 5 "/' t .'" t r .t stn.Laro o _4 ••• 0
o i Bureau ofLand Nanap.ment •
tagz26
• Tr,Dai Reu.yat.ons eSIn Diego" _` ,
® r
Ante Borrego Desert State Part d e "`.., * - I 1i # . USA --
*ate n.rn,..r.raacrrna rm.ow*. `, S . a •'«: - •a - Milk* end be r.m.e n Y.row rid.aa�..
raan•rrrmerrrwr.ee«rgoawr A v USA + - —'a
rr.MI*Sri ion r+,ee,arrrt t IMllk•
More information: GoldenPacificPowerlink.com
4 City of Temecula 141000 Main Street I Temecula, CA 92590 US Unsubscribe I Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice 65\ Constant
Contact
Try email marketing for free today!
5 From:Betsy Lowrey
To:Gary Ruderman; Council Comments
Subject:RE: OPPOSITION TO THE GOLDEN PACIFIC POWER LINK PROJECT IN TEMECULA Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:17:37 AM
Good morning,
Our office acknowledges receipt of your comments.
For your information, the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager’s Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend, you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item, the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so, you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
Betsy Lowrey
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Temecula
(951) 693-3959
[email protected]
TemeculaCA.gov
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: Gary Ruderman <
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2026 10:51 PM
To: Gary Ruderman <
Subject: OPPOSITION TO THE GOLDEN PACIFIC POWER LINK PROJECT IN TEMECULA
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,
Our home overlooks the exact location where one of these towers would be
placed directly below us. If this project moves forward, we would be forced to leave the area to protect our health, safety, and quality of life.
This project places our entire community at risk through increased fire danger, serious health concerns, destruction of wildlife habitat, and devastating loss of property values. It would permanently transform Temecula from the beautiful community families chose to live in into an industrialized landscape filled with massive utility towers and urban blight.
Thousands of nearby homes would be negatively impacted. Children at Vail Ranch Middle School would spend hours each day just yards away from these dangerous structures. Families should not be forced to live with these risks imposed on them for a project that provides no benefit to our community.
We strongly oppose this project and urge the City to protect our neighborhoods, our children, our wildlife, and the character of Temecula before irreversible damage is done.
We need environmental and real estate lawyers to help stop this project and protect the people who live here.
This is corporate greed being placed above the health, safety, and well- being of residents. There is no benefit to the families whose homes, views, property values, and peace of mind will be destroyed.
And lastly, will SDG&E cover the billions of dollars in medical costs, fire damage or property value losses that residents suffer because of these dangerous, monstrous, and hideous towers?
Sincerely,
Gary Ruderman
From:Betsy Lowrey
To:Lynn Martin; Council Comments
Subject:RE: Stop The Power Towers
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:17:36 AM
Good morning,
Our office acknowledges receipt of your comments.
For your information, the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager’s Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend, you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item, the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so, you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
Betsy Lowrey
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Temecula
(951) 693-3959
[email protected]
TemeculaCA.gov
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 Martin <
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 12:33 AM
To:
Subject: Stop The Power Towers
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 have lived in Temecula for many years, and I am shocked that this power tower project is even being considered so close to homes, schools, and neighborhoods. The people making these decisions do not have to wake up every day staring at giant transmission towers outside their windows or worrying about what could happen during wildfire season, but we do.
My family moved here because Temecula was safe, beautiful, peaceful, and surrounded by nature. Approving this project would destroy that. Massive utility towers do not belong in residential communities where families are trying to raise children and enjoy a normal quality of life.
The fire risk alone should be enough to stop this project immediately. Everyone in California understands how quickly fires spread during dry conditions and high winds.
Entire communities have already burned across this state. If one of these towers fails, sparks a fire, or contributes to another disaster, what happens to the families living below them?
When our homes burn down, is SDG&E going to pay for everything we lose? Are they going to replace our homes, our pets, our memories, and our lives? Are they going to pay for all of our funerals if people die in a fire caused by this project? Because many residents genuinely believe that if these towers are installed here, tragedy is not a possibility — it is only a matter of time.
I am also deeply concerned about the impact this project would have on children attending nearby schools, local wildlife, traffic, noise, property values, and the mental stress placed on families forced to live near these enormous structures.
Residents should not be sacrificed so a corporation can expand infrastructure at the expense of the people who actually live here. Temecula is not an industrial wasteland. It is a community filled with families, small businesses, parks, schools, and neighborhoods that deserve protection.
Please listen to the people who call this area home. We are the ones who will suffer the consequences if this project moves forward.
I strongly urge the City and every agency involved to reject this proposal before irreversible harm is done to our community.
Sincerely,
A Temecula Homeowner
Lynn Martin
From:Betsy Lowrey
To: Council Comments
Subject:FW: Resident Feedback for May 26, Council Meeting Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:17:35 AM
Attachments:J_Schloss_Temecula_City_Council_5_26_26.pdf Good morning,
Our office acknowledges receipt of your comments.
For your information, the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager’s Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend, you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item, the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so, you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
Betsy Lowrey
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Temecula
(951) 693-3959
[email protected]
TemeculaCA.gov
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: Jim Schloss
Cc: Randi Johl ; Zak Schwank ;
Brenden Kalfus ; Jessica Alexander
; James Stewart ; Matt
Rahn ; Bonny Schloss <
Subject: Resident Feedback for May 26, Council 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 Temecula City Council,
Shown below are the comments that I hope to make on the proposed Golden Pacific Power Link at the May 26 City Council meeting. I would like these comments added to the meeting record. I've also attached a duplicate pdf file copy of my comments.
Best Regards,
Jim Schloss
Temecula CA 92592
Good afternoon, Mayor Alexander and City Council members.
I’m Jim Schloss, a Temecula resident. I’ve spent 40 years as an electrical engineer, and I hold a PhD in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois.
I oppose the Golden Pacific Power Link because its reckless routing across Temecula creates extreme public safety risks and has significant environmental and economic impacts. In my opinion, it violates the California Environmental Quality Act in the following key areas:
· The Power Link creates an unmitigable industrial footprint as our new dominant landmark. This eight-mile wall of thirty, 190-foot towers will dwarf Pechanga Resort and permanently destroy the scenic beauty driving our tourism.
· The creek corridor is under 450 feet wide, meaning the Power Link easement will unavoidably infringe on three schools, 400 homes, Pechanga's golf course, and multiple city parks.
· With flanking homes and commercial buildings leaving no room on the banks, the towers must go directly into the creek bed. This placement guarantees the destruction of protected Temecula Creek wetlands and sensitive species.
· The route travels directly across the active Lake Elsinore fault, parallels the Wildomar branch, and cuts right through a designated
liquefaction zone.
· The Power Link drops a permanent 'linear ignition source' into a high-wildfire-severity zone where Santa Ana winds and seismic risks multiply the danger.
· The route cuts Temecula in half at Temecula Creek. The Power Link can potentially block or bottleneck evacuation routes during a disaster.
· The danger posed by the massive electrical towers will effectively ground our sunrise hot air balloon industry, destroying a cornerstone of Temecula’s tourism economy and visual identity.
I estimate the Power Link will cause $1 billion in cumulative economic damage: half from a sharp decline in wine tourism, and half from lost home equity and rising insurance premiums.
As I’ve outlined, there are numerous CEQA violations with the Temecula route. I ask this Council to force SDG&E to complete the exhaustive engineering studies needed for a full Environmental Impact Report.
I am confident these studies will prove this route is unsafe, legally indefensible, and too expensive for them to pursue.
In the meantime, I urge this Council to spend this summer funding our own independent technical experts and forming a unified opposition coalition with the Pechanga Tribe, and our allies in the Imperial Valley, Anza-Borrego, and San Clemente.
Thank you
Good afternoon, Mayor Alexander and City Council members.
I’m Jim Schloss, a Temecula resident. I’ve spent 40 years as an electrical engineer, and I hold a PhD in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois.
I oppose the Golden Pacific Power Link because its reckless routing across Temecula creates extreme public safety risks and has significant environmental and economic impacts. In my opinion, it violates the California Environmental Quality Act in the following key areas:
• The Power Link creates an unmitigable industrial footprint as our new dominant landmark. This eight-mile wall of thirty, 190-foot towers will dwarf Pechanga Resort and permanently destroy the scenic beauty driving our tourism.
• The creek corridor is under 450 feet wide, meaning the Power Link easement will unavoidably infringe on three schools, 400 homes, Pechanga's golf course, and multiple city parks.
• With flanking homes and commercial buildings leaving no room on the banks, the towers must go directly into the creek bed. This placement guarantees the destruction of protected Temecula Creek wetlands and sensitive species.
• The route travels directly across the active Lake Elsinore fault, parallels the Wildomar branch, and cuts right through a designated liquefaction zone.
• The Power Link drops a permanent 'linear ignition source' into a high- wildfire-severity zone where Santa Ana winds and seismic risks multiply the danger.
• The route cuts Temecula in half at Temecula Creek. The Power Link can potentially block or bottleneck evacuation routes during a disaster.
• The danger posed by the massive electrical towers will effectively ground our sunrise hot air balloon industry, destroying a cornerstone of Temecula’s tourism economy and visual identity.
I estimate the Power Link will cause $1 billion in cumulative economic damage: half from a sharp decline in wine tourism, and half from lost home equity and rising insurance premiums.
As I’ve outlined, there are numerous CEQA violations with the Temecula route. I ask this Council to force SDG&E to complete the exhaustive engineering studies needed for a full Environmental Impact Report.
I am confident these studies will prove this route is unsafe, legally indefensible, and too expensive for them to pursue.
In the meantime, I urge this Council to spend this summer funding our own independent technical experts and forming a unified opposition coalition with the Pechanga Tribe, and our allies in the Imperial Valley, Anza- Borrego, and San Clemente.
Thank you
Jim Schloss
Temecula CA
(
Temecula City Council Meeting, 5/26/2026
From: Betsy Lowrey
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:13 AM
To:
Cc: Council Comments
Subject: RE:TUES, MAY 26, 3PM, City Hall Public Meeting:Transmission Lines/Structures Proposed in Temecula
Good morning,
Our office acknowledges receipt of your comments.
For your information,the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here),the City Manager's Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend,you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item,the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so,you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
Betsy Lowrey
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Temecula
(951)693-3959
betsy.lowrey(a.TemeculaCA.gov
TemeculaCA.gov
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, May 25, 2026 8:42 AM
To: Betsy Lowrey
Subject: Re:TUES, MAY 26, 3PM, City Hall Public Meeting: Transmission Lines/Structures Proposed in Temecula 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.
As a resident of Temecula, a taxpayer and homeowner, I vehemently oppose passing power lines through our serene community.
Our city is special because it combines suburban living with country life.
My family and friends are all against this potential fire threat and environmental hazard.
Respectfully,
Ahmet M. Baskent
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
On Sunday, May 24, 2026, 4:55 PM, City of Temecula wrote:
2 .4:.�y-,
_ N� >�, '
v _
ir
iiiiii
\ i II r0
Yilli°N\1
:4W*- , F \ \
.i.�► ►,A
IV.4f•' .44 y A
, 4, „11,-. 4 A, ja
Ili
C.--u_it..efil„...,---of
THE SDG&E PROJECT WILL
BE PRESENTED AT THE NEXT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC WELCOME TO ATTEND
TUESDAY, MAY 26, 3PM
Transmission lines & towers/structures
proposed by SDG&E through Temecula
3 SDG&E's proposed powerline project will be presented at the City Council Meeting this Tuesday, May 26, at 3 PM.
If you would like to make a public comment, please plan to arrive at Temecula City Hall Council Chambers early to fill out a speaker slip.
The community is welcome to come hear about, and provide commentary on, the 500- kilovolt electric transmission lines & tower/pole structures currently proposed through Temecula.
NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager's Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 PM start time to best accommodate the public.
Background:
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) is proposing the Golden Pacific Powerlink —140 miles of 500-kV high voltage transmission lines and tower/pole structures that will run through Temecula, specifically near/along SR 79, Temecula Pkwy/Temecula Creek, and De Luz/Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve/Santa Margarita River.
This directly impacts our City.
Here is their map:
L at • ••
0..4,A -- --- Temecula •
`L.•• • •b• ,�• •• — •
• lihit
• • • •• P _oa • Riverside ••'��� . • t�tyerskte C°unty...�. .... ...• • } D, .,Imps iral County
Nort : •
■i VS rarsl See**Land Pine Valley
T4IDM Reserranpns sv _, ,Lavoiti J\ - �!!�(Yr�t•'s•{/L\ ®Ante Batt ego Desert State Perk ,s.., • . • ! s , I F— , ., 11 f •`
\ � A,,.
la.rti Mcc'unre route camaor ere MO. � ® e s � • ~_; XiC° ...arNwe1.1.8.Meted l .s aawvt.e 0
raa..,.uraeeeecenea.eawtevraer i USA + —
was.r*ova Imo NrgMlrr I. woe°
More information: GoldenPacificPowerlink.,com
4 City of Temecula 141000 Main Street I Temecula, CA 92590 US Unsubscribe I Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice L'\.. Constant
Contact
Try email marketing for free today!
5 From:Betsy Lowrey
To:Lynn Martin
Cc:Council Comments
Subject:RE: OPPOSITION TO THE GOLDEN PACIFIC POWER LINK PROJECT IN TEMECULA Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:12:50 AM
Good morning,
Our office acknowledges receipt of your comments.
For your information, the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager’s Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend, you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item, the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so, you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
Betsy Lowrey
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Temecula
(951) 693-3959
[email protected]
TemeculaCA.gov
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 Martin <
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 12:14 PM
To:
Subject: OPPOSITION TO THE GOLDEN PACIFIC POWER LINK PROJECT IN TEMECULA
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.
From: Gary Ruderman
Subject: Fw: OPPOSITION TO THE GOLDEN PACIFIC POWER LINK
PROJECT IN TEMECULA
To Whom It May Concern,
Our home overlooks the exact location where one of
these towers would be placed directly below us. If this project moves forward, we would be forced to leave the
area to protect our health, safety, and quality of life.
This project places our entire community at risk
through increased fire danger, serious health concerns, destruction of wildlife habitat, and devastating loss of property values. It would permanently transform
Temecula from the beautiful community families chose
to live in into an industrialized landscape filled with massive utility towers and urban blight.
Thousands of nearby homes would be negatively
impacted. Children at Vail Ranch Middle School would
spend hours each day just yards away from these
dangerous structures. Families should not be forced to
live with these risks imposed on them for a project that provides no benefit to our community.
We strongly oppose this project and urge the City to
protect our neighborhoods, our children, our wildlife,
and the character of Temecula before irreversible
damage is done.
We need environmental and real estate lawyers to help
stop this project and protect the people who live here.
This is corporate greed being placed above the health,
safety, and well-being of residents. There is no benefit to the families whose homes, views, property values,
and peace of mind will be destroyed.
And lastly, will SDG&E cover the billions of dollars in medical costs, fire damage or property value losses that residents suffer because of these dangerous, monstrous, and hideous towers?
Sincerely,
Gary Ruderman
From:Betsy Lowrey
To:Gloria Farewell
Cc:Council Assistant; Council Comments
Subject:RE: OPPOSE: Golden Pacific Powerlink — Demand Rerouting, Full Environmental Review & Transparency Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:12:50 AM
Good morning,
Our office acknowledges receipt of your comments.
For your information, the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager’s Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend, you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item, the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so, you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
Betsy Lowrey
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Temecula
(951) 693-3959
[email protected]
TemeculaCA.gov
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: Gloria Farewell <
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 8:57 AM
Subject: OPPOSE: Golden Pacific Powerlink — Demand Rerouting, Full Environmental Review & Transparency
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 Members,
I am writing as a deeply concerned resident to formally oppose the proposed routing of the Golden Pacific Powerlink project through Temecula Valley.
The placement of 150–200 foot, 500-kV transmission towers through our residential neighborhoods, Wine Country, Temecula Creek, parks, trails, and areas adjacent to
schools like Vail Ranch Middle School is simply unacceptable. This is not a matter of inconvenience — this is a permanent, irreversible alteration to the character, safety, and natural beauty of our community.
What makes this project particularly alarming is that the proposed route appears to cut directly through some of Temecula's most cherished and ecologically sensitive areas when alternative corridors may well exist. The threat to property values, scenic views, wildlife habitat, open space, fire safety, and our tourism economy — including our renowned Wine Country — cannot be overstated.
Equally troubling is the lack of transparency throughout this process. Many residents are only now learning this project exists, despite years of apparent planning. That is a failure of public process that must be addressed.
I am demanding the following before any decisions are finalized:
• Serious evaluation of rerouting alternatives that avoid residential and ecologically sensitive areas
• A full, rigorous environmental review
• Meaningful public participation — not notification after the fact • Complete transparency from all parties involved
Temecula's neighborhoods, natural lands, and community identity deserve protection.
I urge you to stand with residents and reject any route that treats our homes, schools, and open spaces as expendable.
I will be watching the outcome of this process closely and expect accountability from every elected and appointed official involved.
Respectfully,
Gloria Farewell
Temecula, CA 92592
(
From:Betsy Lowrey
To:Amber Cleveland; Council Assistant
Cc:Council Comments
Subject:RE: SDGE powerline corridor
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:11:16 AM
Good morning,
Our office acknowledges receipt of your comments.
For your information, the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager’s Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend, you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item, the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so, you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
Betsy Lowrey
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Temecula
(951) 693-3959
[email protected]
TemeculaCA.gov
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 Cleveland
Subject: SDGE powerline corridor
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 the Temecula City Council,
As a concerned resident, I respectfully urge the City of Temecula to adopt strong local protections regarding any proposed 500 kV transmission corridor involving approximately 200-foot industrial power line towers near our neighborhoods, schools, and protected open spaces.
While I understand that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) may retain permitting authority over large transmission projects, the City still possesses important authority and responsibility to protect public safety, neighborhood
integrity, wildfire evacuation capability, scenic resources, and compatibility with existing residential communities.
I strongly request that the City adopt formal policies, ordinances, resolutions, and General Plan protections establishing minimum setbacks and incompatibility standards for any future high-voltage transmission infrastructure.
Specifically, I urge the City to pursue the following protections:
• Minimum 1,500-foot setbacks from existing residential neighborhoods, including Morgan Hill, Redhawk, Temecula Creek communities, and adjacent residential developments.
• Minimum 2,000-foot setbacks from schools, youth facilities, parks, and athletic fields, including Vail Ranch Middle School. • Minimum 2,500-foot setbacks from ecological preserves, riparian corridors, and scenic open-space resources, including the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and Temecula Creek corridor. • Formal recognition that 200-foot industrial transmission towers are incompatible with established residential neighborhoods, scenic gateways, preserve areas, and wildfire-prone evacuation corridors. • Mandatory analysis of wildfire ignition risk, emergency evacuation impacts, aerial firefighting interference, and cumulative environmental impacts.
• Formal City advocacy for undergrounding alternatives wherever technically feasible near residential communities and sensitive habitat areas.
The proposed scale of these towers would permanently alter the visual character, environmental integrity, and safety profile of our community. Temecula residents purchased homes and raised families here with the expectation that our neighborhoods, schools, preserves, and scenic corridors would be protected from industrial-scale infrastructure intrusion.
This issue extends far beyond aesthetics. It directly impacts:
- wildfire safety,
- evacuation reliability,
- property values,
- community planning,
- environmental preservation,
- and quality of life for thousands of residents.
I respectfully ask the City Council to use every available legal and procedural tool, including CEQA participation, zoning authority, General Plan consistency requirements, scenic corridor protections, and public safety findings, to oppose or significantly restrict placement of industrial-scale 500 kV transmission towers near Temecula residential communities and protected lands.
Thank you for your consideration and continued commitment to protecting the residents and character of Temecula.
Sincerely,
Amber Cleveland
Temecula Resident
From:Betsy Lowrey
To:Thomas Smith; Council Assistant
Cc:Council Comments
Subject:RE: Proposed Power Line
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:10:21 AM
Good morning,
Our office acknowledges receipt of your comments.
For your information, the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager’s Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend, you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item, the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so, you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
Betsy Lowrey
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Temecula
(951) 693-3959
[email protected]
41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590
Visit our Website
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: Thomas Smith
Subject: Proposed Power Line
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,
As a home owner in Temecula I am opposed to the power line project with in the Temecula Creek. I do want my home value to decrease. Especially since this project is not a requirement for our community.
Concerned resident,
Tom Smith
From:Betsy Lowrey
To:Robert Rosenberg; Jessica Alexander
Cc:Council Assistant; Council Comments
Subject:RE:
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:00:14 AM
Good morning,
Our office acknowledges receipt of your comments.
For your information, although I see you cannot make the meeting today, I will share this in any event: the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall, scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager’s Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend, you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item, the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so, you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
Betsy Lowrey
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Temecula
(951) 693-3959
[email protected]
TemeculaCA.gov
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: Robert Rosenberg
Cc: Council Assistant
Subject:
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 Jessica.
I won't be able to attend the City Council meeting tomorrow, but I wanted to let you know I strongly oppose the SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink running through south Temecula.
I live in South Temecula in between Temecula parkway and near Temecula Creek.
The GPP provides no benefit to our community. It believe it will increase fire risk, it would be a monstrosity running through our city, it will certainly decrease property values, it will bring noise pollution and expose our community to potentially harmful EMF's.
I don't think we fought The Granite Company to preserve our health and beauty of our community to accept Golden Pacific Powerlink. Let them build the lines underground. I know it is more expensive, however, that is not of concern to the residents of South Temecula
Thank you.
Dr. Robert Rosenberg
Temecula, CA 92592
From:Betsy Lowrey
To:
Cc:Brenden Kalfus; Council Comments; Council Assistant
Subject:FW: SDG&E Proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 6:58:53 AM
Good morning,
Our office acknowledges receipt of your comments.
For your information, the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager’s Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend, you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item, the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so, you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
Betsy Lowrey
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Temecula
(951) 693-3959
[email protected]
TemeculaCA.gov
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: cheryl brown
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 5:55 PM
To: Brenden Kalfus ; Council Assistant
Subject: SDG&E Proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink
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.
May 25,2025
Cheryl Brown
Temecula, CA 92592
Dear Councilman Kalfus:
I’m writing to you as a resident in your district to ask for the City’s full support in fighting SDG&E’s proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink. The plan to run massive, 150-to-200-foot high-voltage towers right through the heart of Temecula—specifically targeting the Temecula Parkway corridor, Temecula Creek, and the SR-79 South area—is incredibly alarming to me and the community.
What makes this especially frustrating is that this project will not even benefit Temecula.
We are being asked to take on all the risks, look at an industrial eyesore, and deal with the fallout so a major utility company can send power completely past our region.
I know our City Council is already expressing concern, but we need you to fight this with every legal tool available. These are a few of the top concerns from my perspective and others I have spoken to:
Wildfire Threats: We already live in a high-risk fire area. Bringing huge overhead transmission lines to an area already known for its high winds will surely increase the threat of utility-caused fires (i.e. the Dixie Fire, the Thomas Fire, and the Witch Fire).
Another resulting outcome of that could be the potential for an increase in insurance premiums which are already ridiculously high.
Property Values: Placing heavy industrial lines over our neighborhoods and scenic areas/views will cause an immediate hit to our home equity. I bought my house in Temecula because of its panoramic view of the Temecula Valley and the hills beyond (see attached photo).
Quality of Life and Tourism: Putting massive steel towers through our tourist corridors and the Temecula Creek area completely ruins any visual appeal to both those of us living here and visitors to the area. Plus, the constant low-frequency humming noise from lines of this size is a massive disruption to anyone living near the corridor. And, the potential health risks associated with massive transmission lines going over homes, schools, parks and more are also of serious concern.
We really need our local leaders to stand together with their concerned citizens and fight the SDG&E proposal with every tool at their disposal.
Thank you for your time, your leadership, and for working to protect our homes and families.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Brown
Attachment
From: Betsy Lowrey
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 6:57 AM
To: Leslie Carrillo;Zak Schwank
Cc: Council Assistant; Council Comments
Subject: RE: Proposed SDGE power lines:
Good morning,
Our office acknowledges receipt of your comments.
For your information,the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here),the City Manager's Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend, you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas& Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item,the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so,you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
Betsy Lowrey
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Temecula
(951)693-3959
[email protected]
TemeculaCA.gov
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: Leslie Carrillo
Cc: Council Assistant
Subject: Proposed SDGE power lines:
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,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed SDG&E power line project expected to run through our community.
The reasons for opposing this project are many and,frankly, obvious. The increased fire danger alone should be enough to raise serious concern, especially given the history of devastating wildfires i
throughout our region. In addition, this project would forever alter the natural landscape and character of the community we have worked so hard to build and preserve.
I am also deeply concerned about the impact on Native American cultural areas, protected wildlife habitats, and environmentally sensitive open spaces that could be compromised by this project.These areas are irreplaceable and deserve protection, not industrial intrusion.
As a Temecula resident for nearly 35 years and a local Realtor for more than 30 of those years, I understand firsthand the long-term impact projects like this have on property values, community desirability, and the overall quality of life for residents.This proposal threatens all of those things.
I participated in this fight over 20 years ago, and I am fully prepared to do so again. I look forward to seeing strong and public opposition from the City Council regarding this project. I would also appreciate hearing from the City Attorney and other city representatives regarding the specific plans and actions being put in place to stop this project from moving forward.
Our community deserves protection, leadership, and a unified voice against a project that would permanently damage the place we call home.
Kind regards,
Leslie Carrillo
, .., if's 4'0 1 `rr�. .0 t A.
v�} t ` emir
*`' t ,,v� i 41.0
'. , j `
-
Leslie Carrillo
Realtor
BRE#01243637 '2675 Temecula Pkwy Ste A I Temecula, CA, 92592 Coldwell Banker Realty Un lesliecarrillo.com
2 ••• MOVE
• RR METER
r �il 110W WOC) 1)
IVOIIN .FS W014 n1 Cl HERE CUICK FIf!)f
The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party,without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake,please reply to this message and follow with its deletion,so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future. 3 From:Betsy Lowrey
To:Council Comments
Subject:FW: High power lines
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 6:55:37 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Betsy Lowrey
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 6:55 AM
To: 'Kathleen Bartusch'
Subject: RE: High power lines
Good morning Kathleen,
Our office acknowledges receipt of your comments.
For your information, the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager’s Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend, you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500- kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item, the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so, you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Bartusch
Cc: Kathleen Bartusch <
Subject: High power lines
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’m writing to urge the counsel to stop the power lines. I’m not able to attend tomorrow’s meeting but want to make my voice heard.
The power lines emit electromagnetic fields that are dangerous to our health. The strong winds that are prevalent in Temecula could certainly cause fires. Finally, the riverbed where the lines are being consider sometimes has water in it. Should we get a large fast rainfall, the consequences could be disastrous. Water and electricity do not belong together.
I hope someone will consider my email during tomorrow’s meeting. I have never written to anyone in authority before. I just couldn’t let this truly awful proposal be approved.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Bartusch
Temecula Citizen
Sent from my iPhone
From:Betsy Lowrey
To:Frank Krajnak; Brenden Kalfus
Cc:Council Assistant; Council Comments
Subject:RE: Opposition with SDGE Golden Powerlink Project in Temecula Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 6:54:52 AM
Hello Frank--
Our office acknowledges receipt of your comments.
For your information, the topic is on the City Council Agenda for an in-person public meeting at City Hall scheduled today, May 26, 2026, at 3 pm. NOTE: While the item appears later on the Agenda (linked here), the City Manager’s Office expects the Mayor to exercise her prerogative to move the item closer to the 3 pm start time to best accommodate the public. If you choose to attend, you can expect a presentation from City staff and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) regarding the Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project, including 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines and tower/pole structures proposed through the City of Temecula. Also, as with any public meeting business item, the public will be given time to speak on the topic, should you wish to also share your comments at this public meeting. If so, you may need to arrive early to fill out a Speaker Slip. The City Council will discuss the project and provide general direction.
Thank you,
Betsy Lowrey
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Temecula
(951) 693-3959
[email protected]
TemeculaCA.gov
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: Frank Krajnak
Cc: Council Assistant
Subject: Opposition with SDGE Golden Powerlink Project in Temecula
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.
Greeting Counclilmember Kalfus,
I already send SDGE Golden Pacific Powerlink Feedback Form. Just in case you need extra! I oppose this Temecula project. Not only degrade value, economy but also quality of life issues. Powerlines (especially the 500kv lines) contains lead and asbestos which will cause cancer and other reproductive harm. While Temecula
Creek is a open space, this could cause major issue. Ranging from Homeless Encampment, Liability caused by brushfires, negative visual impact with Vail Headquarters (due to historic building) and Ground instability which will cause pole to fall in a storm related event. Also requires power/pole maintenance and road closure results disruptions with the flow of traffic. With exception of power outage will not affect Temecula since this is SDG&E jurisdiction. I understand that 500kv line is needed to keep up the power demand from Golden Powerlink to Telega Substation which is owned by SDG&E. There is a existing (single circuit) 220kv lines SOUTH from proposed location, but in Rainbow [to Talega Substation]. I would support if existing 220kv lines and new 500kv lines shared the same Right Of Way within their jurisdiction. Once 500kv lines [AVOIDING Riverside County to reach San Diego County] meets (single circuit) 220kv lines, this will go from Rainbow to Talega Substation. Temecula does not need SDG&E jurisdiction for any purpose regardless.
Frank Krajnak
TVHS C/O 2004 and Current Resident since September 1994
From:Mark Winkler
To:Randi Johl; Council Comments
Subject:Mark Winkler-Speech on Agenda Item #19-SDG&E Powerlink Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 11:46:35 PM
Attachments:Final Speech to Council Re- Powerlink.docx
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,
Please find attached the speech I plan to give at the Council meeting on May 26.
Traditionally, guests are given five minutes to speak on agenda items. I realize there may be many people wishing to speak on this issue, so I have received permission from the following registered Temecula voters to also speak on their behalf:
Aleesha Winkler
Caleb Winkler
Alexandra Lewis
Elise Kahn
This would allow me to retain the full five minutes should public comments be limited to one minute per speaker.
I also respectfully request that my attached speech be entered into the public record for this meeting.
I want to ensure I am able to cover the relevant points, as I will also be taking the lead as President of the newly formed Save Temecula group, which will be actively opposing the Powerlink proposal. We are in the process of establishing both a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organization and will be working closely with the City to defeat the current proposal.
At this time, our updates and postings can be found on Facebook and Nextdoor. Our website, SaveTemecula.com, will be launching soon.
When I am introduced, I would greatly appreciate it if a brief statement could be made that I will be speaking for five minutes on behalf of the individuals listed above, so the audience is not surprised.
Thank you for all you do, especially with the additional work surrounding this issue and the upcoming meeting.
Regards,
Mark Winkler
Council Members, Fellow Residents and SDG&E Invitees—
Tonight, I am asking that the Council to do more than simply “take a position” on the proposed Golden Pacific PowerLink Project. I am asking YOU to fight for this city with the full weight of your authority, your resources, and your voices because this endeavor is not just another infrastructure proposal. It is a direct assault to the safety, beauty, character, and future of our community.
This is your defining moment.
We are being told this massive transmission corridor is somehow necessary for the “greater good.” But let’s ask the obvious question:
What exactly is the benefit to Temecula?
What do our residents receive in exchange for towering industrial powerlines cutting across our landscapes, threatening wildfire safety, reducing property values, creating insurance concerns and housing affordability issues, disrupting open space, creating health issues and forever changing the aesthetic of our city?
The answer is simple:
We get the risk.
We get the visual blight.
We get the environmental destruction.
We get the increased fire danger.
We get the health issues.
We get the financial burden.
And somebody else gets the reward.
That is not a partnership. It’s more than just collateral damage. It’s exploitation of a large and vibrant community.
Temecula is not an empty corridor on a map. This is home to over 113,000 human beings. Individuals moved here because of the rolling hills, wineries, trails, schools, neighborhoods, and natural beauty that make this city unique. People invested their life savings here. Small businesses built their futures here. Children are growing up here.
And now we are expected to accept a giant transmission infrastructure where none existed before. The plan is ill-conceived and our community is not disposable.
We are also being asked to trust that the risks are manageable. But in Southern California, where devastating wildfires and earthquakes have become a tragic reality, how can anyone pretend these concerns are theoretical?
High-voltage transmission infrastructure in fire-prone regions creates real danger. One spark. One equipment failure. One wind event. One disaster. And oh, let’s also not forgot that the proposed transmission corridor closely aligns to the most active fault in all Southern California- the San Jacinto fault line.
And when disaster strikes, it is not utility executives who suffer the consequences.
It is residents.
It is homeowners.
It is first responders.
Temecula should not be forced to carry those risks for infrastructure that does not directly serve our community.
This is not a choice between this route or no progress at all addressing additional power needs for Southern California, driven by date centers- not population. SDG&E has options.
Alternative routes exist.
Alternative technologies exist.
Alternative planning strategies exist.
Unfortunately, SDG&E is attempting to take the path of greatest financial profit, with total disregard to the inhabitants of Temecula.
We must send a united, clear message with our combined voices to SDG&E so they understand something very important:
Temecula will not quietly surrender its future to steel monoliths that can lay waste to our haven.
To every resident listening tonight: this cannot be somebody else’s battle. We must fight for us and all future generations.
That’s why my fellow community members and I are creating non-profit and advocacy organization. Is sole purpose will be to the Fight the Powerlink, as it is currently proposed.
This organization will provide a united community platform for every resident, business owner and environmental advocate, who refuses to stand by silently while our region is transformed without our consent.
We will help to educate, mobilize, and engage every impacted party across Temecula and the surrounding areas.
One voice alone can be ignored.
Tens of thousands united cannot.
And that matters.
Because Sempra/SDG&E has the resources.
But we have community. We have the numbers. And community is powerful when organized.
So tonight, I urge every resident listening:
Do not assume someone else will fight this battle for you.
We must save Temecula and fight the Powerlink- Together.
Join the movement.
Attend meetings.
Volunteer.
Show up.
Speak out.
Spread awareness.
Bring your neighbors.
Bring your businesses.
Bring your families.
Let future generations remember that when this threat to this community emerged, our city, our residents and our business leaders stood united and strong-as one-to Save Temecula and prevent SDG&E from devastating our city.
We deserve common sense, sound science, factual data, and basic human decency when addressing the structural uncertainties, environmental impacts, and public health and safety risks associated with this catastrophic plan. We refuse to be placated, pandered to or dismissed.
Our health, safety, children, property, environment, and future are worth more than corporate profits and political convenience.
It is hard to believe that any member of the executive boards of Sempra or SDG&E would willingly allow this project to be built in their own neighborhoods. So why is it considered acceptable in ours? Save Temecula: Fight the Powerlink.
From: Kimberly Kocaya <
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 10:58 PM
To: Council Comments
Subject: Stop the Proposed SDG&E Transmission Towers in Temecula 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 the Temecula City Council,
I write to you not only as a parent of four, a grandparent, and a teacher in this community, but as someone who deeply values the identity and future of Temecula.
The proposed SDG&E transmission tower project is completely incompatible with the character,vision, and values of our city. Temecula is not an industrial corridor. It is a family-centered community built around agriculture, open space, wineries, equestrian properties, small businesses, and neighborhoods where people intentionally chose to raise their children.We moved here because Temecula has maintained a hometown feel that is increasingly rare in Southern California.
The idea of placing massive high-voltage transmission towers through our community is unacceptable.
These towers would permanently alter the landscape of Temecula, damage scenic corridors, threaten property values, impact agriculture and tourism, and destroy the rural and farming atmosphere our residents have worked for decades to preserve. Our city should not be sacrificed as a shortcut for a utility company's infrastructure expansion.
Families should not have to look out their windows at industrial transmission towers towering over homes, schools,vineyards, horse properties, and natural open spaces. Teachers should not have to explain to students why corporate interests were prioritized over community preservation. Grandparents should not have to wonder what kind of city will be left for future generations.
Residents are also deeply concerned about wildfire risks, environmental impacts, health concerns, and the long-term consequences of placing this kind of infrastructure in and around populated areas. Once these towers are built, the damage cannot simply be undone.
If SDG&E and regulatory agencies attempt to force this project through despite overwhelming community opposition, they should expect significant legal, political, and public resistance. The people of Temecula are organized, informed, and prepared to fight to protect our city.We will not quietly accept decisions that threaten our community identity, our environment, and our quality of life.
Temecula has spent years cultivating a reputation centered on agriculture,wine country, family life, and open space preservation.This project directly contradicts those priorities. Our community deserves better than to become a pathway for industrial infrastructure that benefits others while burdening local residents with the consequences.
1 We urge the City Council to firmly oppose this project, advocate aggressively for Temecula residents, and use every available legal and political avenue to prevent these transmission lines from moving forward through our community.
Temecula is worth protecting.
Thank you.
lemecula Middle School s•'
Airs. Kim Kocc ,
7th Grade Science Teacher
/jOlri&eta 6-0
lemecula Middle School eel
Airs. Kim Kocog,
7th Grade Science Teacher
HaMe, '0
rc
•
fig
TCI
Apple Teacher COACH TCIHAMON
Statement of Confidentiality: The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information may also be confidential and/or legally privileged. This transmission is sent for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error,any use, reproduction,or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message and its attachments, if any.
E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC SS 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. 2 From:Lily Li
To:Council Comments
Subject:Opposing the Golden Pacific Powerline
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 10:57:36 PM
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.
RE: Formal Opposition to the Proposed SDG&E 500kV Golden Pacific Powerlink Transmission Project
To the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities Commission, I am writing as a deeply concerned resident of Temecula, California, to state our unequivocal opposition to San Diego Gas & Electric’s (SDG&E) proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink project, which plans to route a corridor of 200-foot-tall, extra-high voltage 500kV transmission lines directly through our local neighborhoods, scenic hills, and critical ecological preserves.
While I support California’s broader goals for green energy and grid reliability, routing this massive infrastructure through a densely populated, high-risk fire zone creates severe, unacceptable consequences for our community without providing any direct benefit to the residents who live here.
I urge the Commission to reject the current proposed path based on the following critical impacts:
Catastrophic Wildfire Risks: Temecula and its surrounding canyons are historically prone to high-wind events and devastating wildfires. Introducing 200-foot extra-high voltage towers heavily increases ignition risks and severely cripples aerial firefighting capabilities in a region where containment is already difficult.
Irreparable Ecological Destruction: The proposed route threatens pristine, delicate ecosystems, cutting directly through the Temecula Creek and the Santa Margarita River watersheds. The construction and presence of these towers will disrupt protected wildlife habitats and permanently alter the natural landscape that defines our region.
Proximity to Homes and Schools: This corridor cuts alongside established residential backyards, community parks, and local schools. Beyond the immediate and severe impact on property values and the sudden unaffordability of homeowners insurance, families are deeply concerned about the long-term health implications of high-voltage electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure near children and residential zones.
Economic Impact on Tourism: Temecula’s economy relies heavily on its robust tourism and agricultural identity. Visually scarring our scenic hillsides with industrial, 20-story steel structures will permanently damage the character of the Temecula Valley, harming local businesses and hospitality industries.
Community opposition alone is not a rejection of progress, but a demand for smarter planning.
I strongly urge the CPUC to hold SDG&E accountable to its public utility mandate by requiring them to evaluate alternative, non-residential routes—such as utilizing existing
industrial corridors or undergrounding strategies—that completely bypass the Temecula Valley.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and your oversight in protecting California communities.
Sincerely,
Yadong Li
From:Jeannette Morton Abitu
To:Randi Johl
Subject:SD&G Power Lines
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 10:40:32 PM
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,
We would like to express our adamant opposition to the proposed SD&G power lines proposed to run through Temecula. These power lines pose numerous health and safety threats, as well as violate sacred Native spaces.
Furthermore, these lines will mar the outstanding beauty that Temecula is famous for. We insist that our city leaders stop this project immediately.
Andrew Abitu
Jeannette Abitu
Temecula 92592
From:Dirk Rudolf
To:Council Comments
Subject:Negative Comments on Golden Pacific Powerlink Project Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 10:20:43 PM
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'd like to voice my negative position on the SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink Project.
SDG&E is doubling down on its negligent operation and shutdown of San Onofre Nuclear plant with further negligence to run raised powerlines through fire country.
It will be a colossal eyesore. 150 to 200 ft towers will easily exceed the height of the Pechanga resort hotel and will stretch right through the southern residential portion of the city.
Routing 150ft to 200ft tall towers through residential areas and in the Temecula Creek bed show gross disregard of living conditions and engineering negligence for the flooding possibilities on that route. In modern times we have not experienced the flooding that an 1861/1862-type atmospheric river event would cause massive flooding in the creek bed. In the short time I've lived south of Temecula Parkway, the Temecula Creek bridge on Redhawk Ave has had two structural failures. It will fail again with an 1861/1862-type rain event. The powerlines will come down with it.
I live in Morgan Valley, not technically part of the city of Temecula. However, I drive into Temecula proper multiple times per day along Butterfield Stage, Redhawk Parkway, and Pechanga Parkway. My children go to school in the city, I drive into the city to reach I-15 to commute, our shopping is in the city, and most of our activities are in the city.
While California has done a remarkable job of limiting its electrical capacity by shutting down power plants, compensating for this reduced generating capacity by routing high voltage lines through a riverbed in a major city is gross incompetence.
Dirk Rudolf
Temecula, CA 92592
From:Lynne Lattanzi
To:Council Comments
Subject:Re: Golden Pacific PowerLink Project
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 10:07:01 PM
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 from my iPad
> On May 25, 2026, at 1:35 PM, Lynne Lattanzi wrote:
>
> I am writing because I am STRONGLY opposed to the proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink Project planned for Temecula. I am deeply concerned because this route reportedly passes through heavily populated, family-centered communities (including ours) instead of being routed further away from homes and recreational areas. >
> People are especially alarmed about impacts near:
> - Temecula Creek
> - Wine Country
> - Vail Lake
> - Galway Downs
> - Residential Neighborhoods
> - Trails & Parks
> - Schools
> - Sensitive Ecological & Scenic Land
>
> We worry that these transmission towers could permanently and negatively impact:
> - Property Values
> - Scenic Views
> - Wildlife Habitat
> - Open Space
> - Fire Safety Concerns
> - Tourism and Wine Country
> - The Overall Quality of Life
> - Health and Safety
>
> Residents are demanding:
> - Rerouting Alternatives
> - Greater Transparency
> - Stronger Environmental Review
> - More Public Involvement
> And more accountability before decisions are made that could permanently change Temecula forever. >
> Please consider all of the above and help us stop this from happening. > Thank you.
>
> Lynne Lattanzi
> Resident of Temecula
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
From:Denae Planer
To:Council Comments
Subject:Concern Regarding Proposed Power Line Project Through Temecula Creek Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 9:58:29 PM
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 Members,
I am writing regarding the proposed power line project planned through the Temecula Creek area. I respectfully urge you to please reconsider allowing this project to move forward in its current form.
Temecula today still reflects the natural beauty and peaceful character that so many residents cherish. It is truly a small slice of paradise in Southern California, and once it is altered in this way, that beauty cannot be restored.
Beyond the visual impact, many residents are deeply concerned about the long-term effects this project could have on surrounding property values, the character of our neighborhoods, local wildlife, and the overall quality of life for the community. Families have invested their lives and savings into homes in this area in part due to its scenic and natural environment.
There are also growing concerns from residents regarding potential health and environmental impacts associated with large power lines placed so close to residential and recreational areas. At the very least, these concerns deserve careful consideration and transparent public discussion before irreversible decisions are made.
I respectfully ask that the Council protect Temecula (Creek) and the surrounding community by exploring alternative routes or solutions that would preserve the beauty, safety, and value of this unique area.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community.
Sincerely,
Denae Planer
From:Kelly Howard
To:Randi Johl
Subject:Powerlines opposed
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 9:22:01 PM
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.
This is an absolute no from South Temecula residents against the proposed power lines we are not able to attend the public meeting because of work but want our public opinion noted, as an oncology RN there are cases of these power lines causing cancers in neighboring communities from the EMF. We chose Temecula because of its rural properties don’t let them destroy it with this.
Kelly Ratliff
Temecula ca
From:Irene Hiatt
To:Council Comments
Subject:Opposition to power line project
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 9:16:42 PM
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.
Please don't install power lines in Temecula creek. It is a beautiful place in our community and a wonderful place to see unmolested nature.
Thank you for your consideration.
From:Linda Williams
To:Council Comments
Subject:Save Temecula STOP SDG&E
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 8:42:58 PM
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 because I am STRONGLY opposed to the proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink Project planned for Temecula. I am deeply concerned because this route reportedly passes through heavily populated, family-centered communities (including ours) instead of being routed further away from homes and recreational areas.
People are especially alarmed about impacts near:
- Temecula Creek
- Wine Country
- Vail Lake
- Galway Downs
- Residential Neighborhoods
- Trails & Parks
- Schools
- Sensitive Ecological & Scenic Land
We worry that these transmission towers could permanently and negatively impact:
- Property Values
- Scenic Views
- Wildlife Habitat
- Open Space
- Fire Safety Concerns
- Tourism and Wine Country
- The Overall Quality of Life
- Health and Safety
Residents are demanding:
- Rerouting Alternatives
- Greater Transparency
- Stronger Environmental Review
- More Public Involvement
And more accountability before decisions are made that could permanently change Temecula forever.
Please consider all of the above and help us stop this from happening.
Thank you.
Linda Williams
Resident of Temecula
From:Arlin Travis
To:Council Comments
Cc:Madison Hart; Jessica Alexander; Brenden Kalfus; Zak Schwank; James Stewart;
Subject:Comments to City of TemeculaRegarding SDG&E’s Proposed “GoldenPacific Powerlink”500KV Electric Transmission Line
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 8:29:09 PM
Attachments:Comments to SDG&E 500kv Transmission Project (ADT 05-26-2026).pdf 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.
Comments to City of Temecula
Regarding SDG&E’s Proposed “Golden Pacific Powerlink”
500KV Electric Transmission Line
May 26th 2026
Hello Mayor Alexander, Council Members, Fellow Residents and Visitors, My name is Arlin Travis. My family and I moved to theTemecula Valley in 1987. My kids grew up here and we love this valley and this town. I recently retired after a 30 year career developing utility scale energy infrastructure projects. I have a BS in Industrial Technology from the Cal Poly Maritime Academy and an MBA from San Diego State. My resume is posted on LinkedIn. I am here today to talk briefly about SDG&Es proposal to string 150 miles of 500kv high voltage transmission lines on 200 ft towers from the Imperial Valley to a point just north of the former San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in Southern Orange County. This proposed project, which SDG&E calls the “Golden Pacific Powerlink” is problematic for many reasons and is as you will hear echoed many times today, unwelcome in Southern Riverside County. The project is in fact fatally flawed for a very simple reason, incompatible land use. The good news is that there are better alternatives.
Since hearing about SDG&E’s proposal I have been doing some research into the project and there are some things you should know. First, there was a process four years ago at the California Independent System Operator (the “CAISO”) in which a determination was made to approve this transmission project and this routing. Prior to that there was legislation (SB100 in particular) to streamline electric transmission permitting in California by among other things having need determinations made by the CAISO adopted by the CPUC (the “California Public Utility Commission”). It is my impression that SDG&E is proceeding on the basis that running an above ground High Voltage transmission line from the Imperial Valley into Southern Orange County is a given because it was approved by the CAISO in the CAISOs 2023 transmission plan. Thus, SDG&E is proposing that for environmental impact purposes the only alternatives to be considered are all within a 150-mile 1000ft wide corridor that directly connects its two designated substations. The line itself needs 250ft of cleared ROW so for environmental purposes the 250ft row should be selected within the confines of the 1000ft study corridor. Additionally, they “allow” for considering the alternative of undergrounding the 500kv line but deem it in advance to be overly expensive and technically challenging. Thus, SDG&E would like to keep the
consideration of alternatives limited to moving the above ground line within that 1000ft study corridor with a handful of alternative tower designs provided for visual interest and constructability.
First of all, 500kv AC is very expensive to place underground and requires giant vaults filled with inert gas to dissipate heat. Underground high voltage AC is expensive and technically challenging to build. However, HVDC lines are not expensive to bury, and do not require large vacuum sealed vaults filled with inert gas.
They do require DC converter stations on each end to tie into the AC grid. These converter stations aren’t cheap but they aren’t overly expensive either and the benefits often outweigh the additional cost. For example, HVDC converter stations provide precise voltage control, which means they add VAR support and are particularly useful in places like Southern Orange County where the electrical grid is weak.
But that is not the only way to skin this cat.
The approved purpose of the “Golden Pacific Powerlink” is to serve a generic purpose to deliver renewable generation to load centers to meet state clean energy goals. The CAISO likes this project because it would additionally put more MWs into Orange County and provide voltage support in a very weak part of its electric grid by filling the hole in the grid left by the retirement of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). However, it is important to note that this transmission line was not found to be needed for reliability, nor was it found to be economically justified, but rather was approved as a "Policy Project”. So an alternative to the power line would be to meet those two needs separately by 1. improving the import capacity by upgrading existing transmission import paths in the Imperial Valley and 2. provide extra MWs and Voltage support to Southern Orange county by replacing SONGs with a power station. Such a power station could be gas fired peaking; battery storage; gas fired peaking plus battery storage; batteries plus fuel cells; batteries plus offshore wind; or even a Small Modular Nuclear Reactor (SMR). An SMR given the locations history and future (Its part of Camp Pendleton) could be a very good zero carbon idea with a very small footprint and lots of local benefits. In any event, I believe Camp Pendleton should be sponsoring its own power plant so that it has secure energy supply as a matter of national security.
A third alternative with regard to the transmission grid is to do nothing and instead lean into distributed generation. I actually believe in this alternative the most because I think that is the future. My own bias aside, my larger point is that there are more and better and much less destructive alternatives to a poorly conceived and tone-deaf policy decision to add 150 more miles of high voltage transmission into the back country of Southern California and over the top of Temecula.
Also, it appears that there is going to be a Federal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process conducted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) which will also be the rate setting venue in which the project costs will be allocated and the rates set for this project. This is an interesting place to submit alternatives that are better, cheaper and SAFER particularly since this Project is not needed for reliability
and is not an economic project where the costs outweigh the benefits, but rather was approved by regulatory artifice as a policy project. It is SDG&Es intention that only 10% of the project costs should be allocated to their rate payers with the remainder allocated to the ratepayers of SCE and PG&E. It is no small matter that this project is not being built in SDG&E’s service territory and is not being built to serve SDG&E rate payers. Furthermore, this project will not provide electricity to Riverside County. In short SDG&E and this project do not belong here.
For the purposes of the CAISO 2022-2023 Transmission plan the CAISO cuffed an additional $2bn cost estimate for using HVDC and undergrounding the Project. As an above-ground project the cost was estimated in 2022 at $2.3 bn. So by the CAISO’s reckoning the underground HVDC alternative would essentially double the cost but would represent a big discount to undergrounding 500kv AC. HVDC costs more to construct than above ground 500kv AC but HVDC reduces other costs and provides other benefits. Such cost savings and other benefits include: 1. Reduced impact on surrounding property values; 2. Reduced fire risk; and 3. Large operational benefits such as a. HVDC converter stations provide voltage support and instantaneous frequency response that AC lines do not; b. reduced transmission losses (is a distance function); c. lower curtailment risk-- above ground back country transmission gets shut down in high wind conditions, whereas buried transmission lines do not; and d. lower maintenance expenses. As a practical matter the HVDC alternative should always be the primary case for building high voltage transmission lines in residential areas and in California’s back country and distribution level generation should always be the preferred alternative to siting new greenfield high voltage transmission lines.
Respectfully,
Arlin Travis
Managing Partner
Arbor Glen Consulting LLC
[email protected]
--Arlin
Arlin Travis
(
From:mary mikolich
To:Randi Johl; Council Comments
Subject:Letter of concern and opposition
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 7:59:36 PM
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 not able to attend this important meeting, but I wanted my concerns shared.
I am writing as a long time resident of the Temecula Valley. My husband and I have lived in Temecula since 1977. We are practically pioneers!
As a concerned resident of Temecula, we strongly oppose the proposed overhead transmission lines and tower structures planned for our community.
Existing transmission infrastructure has been placed in many parts of our community underground to help protect scenic views, property values and the neighborhood visual landscape.
I am also deeply concerned about the potential health impacts associated with living near high voltage transmission lines. Many residents
are worried about the possible links to increase stress, sleep disruption, headaches and other health concerns. People with existing health concerns
may also be vulnerable.
I am especially concerned about:
Visual blight and permanent damage to Temecula's scenic environment Potential decline in property values nearby
Increased wildfire concerns associated with overhead transmission infrastructure Environmental disruption to open space, wildlife and natural habitats Placing large industrial infrastructure in established residential and community areas I respectfully request that SDG&E and all reviewing agencies fully evaluate underground alternatives and/or less intrusive options before any consideration or approval of this project. The burden of this proposal should not fall disproportionately on Temecula residents when safer and less visually destructive alternatives may exist.
I urge decision makers to prioritize community input, environmental stewardship, and long term impacts on the residents before moving forward with this proposal.
Temecula is not the right place for this.
Sincerely,
Alan and Mary Mikolich
Temecula Residents
From:Maryruth Wilson
To:Randi Johl
Subject:Opposition to proposed SDG&E project
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 7:19:58 PM
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.
Please add my name to those opposed to the SDG&E Powerlink project. As I understand it, these towers will:
1). Damage delicate ecosystems.
2). Detract from Temecula’s natural beauty and degrade our reputation as a magnet for tourism. 3). Lower property values for homeowners adjacent to the towers. 4). NOT provide any economic benefit for the Temecula valley.
I encourage our city council to deny this project the right to proceed.
Maryruth Wilson
Temecula, CA 92592
Sent from my iPad
From:Trisha Burke
To:Council Comments
Subject:SDG&E TOWERS IN TEMECULA CREEK
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 7:14:03 PM
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.
Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally express my serious disagreement and concern regarding the proposed SDG&E electrical tower project.
The placement and expansion of these towers raise significant concerns for our community, including visual impact, property value reduction, environmental disruption, fire risk, and the long-term effect on residents and surrounding businesses. Many of us feel that the project is being advanced without adequate consideration of the people who will be directly impacted every day.
In particular, I strongly disagree with:
The proposed tower locations and their proximity to homes and businesses The lack of meaningful community engagement and transparency The potential safety and wildfire concerns associated with additional overhead infrastructure
This project will permanently alter the character of the area and place an unfair burden on the surrounding community. Residents deserve a full review process, clear communication, and genuine consideration of less invasive alternatives before any approvals move forward.
I respectfully request that SDG&E reevaluate this proposal, provide greater transparency to the public, and seriously consider alternative solutions that minimize harm to the community.
Please include this correspondence in the official record regarding this project.
Sincerely,
TRISHA BURKE
From:Cathy
To:Council Comments
Subject:SDG&E Temecula Creek Transmission Line
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 6:48:11 PM
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 oppose. As a 42 year resident of the Temecula Creek area I am shocked you would entertain allowing a line of this size to be built through our beautiful area.
This route would negatively impact every property along the route, as well as introducing additional health and safety concerns to our community.
Catherine Pjontek
Temecula 92592
Sent from my iPhone
From:David
To:Council Comments
Subject:SDG&E Temecula Creek Transmission Line
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 6:30:41 PM
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 oppose the route proposed by SDG&E for the 500kv transmission line (LINE) through the Temecula Creek corridor. To place the significant structures needed to support the LINE of this size in the immediate vicinity of residential and retail businesses along the proposed route is irresponsible and only provides cost benefits to SDG&E.
Placing a LINE through the southern end of our city would significantly impact the beauty of this valley and property values of any homes along the route. Also, this LINE would introduce additional safety and health concerns to this residential and retail community.
Choosing a route across the hills in North SD county would be more costly to SDG&E, but would not impact our well established residential and retail communities.
David Pjontek
Temecula 92592
From:Richard Lattanzi
To:Council Comments
Subject:Save Temecula Stop STD&E
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 4:49:23 PM
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,
As a very concerned resident I am writing because I am STRONGLY opposed to the proposed Golden Pacific Powerlink Project planned for Temecula. I am deeply concerned because this route reportedly passes through family-centered communities (including mine) instead of being routed further away from homes and recreational areas.
This activity will impact the following the Temecula Creek and surrounding areas such as:
- Wine Country
- Vail Lake
- Galway Downs
- Trails & Parks
- Sensitive Ecological & Scenic Land
These transmission towers will negatively impact:
- Property Values
- Fire Safety Concerns which will increase my home insurance - Health and Safety from the electric emanations
- Possible higher energy bills as a result.
Why was this area chosen? Are there any other routing alternatives? I moved to Temecula 13 years ago and I do not want this neighborhood changed in such an ugly way. Was it chosen for the lack of political influence and it being a small community? I hope no one was paid off to make such a drastic change. I am a retiree and I depend on my home equity to provide me with a solid economic basis in case I have to move in my later years.
Thank you for hearing me out. I am hoping this letter plus the outpouring of outrage from the residents will change this attempt to bring the large high-tension electrical wires.
From:Michele Cormack
To:Council Comments
Subject:Comment on the Golden Pacific Powerlink Project Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 4:16:57 PM
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.
Comments for the record concerning the Golden Pacific Powerlink Project:
Thank you all for your support in opposing this project.
We purchased our home in Temecula for the beautiful view of this community. Our home backs up to the trail park and Temecula Creek with the gorgeous sight of our wine country hills and, in the mornings, our hot air balloons. Our community was built around these things and the 152- 191’ power lines are the perfect prescription for destroying it.
Our community is nearly built-out and the addition of these 500 kilovolt towers put us all at risk. They say distance helps with EMFs but, where I live, the creek is approximately 600’ wide. The towers will take up 300’ of that and at 191’ tall, they will overwhelm our homes.
The creek is also a well-protected wildlife preserve with a thick growth of shrubs and trees. These towers endanger that wildlife and increase the risk of fire consuming our homes.
My brother is a firefighter in Northern California and in November of 2018 he watched from the camp he worked at, as a header (the start of a fire), started just below his home. His was just one of the first of 18,000 structures that burned, and 85 people lost their lives as close to 95% of the town of Paradise California burned down. The cause… The powerlines arcing in the winds.
The Rainbow gap is a natural wind area coming from the coast and funnels directly up and through Temecula Creek. Exactly the path they want to put their towers.
The power company wants us to trust them, but they haven’t earned our trust.
In addition to the corporate cost to all of California, those who have homes nearby will see steep declines in their home values. Some will not be able to afford to sell. We ourselves are retired and on a fixed income and moving involves possible disclosures concerning these towers; real estate
selling and buying fees; and higher property taxes.
The power company says it’s too cost prohibitive for them to put these lines underground, but that would solve many of these problems and preserve the quality of life and home values in our community. Is it right for the steep cost to be carried on the backs of homeowners over the power companies?
One of the staples Temecula has been known for is our hot air balloons.
SDG&E, when asked about the impact on those, flippantly responded, “They (the balloons) have to abide by the FAA rules.” If any of you were watching the national news recently you saw one of our balloons have to make an emergency landing in a backyard as the winds suddenly switched on them. It is the nature of nature; it is unpredictable.
SDG&E are looking for an easy route for their lines. If they look to the south of us there is much open land, even if there is not an engineered route ready for them to build on. Lines across rural areas in San Diego County would not destroy an already thriving and almost completely built-out community. But it would take a bit of effort for their engineers to do something outside of a ready-made creek bed.
Please stop this madness that threatens to destroy the heart and the significance of this community; that threatens to crush its values and quality of life families here have invested in for many decades; the dream of growing a beautiful and peaceful place to raise children, generationally.
Thank you for your time,
Michele Cormack
From:
To:Randi Johl
Cc:George; Unknown
Subject:SDG&E Proposal
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 4:13:56 PM
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.
My grave concern is the SDG&E proposal for the 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines & tower structures to run through portions of Temecula and surrounding areas.
Fact: It is destructive to live near high voltage electrical power transmission lines. Could the growing incidents of brain cancer, bone marrow cancers, etc., be an indication? What is the cost we are willing to pay? At what cost to us and especially the effects on young children who are nowadays growing up with higher and higher concentrations of EMR!
We are subjected to so much radiation that we should seriously limit our exposure whenever possible. These transmission lines will not be beneficial; health, property values, commerce, tourism, and aesthetics will all be negatively affected. Who wants to come to Wine County to look at massive power lines taking over the landscape?
Would YOU buy a home with electrical transmission lines nearby? NOT! The engineers will tell you not to worry. Of course they will; it is money in their companies pockets. BTW, check out where they, the engineers and company CEOs live! NOT next to these structures.
Please think logically before charging ahead for outside personal interests or without careful, unbiased technical and health safety investigations. There is no financial reward that would outweigh the negative impacts this proposal would have on our beautiful community.
Oh, and BTW, make sure to take out a good cancer indemnity insurance policy if this goes through.
If this goes ahead, you will be part of scarring the once so called gem of Southern California’s Inland valley.
Best regards,
George and Kathryn Maibach
From:Joseph Orsini
To:Randi Johl
Subject:Powerlink
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 4:04:36 PM
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.