Author Archives: admin

About admin

My husband and I have resided in the Temescal Valley for more than 18 years. We purchased our home "brand new" and chose to live here because we could afford it and because it wasn't the city of Corona. We commuted to our Orange County jobs for 15 years. The commute wasn't all that bad because each day we returned home to our wonderful rural neighborhood. Corona never controlled its growth. Why must we suffer because the city ran out of "developable land." Shame on you Corona. Let the Temescal Valley alone.

LAFCO public hearing is Sept. 26

WE NEED TO FILL THE BOARD ROOM WITH AS MANY FOLKS AS POSSIBLE — ALL WEARING RED!
WHEN: 4 p.m., Thursday, Sept. 26
WHERE: Board of Supervisors meeting room, County Administrative Center, 1st floor, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside.

At this hearing, LAFCO will take testimony from residents, the City of Corona and Riverside
County. LAFCO’s seven commissioners can vote to end Corona’s annexation attempt or vote to let the process go forward. Many Temescal Valley residents are under the impression that they will eventually get to vote on the annexation issue. This is not true.
Read the LAFCO process HERE

The commissioners will be given the more than 4,250 letters signed by Temescal Valley residents who oppose the city’s takeover. Presentations by Residents for Temescal Valley will enumerate the reasons annexation will have an adverse impact on the Valley and why folks oppose it. The county Board of Supervisors in July voted to oppose the city and sent a letter to LAFCO detailing why annexation is not good for the county, Temescal Valley residents, nor Corona residents.
Read county’s letter to LAFCO HERE

Your presence at this hearing is extremely important — much more so than at February’s Corona City Council public hearing. Pease talk to your neighbors and set up carpools. And WEAR RED!

 

 

City won’t withdraw application

As everyone knows by now, the County Board of Supervisors at its July 30 meeting voted to oppose Corona’s attempt to annex Temescal Valley and to ask the city to withdraw its annexation application from LAFCo.

On Monday, we delivered a letter to City Hall asking that the council place on the agenda for the next open meeting a response to the county’s opposition to the annexation and our request that the city withdraw its annexation application. Our request was too late to be placed on the agenda for the Wednesday, Aug. 7 meeting.

At the Wednesday meeting, during the time allocated for public comments, we reiterated what Monday’s letter stated. We received no response and didn’t expect one. Our request was not on the agenda for the 6 p.m. meeting, so it couldn’t be discussed by the City Council.

How surprised we were today to find a time-stamped 5:36 p.m. Wednesday posting on The Press-Enterprise website that indicated the city wasn’t dropping the application. When, how and where between Monday and its Wednesday night meeting did the council meet to discuss our request? And, since council members had already decided not to withdraw the application, why didn’t they say so Wednesday night when we asked them to put it on the agenda of the city’s Aug. 21 meeting?

Could it be they don’t want to discuss the annexation in an open meeting because another 300-plus residents will show up to protest?

We also question how the decision was made to ignore our request. Surely it must have been discussed, and did that discussion violate the Ralph M. Brown Act, the California law that governs how local legislative bodies must hold meetings in open or closed sessions.

While disappointed, again, we are not surprised. The city has already spent at least $152,000 (and possibly much more), on this takeover and could be in a little bit over its head. Plus, egos must be taken into consideration. But if the annexation attempt runs the full course, the city will end up having spent a lot more money on the process with no guarantee that it will suceed.

Read our letter HERE
Read The Press-Enterprise report on the county’s vote HERE

County opposes annexation

Action taken at the July 30 meeting of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors has provided residents opposing annexation with a reason to celebrate.

The supervisors, on a 4-0 vote (with one abstention), took a stand to officially oppose the annexation. The county also will send a letter to Corona with a recommendation that the city withdraw its application from LAFCo to annex its sphere of influence within a portion of Temescal Valley.

The county also will continue its negotiations with Corona regarding the financial impacts on the county if the annexation were to occur. Both city and county prepared fiscal analysis projecting what the costs would be to the county if Corona was successful in its takeover. (Read city’s fiscal analysis HERE )  (Read county’s fiscal analysis HERE)

The two reports differ dramatically. While the Corona analysis shows very little financial loss for the county, the county analysis projects about a $3 million per year negative impact  and longterm up to $5.5 million annually.

Beverly Burr, an outside consultant who worked on preparation of the county’s fiscal analysis, told the supervisors the difference was created when the city calculated its numbers based on per capita costs involving all Riverside County unincorporated areas (average costs), and the county based its numbers on case study (actual costs).

When opposing fiscal analyses differ, the LAFCo process dictates that the two agencies must negotiate in an effort to mitigate the negative impact if possible. The county will continue its negoatiations with the city.

Kevin Jeffries, our supervisor, and Supervisor Jeff Stone led the discussion to oppose the annexation. And, while Supervisor John Tavaglione abstained from the vote (his district includes the city of Corona), he could have voted against the county’s stand.

Eleven Temescal Valley residents and businessmen explained why they oppose the annexation in their three minutes allocated to speak. Their presentation was a rehearsal for the Sept. 26 public hearing before LAFCo.

 

Water bond assessments lowered

There’s good news for residents of The Retreat, Montecito Ranch and Sycamore Creek. The assessment you pay on your taxes for a Lee Lake Water District Community Facility District (CFD), has been lowered.

The CFDs (Mello-Roos taxes), were created and bonds issued to finance construction of the water and sewer infrastructure when each of the communities was built. The costs of the bonds is paid for by homeowners through assessments on their annual property taxes.

At its Tuesday meeting, the water district’s board of directors voted to refinance the bonds at a lower interest rate with a savings of 3 percent to almost 10 percent depending on the community in which you reside. Because the bonds for each CFD differ, they had to be refinanced individually and that’s why the savings vary. The bond’s maturity date for each of the three CFDs will be unchanged. Here’s a breakdown of the savings:

  • CFD-1 — Sycamore Creek: 3.4 percent, a savings of $150 a year.
  • CFD-2 — Montecito Ranch: 9.91 percent, a savings of $200 a year.
  • CFD-3 — The Retreat: 6.63 percent, a savings of between $120-$160 per year.

The savings will be reflected in October’s property tax statement. Questions: Contact Lee lake at 951-277-1414. The office is at 22646 Temescal Canyon Road.

Letter signings: Check out the photos

Bus service, early release were MAC topics

A crowd of about 40 people attended the June 12 meeting of the Temescal Valley Municipal Advisory Council meeting and learned about the burden the state’s prison realignment program has placed on the county. Another presentation outlined the county’s plan to improve rapid transit services.

BUS SERVICE
Gordon Robinson, director of planning with the Riverside Transit Agency, told the audience the RTA currently is gathering public surveys to develop initial recommendations for its 10-year plan to improve service and increase ridership. The study began in January and has an 18-month timeline.

Robinson is aware that rapid transit is not available in Temescal Valley but urged everyone to complete a survey. Although the survey is geared to non-riders where service is offered, Temescal Valley folks have two places in the survey where they can voice opinions on wanting bus services.

We took the survey and here’s what we wrote in the comment section of question No. 4: “RTA services are not offered where I live — Temescal Valley south of Corona.”

Here’s what we noted in the comment section of question No. 27: “We do not have bus service in the Temescal Valley. There is no school busing for many of our intermediate and high school students. Our older students have trouble getting to community colleges. I had a friend who is visually disabled and she had to move because no bus service is offered here. And, many senior citizen residents who live in Trilogy cannot drive.”

You can tailor the comments to your own reasons for wanting bus service, but it’s important that Temescal Valley residents respond to the survey. Take the survey HERE

REALIGNMENT’S IMPACT ON COUNTY
Riverside County District Attorney Paul Zellerbach told the audience that the realignment program, which took effect in October 2011, was designed to reduce the state’s prison population but instead has placed the burden of incarcerating low-level offenders on the counties.

 Zellerbach said overcrowding in county jails has forced the early release of certain inmates: those jailed for non-violent, non-sexual and non-serious offenses. He said the county in 2012 released 6,990 prisoners and this year that number will grow close to 9,000 early-released inmates. The early releases are necessary to ease overcrowding in county jails which creates lawsuits filed by the inmates for the crowded conditions and poor medical services.

While the state pays counties to assume the cost of caring for the inmates, as well as probation and parole services, Zellerbach said state funds only amount to 25-cents on the dollar. And if inmates reoffend, they are not sent back to state prison, but stay in the county’s correctional system. He said county jails are filled about 24 percent to 25 percent with offenders who used to be sent to state prison.

While state funds and grant money is available to ease the financial burden on county jails, probation officers and mental health services, it falls far short of solving the problem, Zellerbach said. He said realignment and early-release are a risk to public safety and undermine the integrity of the justice system. He also noted that the property crime rate is up 10 percent to 15 percent countywide.

The Press-Enterprise recently published a report detailing the severity of the issue. Read it HERE

Jeffries draws good crowd at MAC

More than 80 people attended the May 8 meeting of the Temescal Valley Municipal Advisory Council meeting and heard updates from Cal Fire/Riverside County Fire Chief John Hawkins, Lee Lake Water District General Manager Jeff Pape and Riverside County Code Enforcement Officer Mano Molina.

But the big draw for the evening was a visit by Riverside County First District Supervisor Kevin Jeffries, who talked about his first five months in office since his election to the post last November and January swearing-in ceremony.

Jeffries said that he, too, lives in an unincorporated Riverside County area — Lakeland Village, within the city of Lake Elsinore sphere of influence. He said that as the First District supervisor and an appointed commissioner to the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), he has to remain fair and impartial in publicly speaking about the annexation. But he again reiterated that last year while campaigning door-to-door in Temescal Valley, he found no one that favored annexation and many people who opposed it.

A termed-out, six-year state assemblyman, Jeffires said those six years were the most frustrating in his life. He said he was happy to leave Sacramento where currently there are more than 100 bills pending that would make it much harder to do business in California.

He said that while the county — the fourth largest in the state, is slowly recovering from the recent bad economy, the recovery will be slow and the county faces some tough times ahead. State programs such as prison early-release to ease over-crowding, is placing a burden on the county. He also noted that of the county’s $5 billion annual budget, only $500 million is discretionary — the remainder going to augment state- and federal-mandated programs.

He talked about the wild land fire tax paid by several people in Temescal Valley and said the state legislature might be doing away with it. He said he opposed the tax and unsuccessfully authored legislation to kill it while he served as our assemblyman. He said the tax does not buy one piece of fire equipment nor hires any additional firefighting personnel, and only can be used for fire prevention. He also said it’s questionable whether the amount of tax dollars paid by Riverside County residents will ever be used here.

Fire Chief Hawkins reviewed the brush fires experienced by Cal Fire over the weekend and asked everyone in attendance to create “defensible space” in getting rid of landscaping and overgrown weeds too close to their homes. He said this fire season is expected to be a rough one. “You bring the defense; we’ll bring the offense,” Hawkins said. (Learn more about Defensible Space HERE)

Pape told the crowd that the Lee Lake Water District board was working on budgets. He said the cost of MWD water was getting expensive — $1,000 an acre foot, and that the local district has no control over these costs. Pape said that possible, well-planned budget cuts would offset the cost of a rate increase.

He talked about the district project that would mix groundwater with nonpotable water and pipe it along Temescal Canyon Road to Sycamore Creek to be used for landscape irrigation. Pape said the district’s construction plans — there are many underground pipes and lines now along Temescal Canyon Road, and the concern about preserving the oak trees that grow along the roadway, must meet county approval. He said while awaiting approval, the district plans to begin other phases of the project by midsummer. He said the district will endeavor to keep traffic flowing with little disruption.

Molina said code enforcement calls in Temescal Valley for illegal dumping have slowed down, averaging two calls per week. He said 1,700 tires recently were removed from an illegal dump site in the Valley and it took 75 trips to clean up the area.

 

You want bus service? Tell the county

The Riverside County Transportation Commission has scheduled a public hearing on transit needs in the county, 3 p.m., Thursday May 9, at the county’s Administrative Center, third floor Conference Room A, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside.

Each year the county provides a public forum to address transit (bus service), needs in the county especially for senior citizens, people with disabilities and people with limited incomes.

Last year, 19 Temescal Valley residents attended the public hearing to tell county reps why we need bus service here. Reasons ranged from “We are leagally blind and can’t drive,” and “My son is a student at Riverside Community College and can’t get to classes,” to “I’m a senior citizen and need transportation to grocery shop,” and “I work in Orange County and need a shuttle service to the Metro Link station in Corona.” One big complaint was “Our school district stopped busing for intermediate school students living within 4 miles of the nearest school.”

Whatever your reason might be, we like to think “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Show up, speak out and be counted.

If you can’t attend the May 9 public hearing, the county will accept written comments until May 20. Mail comments to:
Riverside County transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502-2208
Attention: Fina Clemente, Transportation Manager

Additionally, if you live in an HOA, have your Board of Directors send a comment requesting bus transportation for your community and listing the reasons why.
Learn more HERE

 

MAC meeting highlights

The group of about 30 residents who attended the April 10 Temescal Valley Municipal Advisory Council meeting learned that Cal Fire is “ready to roll” on wildfire fire season, the 232 apartments planned for Sycamore Creek will not be built, and Edison’s major project to run a second transmission line to the local substation will include some underground lines.

Cal Fire Chief Tony Mecham said the nine seasonal stations are being reopened and air support pilots are in place and now undergoing training. He encouraged property owners to clear overgrown vegetation around homes. (Learn how to do that HERE.)

He told Trilogy residents that Cal Fire is following up with golf course management about weed abatement concerns behind some homes.

Brian Woods, with Sycamore Creek developer Foremost Communities, told people about the second phase of Sycamore Creek construction. He said the planned 232 multi-family units will be replaced with small single-family homes geared to moderate incomes.

He noted that Foremost has set aside land for the trails system and is giving the county 13 acres to add a BMX park adjacent to Deleo Regional Sports Park .

About 1,200 homes have been constructed in Sycamore Creek; 540 homes are planned for the new phase. There should be 1,738 homes at buildout which is expected in three to four years.

Louis Davis, Southern California Edison region manager local public affairs, updated people on the Valley-Ivyglen Subtransmission Project. He said environmental concerns sent Edison back to the drawing board and the utility has submited a petition for modification to the state’s Public Utilities Commission.

The project, which he said has been 10 years in the making, would run a second transmission line over 25 miles from Menifee to Edison’s Ivyglen substation on Temescal Canyon Road.

Davis said only one transmission line serves the area now and if it goes down, residents lose power until crews can find and correct the problem. The second line will quickly reinstate power service while the problem with the first line is repaired.

While the majority of the project involves overhead transmission lines, he said they will be underground running along Campbell Ranch Road in Sycamore Creek.

Residents for Temescal Valley provided an annexation update at the meeting. (Read it HERE.)

The Temescal Valley Municipal Advisory Council meets the second Tuesday of each month at Trilogy in The Lake Center’s Sequoia Room.

LAFCo listened; learned who we are

Our representation at the March 28 Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) meeting went well.

Although not an action item, Corona’s proposal to annex Temescal Valley was on the agenda to inform commissioners that the city had filed its official annexation application. Because this item was on the agenda, we were able to comment on it — and 10 Temescal Valley residents did, and were joined by three residents of El Cerrito. Each of us spoke to the Temescal Valley community in which we lived, introducing ourselves and sharing a little bit about our community.

Here’s who spoke and the community they represented:

  • Jack Wyatt, Trilogy at Glen Ivy
  • Dan Smith and Jerry Sincich, Sycamore Creek
  • John Watson, Wildrose Ranch
  • Rob Mucha, The Retreat
  • Terry Morairty, Rob Miller and Brian Clingman; Weirick Road Neighborhood
  • Barbara Paul, Upper and Lower Spanish Hills and Glen Eden Sun Club
  • Jannlee Watson, Temescal Valley’s unique identity

Speaking before the LAFCo commissioners was a refreshing break from addressing the Corona City Council and Planning Commissioners. For the most part, LAFCo commissioners looked you in the eye and listened to what we had to say. It was apparent that there is no foregone conclusion about the annexation.

More about this later.