As reported in The Press-Enterprise on Sunday, Corona city officials say they won’t try again for annexation. According to City Manager Brad Robbins, the LAFCO vote on Sept. 26 to deny Corona’s annexation application was the end of the line for the city’s efforts.
Read The Press-Enterprise story HERE

Since the LAFCO 6-1 vote to deny the application, Residents for Temescal Valley has met and its members have decided to stay organized. RFTV was responsible for collecting more than 4,300 letters from Valley folks who opposed the annexation. According to the PE news story, “LAFCO members cited the vocal opposition by many Temescal Valley residents in voting down the request. Some said the proposal was one of the most hotly debated they had seen.”

RFTV has identified areas in which it will stay active and make recommendations to the Temescal Valley Municipal Advisory Council.  Those areas are:

• Public Safety: Sheriff, fire and code enforcement issues.
• Legislative: Dealing with LAFCO, elected officials and establishing a good neighbor relationship with Corona.
• Development: Adherence to the Temescal Valley Design Guidelines, proposed development for the Valley, zoning issues.
• Transportation: Dealing with RCTC for freeway matters and RTA to bring bus servie to the Valley
• Identity: Reinforcing who we are — US Postal Service designation, and working with the press and local Realtors for Temescal Valley identity. Assisting the Temescal Heritage Foundation in its goal to preserve the Valley’s history.
• Communications: Revamping the website, working with the press and developing social media contacts.

Anyone interested in working within a specific area should contact Jannlee Watson, RFTV secretary, at jannlee.watson@ca.rr.com

While we were disappointed with the LAFCO staff report for the Sept. 26 public hearing, which was posted Sept. 19 on the LAFCO website, we were not surprised. (Read the report HERE)

The staff is recommending continuance of the public hearing in order to give Corona and the county more time to negotiate over the fate of County Fire Station 64. Neither the city nor the county requested the continuance. It appears LAFCO staff believes if both agencies negotiate long enough, an agreement will be eventually reached. It’s the fire services the county must still deliver to unincorporated communities not included in the proposed annexation area that will cost the county big bucks if the city’s takeover is successful. The county’s initial projection was a loss of about a $3 million per year and longterm up to $5.5 million annually. (Read the story HERE)

So, what’s wrong with continuing negotiations and maybe wiping out this deficit for the county? There’s nothing wrong with it if you want the lead fire agency within the annexed area to be city fire instead of Cal Fire.

The continuance suggested by staff most-likely will not be approved by the seven LAFCO commissioners. (We could be wrong!) It is still immensely important that we have a good turnout for the public hearing. WEAR RED! If the continuance is not granted by LAFCO commissioners, the public hearing proceeds. (Read the story HERE)

What follows is the contents of an email Residents for Temescal Valley sent to LAFCO commissioners outlining why we think a continuance of the hearing is not acceptable:

• We have reviewed the staff report and, speaking for the 4,269 residents who signed letters opposing this annexation, we reiterate why we find a continuance unacceptable.
  
• Corona filed the application in March of this year. Six months should have been sufficient time for the city and county to have reached accord in their negotiations. Since neither city nor county requested this continuance, what does staff think will be gained by allowing discussions to continue? Isn’t it possible city and county are at impasse?
  
•  It is still questionable whether LAFCO should have accepted the city’s annexation application based on requirements of SB 244 – Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, as well as the creation of unincorporated islands and fringe communities. The financial ramifications of the annexation will limit the county’s ability to provide the same level of service to residents living in these neighboring unincorporated areas.
  
• In correspondence dated 08-06-13, the county encouraged LAFCO to withhold the certificate of filing for this annexation and to deny the application because of “missing information and because the application does not meet the requirements of the law and LAFCO policies.” What more is there to negotiate/discuss?
  
•  Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Section 56658 (i) states, “The date of the public hearing shall not be more than 90 days after issuance of the certificate of filing or after the application is deemed to have been accepted, whichever is earlier.” The scheduling of the public hearing for Sept. 26 did not adhere to CKH; it should have been scheduled for an earlier date. Continuing the hearing only exacerbates this violation of CKH.
  
•  California Government Code Section 56666 (a) states “The hearing shall be held by the commission upon the date and at the time and place specified. The hearing may be continued from time to time but not to exceed 70 days from the date specified in the original notice.” A continuance until Dec. 19 does not fall within the 70-day period.
  
• It is a great disservice to Temescal Valley residents who have revised work schedules, vacation schedules or taken time off work with no pay to attend the Sept. 26 public hearing. One Valley community has chartered a bus. Residents will again be inconvenienced in both time and expense if they wish to attend the continued meeting.
  
• Staff recommends continuing the hearing until LAFCO’s Dec. 19 meeting – one week prior to Christmas. This is not acceptable. And, isn’t that meeting scheduled to be held at Eastern Municipal Water District headquarters in Perris? We fear continuance to that date and venue can be viewed by the public as a ruse to gain a predetermined outcome by minimizing the transparency of the annexation proceedings, as well as eliminating Temescal Valley residents’ participation in the process.
  
• Residents for Temescal Valley again asks you not to continue the Sept. 26 public hearing. If you choose to accept staff recommendation, we seek a continuance date within the 70-day period or in January to avoid the December holidays.
  
• Finally, many Temescal Valley residents have been involved in this annexation for 20 months now and want to move forward with the process. As scheduled by LAFCO staff, the next step was to be the Sept. 26 public hearing. We are asking that you conduct the hearing on this date.

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!

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

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.

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.

The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), at its Thursday, March 28 meeting will officially receive and file the application submitted by the city of Corona to annex its sphere of influence in the Temescal Valley. This is not the major public hearing on the annexation issue that is planned for the Sept. 26 LAFCo meeting.

A group of Temescal Valley residents will attend Thursday’s meeting to introduce themselves to the seven LAFCo commissioners and to let them know that there is opposition to the annexation.

According to Residents for Temescal Valley spokeswoman Jannlee Watson, “We plan on attending all LAFCo meetings between now and September to better educate ourselves on the LAFCo process and to show our determination in defeating the city’s annexation attempt.”

LAFCo meets at 9:30 a.m. the fourth Thursday of each month at the County Administrative Center’s Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside.

Learn more about the LAFCo process HERE

It was a great turnout at the Corona public hearing last Wednesday — about 300 Temescal Valley residents showed up in support of the anti-annexation effort. About 30 — maybe a little more or less — chose to speak. The comments were heartfelt and not too repetitive.

About four hours after the hearing began, the City Council voted 4-1 to go foward with its attempt to annex the Temescal Valley. It’s pretty much what many of us had expected. We knew the City Council had already made up its mind — deja vu from the Planning Commission public hearing — just another rubber-stamping to send the annexation attempt to the next level — LAFCO.

The big surprise came with Councilman Stan Skipworth’s vote to oppose the annexation. “I have to respect what you have in your community. When 30 out of 32 people say they don’t want to be a part of the municipality, that tells me something.”

Thank you to all who took time on a work-week night to come out and fill a seat in the audience. Speakers were important — you all did a great job — but sometimes numbers speak louder than words.

Bottom line: We have a lengthy process in front of us — and to quote a famous American — “We have yet begun to fight.” We all must be more proactive. If we do not win this fight, it’s only because our apathy defeated us.

It’s T-minus two days and counting! The city of Corona annexation public hearing is at 6:30 p.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, Feb. 6 at Corona City Hall, 400 S. Vicentia Ave.

We must have a good turnout. The 100 or so Temescal Valley residents that attended the Planning Commission public hearing in December weren’t enough to leave an impression on the city. We must do better this time — our goal is 1,000 residents.

After signing up to speak, anyone can take three minutes to tell the City Council why they oppose the annexation. Please arrive a little prior to the 6:30 p.m. start time to sign the speakers’ sheet.

Here is the official public hearing notice.

The City Council will be voting on five issues associated with the annexation. Four are “housekeeping matters” involving zoning and adding acreage to the city’s sphere of influence to facilitate the annexation, the fifth — ANNEX 114 is the resolution that allows the city to file its application with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the boundary-setting agency for the county. It appears that each agenda item has its own public hearing, but the one we really care about is ANNEX 114, which appears fourth on the public hearings agenda.

You can access the meeting agenda HERE. Scroll down to public hearings. If you have a little time on your hands (this one takes a while to download!) and want to see the agenda with all of the background and staff reports associated with each of the five agenda items, CLICK HERE. Scroll down to public hearings, and then click on each of the five agenda items listed under public hearings.

If you have opposition to any of the five agenda items, you may take up to three minutes to state your concerns. It might be helpful to write down what you want to say and hand a written copy to the city clerk prior to speaking.

Tell everyone you know about the public hearing — maybe even set up carpools with your neighbors. And, it isn’t necessary to speak. Just being a “body in the room” speaks for itself!

About 100 Temescal Valley residents attended the Dec. 10 Corona Planning Commission public hearing on the city’s annexation proposal. Sixteen people spoke out against it — no one spoke in favor. (See: Corona: Annexation push moves forward)

It was apparent that commissioners had done little or no homework on the issue, especially when one asked a city staff member, “How did we get here?” So it came as no surprise when commissioners voted unanimously in favor of the annexation — just rubber-stamping the proposal to move it forward to the public hearing before the City Council.

A couple of days after the meeting, I was talking to a friend who has City Hall connections. He said he overheard a manager tell a city worker that the annexation was a done deal based on the low number of Temescal Valley residents who turned out for the Planning Commission hearing.

I would love to see 1,000 Temescal Valley residents at the yet-to-be-announced public hearing before the City Council. That’s what it’s going to take to show the city we’re serious — and there is strength in numbers. United we stand, divided we fall.