Temecula City Council — Regular Meeting
May 26, 2026 · Agenda item 19: SDG&E Golden Pacific Powerlink

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT — auto-generated from the City's YouTube recording
(machine captions, lightly normalized for recurring spelling errors).
This is NOT the City's official minutes and may contain transcription
errors. Source video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itgogex_ut4
Timestamps [hh:mm:ss] are offsets into the recording.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[00:00:04] Alrighty. Good morning or good afternoon everybody. It is May 26 at 300 PM.
[00:00:10] We are going to start the Temecula City Council. We are first going to
[00:00:14] start with the invocation with spiritual leader from trumpets of Tazara. Miss Karina Reid,
[00:00:19] if you can please come up. And then following that, we're going to have
[00:00:23] three incredible young brave children to do the flag salute. It's going to be
[00:00:27] Hunter, Mia, and Olivia. And two of the young ladies are going to be
[00:00:31] from American Heritage Girls. So, if we can all rise, please bow your heads
[00:00:41] with me. Lord, I ask that you would fill this space with peace. Lord,
[00:00:49] would you fill the grounds with peace today that so many have come with
[00:00:55] just things on their hearts, Lord? So many different agendas that we see today.
[00:01:01] And we just call upon your peace, Jesus. We thank you for that peace
[00:01:06] over hearts and minds. Peace that calms emotions. Father, we ask for your wisdom
[00:01:14] to come to the council. Lord, we ask that you would open their ears
[00:01:20] to hear without agenda. And we thank you, Lord, that every decision that they
[00:01:25] make will be of you and from you to serve this city. Lord, we
[00:01:32] ask that you would bless this beautiful city through the council's decisions and that
[00:01:37] today there would be honest conversation not just within the public, Lord, but within
[00:01:42] the council itself. I ask that you would remove deception and manipulation from all
[00:01:49] decisionmaking. Lord, we know that you hear our prayers and so we call upon
[00:01:56] you to come into this place. Lord, you have placed every council member in
[00:02:02] their seat. They are there and accountable to you, Lord. And so I ask
[00:02:07] that they would feel the weight of the seat that you have granted them.
[00:02:12] Lord, we thank you for your goodness. We thank you for your peace, Jesus,
[00:02:17] which is ruling over this meeting today. Bless everyone who enters into this space
[00:02:24] in Jesus name. Amen. Thank you, ma'am. >> God bless. >> If I can
[00:02:29] please have the three young children come up. You guys are going to do
[00:02:39] great. Thank you for joining us. Place your right hand over your heart everyone
[00:02:48] and please take off all your hats. Now let's begin. I pledge allegiance to
[00:02:53] the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for one
[00:02:58] nations nation under God with liberty liberty justice for all. >> Wonderful. One 23
[00:03:07] coming up real quick. Have something for you. Here you go. [applause] You know,
[00:03:28] I have to say this is um that was incredible to be able to
[00:03:32] hear everybody at one time. So, I just want to thank you all for
[00:03:35] contributing and thank you again to the three that just are uh were here
[00:03:39] and uh yeah, you guys are amazing. All right, so the next one we
[00:03:44] got to do roll call. >> Yes, madame mayor. Mayor Alexander, >> I am
[00:03:49] here. >> Council member Kalpus >> here. >> Council member Ron >> here. >> Council
[00:03:52] member Schwank >> here. >> Council member Stewart >> here. >> Outstanding. All right,
[00:03:57] we're next going to move into our presentations. Uh first one is going to
[00:04:00] be a presentation by Mayor Alexander myself regarding the 250th anniversary of the United
[00:04:06] States of America. For many of you who maybe this may be one of
[00:04:09] your first meetings this year. We have been rolling these out every single council
[00:04:14] meeting. So there's a quote from our founding fathers every time. And so this
[00:04:19] time around uh let me see if my there it comes. I was able
[00:04:25] to pick this one from Thomas Jefferson. I know no safe depository of the
[00:04:31] ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves. And if we think them
[00:04:38] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is
[00:04:47] not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. Just
[00:04:56] to expand on that a little bit, this quote from our founding father Thomas
[00:05:01] Jefferson shows that the ultimate power of society lies within all of you who
[00:05:07] are sitting in these seats. that if people lack the knowledge or judgment to
[00:05:14] use the power wisely, then the solution is not to remove the power from
[00:05:20] the people, but to be able to educate them to make a wise decision.
[00:05:26] And I believe that Jefferson uh made an in wanted to inform and educate
[00:05:31] the populace and is essential for the functioning of our democracy. So, I just
[00:05:36] want to thank you guys for listening to that and just reminding ourselves the
[00:05:40] importance of the founding of our nation. Uh, next we are going to move
[00:05:44] into a presentation by a local nonprofit, Circle of Care Ministries Food Pantry. If
[00:05:52] you can come up. So, one of the things that we also have been
[00:05:59] doing this year is every time in the beginning, well, every first meeting of
[00:06:03] the month, we bring in a local nonprofit to be able to share what
[00:06:07] they're doing. We want to be able to encourage and let people know how
[00:06:11] they can be a part of this community by serving each other. And this
[00:06:15] year's quote is serving. It's going to be community serving community Temecula together. And
[00:06:20] so, this is just a part of that. And we I just want to
[00:06:22] say thank you and welcome to uh begin your presentation. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank
[00:06:27] you. >> My name is Charles Kim. I'm the CEO and pastor of Circle
[00:06:32] of Care Ministries. We started in September 99 and this September will celebrate our
[00:06:38] 27th year of continual operation. We started first on Pole Street with the aim
[00:06:45] of ministering just to the single moms that were there uh living in section
[00:06:51] 8 housing. Since that time, we've grown from the first night of 20 people
[00:06:57] served or 20 families served to 200 to 250 families a day being served.
[00:07:03] Currently during COVID, we were at our height of 500 families a day, five
[00:07:09] days a week. Uh God has always made the provision uh and in that
[00:07:16] his promise to us is that the supply would always be sufficient for the
[00:07:20] day. Uh we've provided you with a short video. I'm sorry that it's not
[00:07:26] spec specifically for Circle of Care, but Circle of Care is um greatly uh
[00:07:33] featured in the video. >> Wonderful. Well, let's roll that video. >> Feeding America
[00:07:41] Riverside San Bernardino is the largest hunger relief [music] organization in the Inland Empire
[00:07:46] with over 100,000 people who rely on us each [music] month. Feeding America Riverside
[00:07:52] San Bernardino distributes over 2.5 [music] million pounds of food per month and partners
[00:07:56] with over 250 local nonprofit agencies. Well, hello. Uh this is Circle of Care
[00:08:03] in Temecula, California. Uh this morning we've already loaded up the van with totes
[00:08:10] to be preparing to go out to different stores that we pick up from
[00:08:15] and then bring it back uh to this warehouse. Our mission is to alleviate
[00:08:19] hunger in the Inland [music] Empire. We envision a community where everyone has access
[00:08:23] to an adequate and nutritious food supply. [music] Our retail rescue program goal is
[00:08:28] to feed more people and fewer landfills. [music] >> The retail rescue program works
[00:08:34] with 270 stores and benefits [music] 94 of our partners. Every month they rescue
[00:08:42] over 1 million pounds of [music] food from meat to produce to dry goods
[00:08:48] and even non-food items. Our pantries with the [music] help of all their volunteers
[00:08:55] and staff are able to serve over 75,000 families each month. The retail rescue
[00:09:02] [music] program greatly benefits our partners but is a very demanding program. Our partners
[00:09:07] have to ensure food safety throughout the [music] entire process from the store all
[00:09:12] the way back to their site. They have to check all the donations once
[00:09:16] [music] they receive them. Monetary sponsorships are needed to ensure our partners have key
[00:09:22] pieces of equipment to [music] run this program such as transportation, cold storage, and
[00:09:28] heavy machinery. >> This is our warehouse. The Crossroads Church here on UNES has
[00:09:35] given us about 4,000 [music] square ft of warehouse space at no charge. We
[00:09:41] have our 12T racks. We [music] uh stage our products as they by date
[00:09:47] when they come in and then [music] also uh when we buy bulk items
[00:09:52] uh we do uh it according to the products. [music] This exclusive program also
[00:09:58] helps grocery retailers benefit from reduced [music] disposal costs and donation tax advantages while
[00:10:04] supporting their local hunger fighting programs. It's a big [music] job that we can't
[00:10:09] do without you. For more information or to donate, visit feeding america.org. [music] >> With
[00:10:20] that, we invite the community to participate with us in food drives. uh high
[00:10:27] school students needing community service hours uh can can get their community service hours
[00:10:32] with us. Um we we constantly are looking for new avenues of uh resources
[00:10:41] and in that we thank you for your participation with us. Chuck Washington has
[00:10:47] uh been generous with CDBG uh or I may have the wrong acronym there.
[00:10:53] uh uh this past year in the absence of uh uh FEMA's uh CDBG
[00:11:00] uh last year or two years ago we were awarded $250,000 and this past
[00:11:06] year uh there hasn't been anything. So uh we buy food as funds are
[00:11:13] available but primarily the foods come from local grocery stores, restaurants uh and logistic
[00:11:21] centers. So uh in that we've been able to serve the community and about
[00:11:27] 60% of the participants that come through or the participants the re those that
[00:11:32] receive are actually citizens of Temecula. >> Excellent. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
[00:11:38] Do any of my council comments do any my I cannot talk today. Do
[00:11:41] any of my councilmen have anything to add or comment about? No. Please. Yeah.
[00:11:49] I wish there was a bigger crowd that could be here to hear this
[00:11:52] today. [laughter] So, I'm really happy that uh you were presenting today of all
[00:11:57] days. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. >> I was thinking the same thing. Absolutely.
[00:12:01] What a perfect time. If I can ask one thing while we have just
[00:12:04] a few people in the crowd. Um how what is your biggest need? If
[00:12:08] there's something you can say this is our biggest number one need, what would
[00:12:11] that be? >> Finances. >> Okay. All right. Does everybody hear that? >> All
[00:12:15] right. >> It costs to give away free stuff. Yes. Well, thank you so
[00:12:19] much for your time and your presentation. We look forward to connecting further with
[00:12:22] you in the future. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Bless you.
[00:12:24] Thank you. [applause] >> All right. We have one more presentation that just got
[00:12:34] added on to the agenda and that is going to be a pres a
[00:12:38] presentation by former mayor and uh city council woman Lorie Stone. And this was
[00:12:45] quite a surprise to me. So thank you ma'am. >> Good afternoon madame mayor,
[00:12:52] council member, staff and guests. It is my pleasure on behalf of the UNI
[00:12:59] American Eagles to present an honorary doctorate to Mayor Jessica Alexander upon the recommendation
[00:13:08] and the faculty and by the virtue of authority vested in them the trustees
[00:13:15] of the UNI American Eagles have confirmed Dr. Jessica Alexander having successfully completed the
[00:13:25] requirements and thereof she is awarded the degree of honorary doctorate of philosophy community
[00:13:33] service. In recognition, in recognition of her lifelong learning and her extraordinary leadership, serves
[00:13:42] and achievements in the fields of community service, leadership and global peace with all
[00:13:48] rights and privileges obtaining in whereas whereof the seal of the uni American Eagles
[00:13:57] and the signatures of its officers have been affixed here on this day, the
[00:14:03] 27th day of April 2026. So congratulations Dr. Jessica Alexander >> and I know
[00:14:12] that you are the presiding officer of this meeting. >> Thank you. [applause] >> I
[00:14:17] was wondering if we could just take a quick little picture. >> Um and
[00:14:21] we I'll send it to the Eagles, the American Eagles. So >> thank you
[00:14:27] ma'am. Wow. What a what an honor. Thank you.
[00:14:47] blessing. [applause] [applause] >> I love you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[00:15:27] >> Thank you very much, ma'am. That was a wonderful surprise and an honor.
[00:15:32] Okay, next one. We have public comments. City clerk, how many public comments do
[00:15:38] we have? Yes, madame mayor. Um, we have approximately a hundred comments on the
[00:15:43] main item today. However, however, [applause] [applause] yes, congratulations community. Um, however, we are
[00:15:57] we have just a handful of people, two people here on non-aggenda and two
[00:16:01] people here on the general plan update. So, uh, with the mayor's concurrence, we'll
[00:16:06] go ahead and hear from them first. Um, with the non-aggenda, they have three
[00:16:11] minutes. With the general plan update, they have um five minutes um or less.
[00:16:17] So, um Oh, I'm sorry. I just got a third non-aggenda. Okay. So, the
[00:16:24] first um non-aggenda speaker is Mr. Jim Davis to be followed by Tim Kimble.
[00:16:34] Mr. Jim Davis to be followed by Tim Kimble to be followed by Philip
[00:16:39] O'Reilly. If any of you are here in the room or in the conference
[00:16:45] center, we will go ahead and give you an opportunity to come up and
[00:16:49] speak now. And then on the general plan update, I also have Gerald Montante
[00:16:59] and Dennis Fitz. So any five of you, if you are here and would
[00:17:04] like to be heard now, we welcome you. Jim Davis, Tim Kimble, Phillip O'Reilly,
[00:17:15] >> I see them walking right now. >> Dennis Bits, >> and Gerard Monte.
[00:17:21] when you come up to the podium, if you could just give me your
[00:17:24] name and go ahead and speak, please. All right, the first one, if you
[00:17:28] want to come up, please. >> Hello. >> Hello, sir. How are you? >> I'm
[00:17:37] wonderful. >> Go ahead. >> So, uh Jim Davis and I are here together.
[00:17:41] Um be uh better. I could go first. So, >> what was your name,
[00:17:48] sir? >> Oh, this um my name is Dr. Timothy Kimble. >> There you
[00:17:52] go. >> Um, I have resided in this valley for well since 1985. >> Um,
[00:18:01] is this something I can put? Oh, right here. >> Yes, sir. Yeah. >> Aha.
[00:18:05] >> You just if you want to just pick that right up >> on
[00:18:08] on the right hand side, just pick that arm up. >> Oh, >> yes.
[00:18:11] >> Aha. >> Should there it is. >> There we go. All right. [clears throat]
[00:18:17] On Saturday, April 25th, 2026, the Oldtown Temecula gunfighters performed in Oldtown on private
[00:18:24] property. On Monday, I received a phone call from Jamie Lenos from Temecula Code
[00:18:29] Enforcement. I also received email and a letter um that was uh enclosed notice
[00:18:36] of violation. Uh the first sentence stated, "The city of Temecula code enforcement received
[00:18:43] a complaint regarding a potential violation of the Temecula municipal code." Um I am
[00:18:50] a potential violation. I am here to today to determine if there was an
[00:18:56] actual violation or a potential violation. If there is an actual violation, uh, the
[00:19:02] gunfighters would like to have the ability to correct the violation so that we
[00:19:07] can continue performing in Oldtown. We were only given the option to discontinue our
[00:19:11] shows, not correct the problem. Uh, I told Miss Lenos, uh, that we have
[00:19:17] performed in Oldtown for at least for the last, excuse me, 38 years. I
[00:19:22] asked how we could be in violation. She likened our situation to speeding and
[00:19:28] driving recklessly for years and finally getting caught and given a ticket. I thought
[00:19:33] that was a real poor analogy. Um, we were not told of or of
[00:19:38] the nature of complaint either. Uh, the Oldtown Temecula Gunfighters have performed at Sam
[00:19:43] Hicks Park front and Fourth Street in the 80s and 90s. We used to
[00:19:47] perform uh in the intersection of Maine and Front Street. Um, we have performed
[00:19:53] on the steps of city hall as well as the balconies of city hall.
[00:19:57] We've performed for 10 years at the hotel Temecula uh for the benefit of
[00:20:01] Oldtown and Reality Rally. Um, we've performed all over um the last 38 years
[00:20:08] uh California uh Nevada, Arizona. Um and um so pictures of the gunfighters have
[00:20:18] been taken by enthusiastic visitors to Temecula. Visitors are excited to see cowboys and
[00:20:24] they enjoy our skits and our gun safety demonstration. Our photos are in family
[00:20:29] picture albums in every state of the union and every country of the world.
[00:20:33] Uh the gunfighters were founded in 1988 and has been active in the entire
[00:20:38] time. Um, at every performance we do a gun safety demonstration that is geared
[00:20:43] towards kids. >> And that is your time, sir. >> Okay. Um, please don't
[00:20:48] erase the history of the Old West or the history of the contributions made
[00:20:51] by the Oldtown Temecula gunfighters. >> Thank you, sir. The next speaker is Tim
[00:20:55] Kimble to be followed by Philip O'Reilly. >> That's Jim Davis. [applause] Thank you,
[00:21:10] sir, for coming. [laughter] >> Good afternoon. My name is Jim Davis. Uh, thank
[00:21:16] you for having us, uh, be allowed to speak. I'm a member of the
[00:21:18] Oldtown Temecula Gun Fighters and have been since 2004. As I already know, we've
[00:21:24] received a notice of violation from code enforcement on April 27th. The notice is
[00:21:30] extremely vague. It mentions that there was a complaint, but about what was not
[00:21:38] mentioned. It says there was a violation of the Oldtown specific plan and mentions
[00:21:42] the land use matrix 4-1. It does not say what we violated. The notice
[00:21:49] gives no option of appeal. All of these are blatant violations of due process.
[00:21:57] It's not like we've been performing in secret. We performed all over Oldtown for
[00:22:04] over 38 years. We were on the vacant lot at Fourth and Front State
[00:22:09] long before I joined in 2004. Newspapers printed articles and photos of us from
[00:22:17] Western days. So, I think we have a right to know what we're being
[00:22:21] charged with. Oh, I forgot. We advertise on Facebook. So, we have been ambassadors
[00:22:31] for Temecula, as Tim mentioned, all over California, Nevada, Arizona. We performed in front
[00:22:37] of 10,000 fourth graders at Anaheim Stadium. We have a 100% safety record. Not
[00:22:45] one member of our team or one audience member has ever been injured during
[00:22:50] our shows. We are not rush. My question is >> if we can I
[00:23:00] know you guys are all wanting to support if we can just let the
[00:23:03] speaker speak please. I appreciate you very much. Thank you. >> Um my question
[00:23:07] is though is why now because of one complaint after 38 years? Really? I
[00:23:17] spoke to businesses on Saturday up and down front in mainstreams. Most of the
[00:23:22] owners of those businesses love us. Why? because we bring business to Temecula and
[00:23:30] like us they don't understand why we are now persona nonrada. So all we're
[00:23:36] asking is how do we actually violate the code and what can we do
[00:23:41] to rectify this short of no longer performing after 38 years. I think that's
[00:23:49] the least that is Otus. Thank you. >> Thank you sir for your time.
[00:23:54] [applause] The next speaker is Phillip O'Reilly. Phillip. [applause] Phillip O'Reilly. [clears throat] >> Good
[00:24:02] afternoon, sir. Thank you for coming in. >> Good afternoon. My name is Philip
[00:24:06] O'Reilly and I've proudly lived in this valley for 30 years. I think it's
[00:24:10] a beautiful thing that we've got the valley support out here today. And ultimately,
[00:24:13] I brought with me a few things I'd like to share. If we can
[00:24:16] get this going over here. I bring to you today the Merida Gateway Monument
[00:24:23] Petition. I bring this today because my father was the original crafter, fabricator, welder
[00:24:27] of the old town arches here in Temecula. And to say it as I
[00:24:31] see it, I watched this town go from 10 to 110,000 people. Currently, Marita
[00:24:36] and Wdemar are looking at redefining their border by Palomar Street and Jefferson Avenue's
[00:24:40] connection, which would bridge right unto us over here. Jefferson Avenue connects to Oldtown
[00:24:44] and those beautiful arches. All things to say, I wanted to bring some awareness
[00:24:48] to this as ultimately the city of Maretta [Murrieta] has brought forth that they will
[00:24:51] be widening the road from a two-lane to a fourlane. Our house here is
[00:24:56] the only ranch that has not had this eminent domain process started as they
[00:25:00] were unable to 20 years ago to put public easement on our property. We
[00:25:03] fought off the power lines then and I'm here to fight them off here
[00:25:06] today as well. And ultimately, I see the opportunity for Maretta [Murrieta] as well as
[00:25:11] Temecula in the valley for something that just doesn't exist currently. I'd like to
[00:25:15] bring my phone out and showcase some photos to highlight some things as they
[00:25:18] exist. This is our property here. We are the last bump in the road
[00:25:24] on Jefferson before that dead end. There's the church, the water towers, and us.
[00:25:28] This is the current 180 acre development that's going on in Wdemar. And to
[00:25:33] highlight, they will be bridging together Palomar Street here with Jefferson over here. And
[00:25:41] we are the first house that you will see coming into there. Now, the
[00:25:44] idea of this gateway monument would be to herald and honor the whole region
[00:25:47] as ultimately I think there's a lot of things that have fallen unrepresented in
[00:25:51] our region. As I put in this little spiel down there, we're talking about
[00:25:54] Juan Maretta [Murrieta] sheep farm, the Pchanga Bond of Indians uh representation in Marietta [Murrieta], the
[00:26:00] Southern California Railroad in the Marietta [Murrieta] grain elevator, the rancherero era, highway 395, as
[00:26:06] well as modern and future gem of the valley representation. Unfortunately, unlike Temecula, we
[00:26:12] don't have a lot of brand work and artwork in Marietta [Murrieta]. So, I just
[00:26:15] urge the crowd. If it is something that interests you, I'll be passing these
[00:26:18] out if that's okay with everyone up there. And ultimately, I'd like to get
[00:26:22] some support with this QR code on a change.org petition in order to show
[00:26:26] the council that, you know, we do mean business. We want to honor our
[00:26:29] city and we want to see that beautiful highway constructed. As a last little
[00:26:32] tidbit, this Highway 395 reconstruction, as Maria calls it, will be bridging together 79
[00:26:38] south and north through Lake Elsenor to the 74 freeway as well as through
[00:26:44] Tomesco Valley Canyon to East Ontario Avenue, all in a straight line connecting to
[00:26:49] the 91 freeway. If that doesn't scare you guys in terms of traffic of
[00:26:52] what that back road's going to become, well, I'm telling you right now, it's
[00:26:55] it's a little bit more serious than people are taking it. So, ultimately, that's
[00:26:58] my time. You guys have a beautiful rest of your day and don't let
[00:27:00] these power lines happen, please. >> Thank you, sir, very much for coming. [applause]
[00:27:09] [applause] >> Dennis, Dennis Fitz, one more. >> Dennis Fitz. And just a friendly
[00:27:14] reminder, sir, you have five minutes. Um, and just a friendly reminder, um, the
[00:27:19] the city council prohibits any audiovisisual usage up during public comments other than still
[00:27:26] hard copies. So if you have pictures of something, you're more than welcome to
[00:27:29] go ahead and use that slides, but no videos or telephones or those kinds
[00:27:34] of things. Thank you. Welcome, sir. >> Okay. I'd like to address [cough] the
[00:27:39] land [clears throat] use plan uh in the general plan. Well, much of the
[00:27:43] residential area of the city was mostly developed. The draft land use plan ignored
[00:27:47] a large area of underdeveloped residentially zoned land in the northeast part of Temecula.
[00:27:54] This area bounds Nicholas Road and is generally called the Nicholas Valley. We have
[00:27:58] an area where many houses are still on dirt roads. This is really outrageous
[00:28:02] for an upscale community. When I moved to the Nicholas Valley in 1991, the
[00:28:08] potential land use by the county, the swap map was zoning for a halfacre
[00:28:13] residential lots. The city's original draft plan showed 2 and a half acre zoning
[00:28:19] for most of the Nicholas Valley. The city staff recommended this zoning due to
[00:28:23] the lack of paved roads and drainage issues. This zoning has not changed since
[00:28:28] then despite the pavement of major roads and drainage improvements. As stated in the
[00:28:35] original general plan, the city of Temecula at the request of residents prepared a
[00:28:39] study overlay for the Nicholas Valley. This special study overlay was completed in 1995
[00:28:46] and presented to the residents at several meetings. The proposed land use varied from
[00:28:51] very low to medium low density. Largely due to the high cost of road
[00:28:56] construction and flood prevention for the proposed alternative zoning. The residents favored the original
[00:29:03] designated plan. In 2007, the city of Temecula studied the Nicholas Valley again with
[00:29:09] the primary intention of paving leafer road. A number of public meetings were held
[00:29:15] and many residents attended. The Niculus Valley was divided into four planning areas with
[00:29:21] proposed densities from 1/2 to 2 and a half acres per dwelling unit. The
[00:29:26] intent was to form an assessment district for Leafer Road. A survey was taken
[00:29:33] and do I have to do anything here? >> Nope. Just put your paper
[00:29:36] right under >> Oh, there it is. Okay. Uh, of all the residents and
[00:29:40] this is the respondents. If you look at the lot size, out of the
[00:29:44] 72 respondents, only 10 wanted to keep the original 2 and 1/2 acre zoning.
[00:29:50] And that was in 2008. A final survey was conducted in 2009 with density
[00:29:57] options of 1/2, 3/4, 1, and 2 and 1/2 acres per dwelling unit. While
[00:30:02] most of the residents wanted higher densities, the vote was split between the four
[00:30:07] choices, and no clear majority was shown. At this point, the city took no
[00:30:12] further action. With the extension of Nicholas Road complete and most of the drainage
[00:30:17] issues addressed, it's time to finalize the zoning for the valley. I think 1acre
[00:30:22] zoning would be most appropriate and would be acceptable by most residents. A change
[00:30:28] from very low to low density would accomplish this. An alternative would be for
[00:30:32] the city to perform another survey. Instead of splitting the vote between four choices,
[00:30:38] it would be better to use the rank sum vote where residents would rank
[00:30:43] the choices that they like best in four all four of them if there
[00:30:48] are four. If no majority is obtained at first, then the rank sum process
[00:30:53] would be used and the one that received the least votes would be dropped
[00:30:57] and that would be filled in by their second choice. A higher density zoning
[00:31:02] would benefit both the land owners and the city. With the current zoning, it's
[00:31:06] not possible to subi subdivide lots less than five acres because they don't make
[00:31:11] 2 and a half acres each. Such large lots really aren't in conformance with
[00:31:16] the rest of the city in this area. Reszoning would give the residents more
[00:31:20] flexibility in developing their properties. Thank you. >> All righty. Thank you very much,
[00:31:26] sir, for coming up. And I believe we have a few more speakers on
[00:31:28] these items. >> Yes. Um, Madame Mayor, as a reminder to the public, these
[00:31:32] three speakers are receiving five minutes each instead of the standard three for non-aggenda
[00:31:37] because their items are on the business portion of the agenda. Um, Gerald Montadare,
[00:31:44] I'm sorry if I'm not pronouncing that right, sir. Um, thank you. And then
[00:31:49] lastly, Heather Stanford. Heather Stanford. >> Good afternoon, sir. Thank you for coming. >> Good
[00:31:55] afternoon. I know some of these people. Uh, I'll just bore you with about
[00:32:01] two minutes here. Uh, good afternoon, mayor and council members. My name is Gerald
[00:32:05] Montanti and I'm a four decade resident at 31605 Caya Girasol near Riverton Park.
[00:32:14] I [clears throat] am here this afternoon to ask the council to update the
[00:32:17] the zoning designation in zone 4. I guess that would be west of uh
[00:32:22] Balcott from very low density to very low to low density housing. That's the
[00:32:28] one acre Dennis mentioned. Our current very low density restriction is no longer no
[00:32:34] longer matches our community's needs. It severely limits housing options at a time when
[00:32:39] families and seniors are struggling to find attainable places to live. Transitioning to lowdensity
[00:32:46] development enables a subtle and thoughtful variety of single family lots while preserving the
[00:32:51] neighbor neighborhood's distinct character. This minor change promotes smart growth, reuses existing infrastructure efficiently,
[00:33:00] and keeps local tax dollars in the city. This is not about high-rise development.
[00:33:06] This change affords new opportunities to my children who are currently shut out of
[00:33:10] the housing market. I respectfully request that the council direct staff to initiate a
[00:33:16] zoning amendment study for zone 4 to explore this change. And thank you for
[00:33:21] your time and consideration. Thank you very much, sir. [applause] >> And our very
[00:33:27] last speaker is Heather Stanford. Welcome, Heather. >> Good afternoon, Miss Heather. >> Good
[00:33:33] afternoon, may Madame Mayor and council and city staff. My name is Heather Sanford,
[00:33:38] like Sanford and Sons, not Stanford like the college. But anyway, I am the
[00:33:42] CEO of Mission Hope, and thank you for allowing me to speak before the
[00:33:45] real party begins today. One of my favorite parts about living in this valley
[00:33:48] is this, that we have a heart of a community that cares about the
[00:33:51] people that live here. So my agenda item is completely unrelated to the big
[00:33:55] fiesta of the day, but I did want to say thank you from the
[00:33:58] bottom of my heart for myself and my team for the opportunity with the
[00:34:01] agenda that is on today to partner with Thessalonica Family Services, our DBA mission
[00:34:06] hope to ensure that every single citizen in Temecula has a place to call
[00:34:10] home and healthy food to thrive. And by doing this partnership with us this
[00:34:13] year, that's exactly what we're going to make sure happens. We're going to be
[00:34:16] able to save the city time and money by funding it through my Mission
[00:34:19] Hope team that are well equipped to do wraparound services for people in need,
[00:34:23] especially families with kiddos. We don't ever want a family living in a car
[00:34:27] or at a park or on a couch at somebody's house and bouncing around.
[00:34:30] We want them to be stable in school, be able to get food every
[00:34:33] day, and get the wraparound services they need to get their life back in
[00:34:36] order to thrive. So, I just want to throw out there really quick. Um,
[00:34:39] I'm not going to take up my whole five minutes because I know you
[00:34:40] guys got a lot to get to today, but in the last five years
[00:34:43] here, we have served, um, we have housed over 99 children, 167 people individually.
[00:34:49] We have served 60,892 people in our resource center in 5 years. And we
[00:34:54] have provided 103,000 people with 3.45 million meals um, in the last 5 years.
[00:35:00] And we'll continue to do that at Mission Hope with partnerships such as the
[00:35:03] councils and the city of Temecula believing in what we're doing. And thank you
[00:35:06] for honoring us as we honor our our values of dignity and hope and
[00:35:10] resilience for these people. We see the humanity in every single person regardless of
[00:35:14] creed, race, color, or anything. And we believe that they're they deserve the right
[00:35:18] to thrive in our environment. So, thank you council. I appreciate your consideration of
[00:35:22] the proposal today and I hope it all goes through and you all have
[00:35:25] my phone number and email address if you have any follow-up questions. I would
[00:35:27] love to chat with any of you. Have a wonderful day. Thank you, Heather.
[00:35:30] You as well. Always good to see you. [applause] >> Okay, so moving into
[00:35:38] the reason why I think a few people are here today. Um, I am
[00:35:42] just going to read the script so that way we just have a couple
[00:35:45] house cleaning items here, make sure everybody's on point and uh so that way
[00:35:49] we can have a very smooth meeting. The goal here, and I'll reiterate it
[00:35:53] again, is I want to get everybody who submitted a card to speak today.
[00:35:58] That is this council's goal. We all want to hear from you and we
[00:36:01] would like also SDGNA and other organizations to do the same. So that being
[00:36:07] said, again I want to thank everyone for being here. It is an important
[00:36:11] meeting today as we all know at this time. I want to share again
[00:36:14] just a few housekeeping notes. First please note that agenda item 16 regarding the
[00:36:20] uh Red Hawk specific plan is being taken off the calendar today. It will
[00:36:25] be placed on a future item and will be renoticed. Any written comments already
[00:36:30] received will be part of the record for that item on a future agenda.
[00:36:35] If you are here for that item and you do not need to you
[00:36:38] do not do not need to stay for the rest of the meeting unless
[00:36:42] you wish to do so. Second, we are moving item number 19 regarding the
[00:36:48] SDG&E proposed transmission line to the top of the agenda. So, we're going to
[00:36:52] take that here in a moment. I know many of you are here for
[00:36:56] that. The city is facilitating this meeting for community awareness. This meeting is the
[00:37:02] first of many meetings to come. Today we will begin with a presentation from
[00:37:07] staff followed by our council questions of staff. We will then hear from SDG&E
[00:37:13] representatives followed by council questions of the representatives. We will then go into public
[00:37:20] comment is where all of you get to speak. We currently right now have
[00:37:24] over or approximately a hundred speakers right now on the docket. And so those
[00:37:30] in order to hear from everybody, each speaker will get one minute to provide
[00:37:34] their comments. Please note that you can comment in one of three ways on
[00:37:39] this item. I know some of you don't like to come up to the
[00:37:42] podium and speak, so there's some other ways here. Uh you can comment in
[00:37:47] person here at the podium, via email, or via QR code. Please feel free
[00:37:52] to ask staff any questions you may have on how to provide comments. All
[00:37:59] public comments, no matter how they are received, will be made part of the
[00:38:04] official record. Finally, I ask everyone in the council chambers and in the conference
[00:38:09] center, be understanding and respectful of each other. This meeting may be a little
[00:38:16] long, but it's very important. We will take recess as needed. Please refrain from
[00:38:22] interruptions or displays uh displaying signs in front of other people. So, if you
[00:38:26] want to display a sign, we would ask at least that you go to
[00:38:29] the back so you're not uh in anybody's view. Uh let's see. I want
[00:38:35] to make sure I do not lose my spot. All right. Uh we will
[00:38:39] take recess. As we said, disruption of council meetings is prohibited pursuant to the
[00:38:43] law and policy set for the council protocol manual. We would like to hear
[00:38:48] from everyone in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Instead of clapping or
[00:38:52] jeering, consider the following. This is what we would ask. If you agree with
[00:38:57] the speaker's comments, please raise your thumbs up. If you disagree so everybody can
[00:39:02] see, go ahead and put your thumbs down. We raise uh we uh please
[00:39:06] raise your thumbs when needed. The city clerk will be calling up two names
[00:39:11] at a time. Please be present to speak when your name is called as
[00:39:15] we will try to move this meeting quickly to accommodate every one of you.
[00:39:21] Is there anything to add from any of my other council members? Yes, sir.
[00:39:27] >> Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. And just sort of build off what
[00:39:30] uh Mayor Alexander was talking about, we'll certainly take some breaks, but you might
[00:39:33] see one of us or all of us at some point step off the
[00:39:36] DIS. Um maybe use a restroom or something like that. Um, just know that
[00:39:41] there is technology in the back. It's super weird. You can go to the
[00:39:43] bathroom and actually still hear the people talking. So, we're we we will be
[00:39:47] able to hear you 100% of the time. >> Do you now understand why
[00:39:53] I had him do that comment? [laughter] >> Thank you very much, Council Member
[00:39:58] Zach Schwank. All right, with that being said, want to make sure um let's
[00:40:05] get a staff report if we can start out. Madame Mayor, City Council, I'd
[00:40:10] like to introduce Brandon Rabidu, the assistant director of community development to present on
[00:40:15] this item. >> Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council, residents, neighbors, and fellow businesses. Tonight,
[00:40:21] we're presenting on the SDG&E Golden Pacific Power Link project. But before we get
[00:40:26] started, we want to make sure we're providing some facts to the community so
[00:40:28] everywhere everyone is aware of what's going on with this project. We want to
[00:40:32] be clear and saying this is not a city project. The city is not
[00:40:35] a municipal utility. We do not have a utility. Um, this is not the
[00:40:39] city's project. We do not approve or deny transmission projects. We'll talk about who
[00:40:44] does in just a few moments. And additionally, we're sharing information we've been provided
[00:40:49] to us by SDG&E or San Diego Gas and Electric. And the city was
[00:40:54] made aware of the project in midappril 2026. And I'll share more about that
[00:40:57] timeline in just a few moments. We invited SDG&E and the California independent system
[00:41:04] operator to today's meeting. and we will give them an opportunity to share their
[00:41:08] thoughts as well. So why are we here? Clearly, this is a project of
[00:41:12] immense community concern. We want to provide transparency to the public. We want to
[00:41:18] provide an opportunity for the city council to hear from the public and one
[00:41:21] opportunity for the city council to communicate with each other and the public. And
[00:41:26] if desired, the city council can provide direction to staff on next steps for
[00:41:30] this specific project. We're going to go through a little bit of alphabet soup
[00:41:35] so everybody knows what the acronyms mean. We want to be clear and transparent
[00:41:39] with everyone. So the California Independent System Operator, Caseio, um is an organization. It's
[00:41:44] a nonprofit through the state of California and they manage the flow of energy
[00:41:48] within the state. Additionally, there's San Diego Gas and Electric, which is a regulated
[00:41:53] investor utility serving San Diego and Orange County. I want to be clear, SDG&E
[00:41:58] does not provide services to Temecula. Serra Energy is the parent company of SDG&E
[00:42:05] and the proposed project is called a extra high voltage transmission line. This is
[00:42:11] a standard to transmit 1,000 to 2,000 megawatts of energy which could power approximately
[00:42:16] 1 million to 1.5 million homes. It is also called a 500 kilovolt or
[00:42:22] 500 KV project. We talked a little bit about um the California Public Utilities
[00:42:28] Commission. We'll talk a little bit more about that in just a minute, but
[00:42:30] we call that the CPU. You'll also may hear a term the Federal Energy
[00:42:34] Regulatory Commission. That is the federal arm of the utility regulators. You may also
[00:42:40] hear the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as SQA. That is the environmental
[00:42:45] document that provides transparency, public uh input, and studies to back any type of
[00:42:50] project within the state of California. On the federal side, you have NEPA, which
[00:42:55] is the National Environmental Policy Act. Does something very similar to SQA in terms
[00:42:59] of transparency, communicating, studying to understand the impacts of a project. And then finally,
[00:43:05] the branding name for this project is called uh through SDG&E is called the
[00:43:09] Golden Pacific Power Link Project, which is a extra high voltage power line project.
[00:43:15] This isn't the first time the city's gone through a power line project. In
[00:43:20] March 20 uh March 23rd 2001, the Valley Rainbow Extra high voltage transmission project
[00:43:25] was submitted by SDG&E. This was a different alignment that's being than what is
[00:43:30] being proposed, but it was going through the city. On December 19th, 2002, the
[00:43:36] CPU, the California Public Utilities Commission, denied the project. They found that the project
[00:43:40] could not be justified and was not cost-effective to rateayers. on the current project
[00:43:47] that we're speaking about today. On May 18th, 2023, the Casio board approved the
[00:43:53] 2022 2023 transmission plan. This plan included a line called the Imperial Valley North
[00:44:01] of Songs. That's for the Sanopre nuclear generating station for those unfamiliar with that
[00:44:05] acronym. And that was for an extra high voltage transmission project or 500 KV
[00:44:10] project. On April 29th, 2024, the project was awarded to Horizon West. And in
[00:44:17] the summer of 2025, SDG&E assumed responsibility to build, own, and operate the new
[00:44:22] line. The city is unaware of any notifications from the California Infinite System operator
[00:44:28] to the city about the project. At that time in midappril 2026, the city
[00:44:35] started to receive emails from SDG and public relations firms hired by SDG&E about
[00:44:40] the Golden Pacific Power Link project. The graphic on the right of your screen
[00:44:45] is the initial graphic that was provided on the web page and it did
[00:44:48] not show any high voltage transmission lines going through Riverside County. The city manager
[00:44:54] being wise and been through these projects before directed staff to learn as much
[00:44:57] information as possible and to attend any outreach meetings. And just for clarity, the
[00:45:03] city added the red star on this map just to show you where Temecula's
[00:45:06] in proximity to the region. During that time, mailers from SDG&E went out to
[00:45:13] residents along the proposed or preliminary path, I should say. Um, these are an
[00:45:18] example of the mailers. There's no map on here. Um the image is not
[00:45:22] from the city of TMCA on the left. Um and I'm sure there'll be
[00:45:25] additional comments about that in the future, but that is what was sent out
[00:45:27] to folks around along the path. Then on April 15, 2026, a fact sheet
[00:45:34] showed the proposed extra high voltage transmission line following Temecula Parkway along Highway 79.
[00:45:39] As you can see, prior to in comparison to the prior graphic, this is
[00:45:43] now showing the proposed project going through Riverside County and Temecula. On April 24th,
[00:45:51] 2026, a meeting is scheduled with SDG&E, the mayor, and city staff to learn
[00:45:55] more about the project on May 4th, 2026. And at that meeting, SDG&E provided
[00:46:01] a presentation to staff. And the mayor and city staff shared that the preliminary
[00:46:05] route was of major concern. Concerns about the map being provided were also shared.
[00:46:10] It needed to be more transparent, clear to the public on what was going
[00:46:13] on. and we shared a litany of concerns related to public safety, hazards, insurance,
[00:46:19] squa, planning, evacuation routes, highf fire severity zones, economics, cultural resources, habitat, biology, and
[00:46:26] more. There was also a letter for concern from Mayor Promron. And at that
[00:46:33] meeting, we asked about alternative routes. No alternative routes were shared at that time.
[00:46:41] On May 5th and 6th, the city manager sent a letter to SDG to
[00:46:44] hold all records and notify the city of any future meetings. We also started
[00:46:50] to share information on social media. So on May 6th, the community was made
[00:46:55] aware of this project through the city's social media through various social media platforms
[00:46:59] and emails. On May 12th, 2026, the mayor sent a letter to SDG&E sharing
[00:47:05] concerns. And the mayor also invited SDG&E and Caseio to today's meeting. On May
[00:47:13] 12th and May 14th, SDG&E held community virtual openhouse meetings and there was hundreds
[00:47:19] of people that signed up for these meetings. We're not sure how many people
[00:47:21] attended multiple meetings, but for instance, one meeting had well over 300 people attending.
[00:47:28] On May 12th and 14th, a a new map was shared um at these
[00:47:32] community meetings. And this map actually showed an even more clear alignment of the
[00:47:37] propo preliminary um route going through Temecula Creek. Temecula Creek was shown as the
[00:47:44] preliminary route. And then SG SDG&E during their presentation to uh city staff provided
[00:47:52] this slide which you may see. Um again the city was notified at this
[00:47:57] fourth step in the transmission line planning process. Uh we were not notified in
[00:48:01] the first three steps. We're currently at the fourth step which is about to
[00:48:05] start environmental engineering and studies. At the next step, the California Environmental Quality Act
[00:48:12] and NEPA process or National Environmental Policy Act process um will begin. In terms
[00:48:18] of timeline, this is a slide that SDG&E has shared. We are currently where
[00:48:22] the red arrow is. We're at the virtual openhouse point, but SDG&E is stating
[00:48:27] that in summer fall 2026, there'll be in-person open houses. And then the process
[00:48:32] first starting state and federal permits will start shortly thereafter. So let's talk a
[00:48:38] little bit about the preliminary alignment. The red outline is the city limits that's
[00:48:41] been added by city staff from SDG&E's map. That is the boundary of Temecula.
[00:48:47] And you can see the blue dots on the screen that follow the Temecula
[00:48:50] Creek path. We understand from SDG&E that the preliminary route alignment is a 1,00
[00:48:56] ft corridor study. And we understand that the map shows again it's following Tameccha
[00:49:02] Creek within the city. As everyone is aware, Tameca Creek is surrounded by homes,
[00:49:08] parks, schools, and businesses. So, let's talk a little bit about what extra high
[00:49:15] voltage transmission lines look like and are. So, just to be clear on the
[00:49:19] terms that I'm using, I want to uh share with the public. When we
[00:49:23] talk about height, this is what we're talking about. When we talk about span,
[00:49:27] the distance between two transmission towers is what we're talking about. And we talk
[00:49:31] about right ofway or RO, that is what we're talking about. It's the land
[00:49:35] below the towers um that doesn't necessarily follow the footprint of the towers. It
[00:49:39] will it's usually larger than the actual footprint of the towers. So, what do
[00:49:44] these extra high voltage transmission lines look like? Well, they have height ranges between
[00:49:48] 125 ft to 91 ft. That's comparable to a 12 or 19 story building.
[00:49:55] So in comparison to existing buildings in the city limits, Abbott Vascular off of
[00:50:00] Overland Drive is a and uh is approximately five stories. Tameca Valley Hospital is
[00:50:06] a five-story project as well. The spans we discussed what those look like on
[00:50:13] the screen before. Spans are between 1,400 feet and 1,800 feet. For approximation, that's
[00:50:18] four to six football fields for the NFL. As mentioned earlier, the rightaway is
[00:50:23] approximately 200 to 250 ft. That was the red line that I showed earlier
[00:50:27] and it may be more depending on terrain. So, as we talk about these
[00:50:33] high extra high voltage transmission lines, we have questions and some of those are
[00:50:38] what do these look like in a residential or commercial area in terms of
[00:50:42] scale and and how does the massing look? The following examples are not in
[00:50:46] Temecula and many of these transmission lines existed prior to development occurring not after.
[00:50:53] There are various types of extra high voltage uh transmission line structures that may
[00:50:58] be utilized. They can change shape and form. So these are just examples. So
[00:51:03] this is in Ontario, California. You can see the scale of a single family
[00:51:07] home. That's a two-story home. And then transmission line in the middle of the
[00:51:11] screen. This is another example from Rancho Cukamonga for scale. This is an example
[00:51:22] from Dwarte. This is a commercial um office area of the high voltage transmission
[00:51:28] lines. So why is the project being proposed? According to SDG&E, it is for
[00:51:36] California electrification policies, grid reliability, and reducing transmission congestion. I mentioned earlier we talked
[00:51:46] about who actually approves these projects. The California Public Utilities Commission approves these projects,
[00:51:50] the CPU. And this information that's highlighted and quoted below is directly from CPU's
[00:51:57] website. I'll read just a brief excerpt of it. The CPU regulates investor-owned electrical
[00:52:02] utilities, which SDG&E is. And the CPU also approves the necessary certifications and permits
[00:52:08] for the construction of high voltage transmission lines. Anything above 50 kilovolts. What is
[00:52:15] the CPU? It's made up of five commissioners that are appointed by the governor
[00:52:19] of California, Gavin Newsome. And these appointments are confirmed by the state senate. The
[00:52:26] commissioners serve staggered six-year terms. So that's a little bit overview and facts about
[00:52:35] the presentation, but as we can see, we have a lot of community concerns
[00:52:38] and questions. So here are some of the questions we've already heard. What type
[00:52:44] of users will be served by these extra high voltage transmission lines? Industrial, commercial,
[00:52:48] and residential. What communities and areas will the project serve? Who is making the
[00:52:55] specific decisions where the preliminary route is going? Why was this selected as the
[00:53:00] preliminary route? Who benefits from the project? What are the other alternatives? How will
[00:53:10] Temecula and our community be included moving forward? And how will our stakeholders in
[00:53:15] our community be engaged? These are just a few of our stakeholders, but not
[00:53:18] all of them. And we also want to know what already has been studied.
[00:53:23] Again, I'm saying it again just for clarity purposes. This is not a city
[00:53:28] project. The city does not approve or deny transmission projects. So, today staff is
[00:53:35] looking for for direction from the city council to consider a resolution of position,
[00:53:40] conduct further research and requests for information or direct staff to and any other
[00:53:45] direction the city council deems appropriate. And with that, the QR code on the
[00:53:51] screen would allow residents or community members to submit their comments and make those
[00:53:56] available for the record. Additionally, we have SDG&E's web page available. Staff is available
[00:54:01] for questions, but obviously SDG&E will be coming up in the next presentation. They're
[00:54:05] available to answer questions. >> Outstanding. Thank you very much for that report. Great
[00:54:10] job. With that, I'd like to push that out to the council members here.
[00:54:16] Do we have any questions for our staff? >> Nothing at this time. Okay,
[00:54:22] I see nothing else at this time. Next, what we'd like to do is
[00:54:24] move into calling up SDG&E for their presentation. Are they here? SDG&E I think
[00:54:33] they're walking up right now. Excellent. Again, we want to thank them for their
[00:54:45] time for coming in today to be able to go over all of this
[00:54:49] information and um thank you. Thank you very much for is it the four
[00:55:03] of you? Three of four of you for coming back. I think I've met
[00:55:05] a couple of you from our last meeting. Uh thank you very much. I
[00:55:08] know the public is very excited to hear about what you have to say.
[00:55:11] Uh we're going to have a lot of questions and comments and so if
[00:55:15] we can just move forward and I'll give you guys the floor and we'll
[00:55:18] go from there. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh my name is Kevin Gity. I'm
[00:55:21] the chief operating officer for San Diego Gas and Electric. Uh appreciate this opportunity
[00:55:26] to have a discussion about the Golden Pacific Power Link. We think the way
[00:55:29] we'd like to address it is is Jeff of Billington from California Independent System
[00:55:34] Operator will talk about the need, how the line became to be something that
[00:55:38] our state selected, and then Erikica Martin from SDG will walk through just where
[00:55:42] we're at in the process of this initial routing. So, thank you. >> Good
[00:55:49] afternoon, Mayor and and counselors. Uh, as indicated, my name is Jeff Benton. I'm
[00:55:54] the director of transmission infrastructure planning at the California ISO. Um the California ISO
[00:56:01] conducts a transmission planning process on an annual basis. It's based upon our our
[00:56:07] FIR order tariff. Um it's an open and transparent process um through throughout um
[00:56:15] and like I said, it's an annual process. It's currently effectively about a 15-month
[00:56:20] process that does have overlap of each of the years. Um and one of
[00:56:25] the main inputs or two of the main inputs actually um come from the
[00:56:29] state agencies. The ISO has memorandum understanding that was renewed in in 2022 um
[00:56:36] with the California Public Utilities Commission and the California um Energy Commission in that
[00:56:43] it's to to really tighten the linkages of resource planning, transmission planning, interconnection and
[00:56:50] procurement of resources. um and planning the transmission system reliably to meet the the
[00:56:57] load growth. And so the California Energy Commission is responsible for the state's load
[00:57:02] forecast which they provide to ourselves and the California Public Utilities Commission which is
[00:57:08] used. So it's consistent planning for the resource and transmission needs within the system
[00:57:13] or in within the state and the California Public Utilities Commission is responsible for
[00:57:18] the resource planning and through their integrated resource plan they develop the portfolios of
[00:57:24] resources that we utilize um in our transmission planning. Um, and through that process
[00:57:31] in the 2022, as as staff indicated, the California ISO in the 2022 2023
[00:57:40] transmission planning process and within the transmission plan identified the need for transmission um
[00:57:48] to to meet the load growth and the um make in terms of the
[00:57:54] resources that were identified within those portfolios to meet the reliability and state goals.
[00:58:00] Um the need for for transmission projects the the line and in the transmission
[00:58:07] plan it's identified as the Imperial Valley to north of Songs transmission plan. It
[00:58:12] is the one that is now being referred to as the uh Golden Pacific
[00:58:16] Power Link. Um it is one of the transmission projects that was identified within
[00:58:21] the transmission plan um to to reliably supply the load that is continuing to
[00:58:28] grow within uh the state as well as particularly along the the uh the
[00:58:34] coastal system with the renewable and the resources that are needed to meet those
[00:58:40] from a reliable point of view. um to transmit th that power um to
[00:58:45] to deliver to those loads. And so through that the need was developed in
[00:58:51] terms of for for that going through the analysis um was selected in terms
[00:58:56] of that a 500 KV line um for this project from the Imperial Valley
[00:59:01] area to to what's referred to as the north of Songs uh substation that
[00:59:07] will tie into the 230 KB system on the coast in that area. Um
[00:59:12] and through through the transmission planning process once that project was the need was
[00:59:17] identified um and through our board in terms of the transmission plan um we
[00:59:23] go out for on a project of this nature for competitive solicitation for the
[00:59:27] projects um going through that process um looking in terms of for developer to
[00:59:34] to identify um to meet the functional specification and the the technical requirements and
[00:59:42] from the point of delivery to to the interconnection point. Um that that um
[00:59:48] in a in a cost-effective manner um giving consideration in terms of of the
[00:59:54] um affordability and efficient in terms of alternatives to meet the needs to to
[01:00:00] reliably um develop in terms of the system in in in the California system.
[01:00:07] And so that was the the um as the staff indicated, San Diego Gas
[01:00:12] and Electric secured um the project and are proceeding with the project based upon
[01:00:18] the needs that were identified within the 2022 2023 transmission plan and and the
[01:00:24] functional specifications that were identified um as a part of that transmission plan. I'll
[01:00:30] I'll turn it over to to Erica. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Hello,
[01:00:39] my name is Erikica Martin. I'm the director of project development for uh SDG&E
[01:00:43] on the Golden Pacific Power Link. Uh I'm going to walk through some slides,
[01:00:47] although I'll say that the staff report covered a lot of background and helpful
[01:00:51] information that I don't need to repeat, although you'll see some of it in
[01:00:55] the slides. We can move more quickly through it. Um, and since we had
[01:01:00] uh we had Jeff here cover the need from Kaiso in the transmission plan,
[01:01:04] I won't go back through that either, and I'll I'll keep an eye on
[01:01:08] on the time. So, we talked uh Mr. Billington covered the statewide transmission planning
[01:01:18] process that occurred before the need for the project was identified and the Kaiso
[01:01:24] annual transmission plan that identified the project. Those steps you can see on this
[01:01:29] slide, they're the first three arrows up there and that's that statewide transmission planning
[01:01:34] process. That gray arrow is where we are now. And although it looks like
[01:01:39] we're at the end of a process, what we're at now is the very
[01:01:43] beginning of the routing and sighting process, the development of the project, beginning with
[01:01:48] SDG&E as Mr. Billington described um securing the rights to the project after a
[01:01:54] competitive solicitation as the staff reviewed and working to refine and develop the project.
[01:02:01] When once we've completed this early development process which includes engineering studies, technical studies,
[01:02:07] environmental studies um and significantly community outreach which is what we're doing here and
[01:02:14] what we have what we will continue to do for the next several months
[01:02:18] then we will submit an application to the CPU and in addition to their
[01:02:22] transmission planning responsibilities they have ultimate responsibility over the routing and sighting for the
[01:02:28] line and they will review in a formal regulatory process both um both our
[01:02:35] proposal and they will also conduct the SQA or the California Environmental Quality Act
[01:02:40] review for the project and they will determine both if the project will be
[01:02:45] built and or where it will be built. And so I'd really like to
[01:02:51] impress upon you all that this is very early in the process that we
[01:02:56] are we have not submitted that permit application yet and once it goes to
[01:02:59] the CPU that is a lengthy regulatory and environmental review process where routing and
[01:03:05] environmental and community concerns are discussed and considered. So just a review and I'll
[01:03:14] go through this um relatively quickly. Uh SDG&E's project goals are first and foremost
[01:03:20] to design and build the project that Kaiso identified in the transmission plan. Any
[01:03:25] project, any proposal has to meet Kaiso's project objectives or we don't have a
[01:03:30] project that includes uh this the origination and the end point of the project.
[01:03:35] Uh starting in Imperial Valley, an existing substation there, and ending in that new
[01:03:40] substation that will be built by Horizon West, uh somewhere north of the Song's
[01:03:45] generating plant. And so the goals of Kaiso are are our goals here including
[01:03:54] delivering a project in a cost of effective way um because ultimately this project
[01:04:00] um the costs are borne by the rate payers in California and that's all
[01:04:04] of the rate payers of the investorowned utilities PG& Edison SDG&E all of those
[01:04:11] customers uh have the benefit of the transmission system and so all of those
[01:04:15] customers will bear a share of the costs for this project. And so a
[01:04:20] top consideration will be the affordability, how much uh when we design and route
[01:04:26] the project, considering the costs that would be associated with design and the route.
[01:04:30] And I'll just note as part of that um that we know from our
[01:04:34] experience uh owning and operating transmission system that the largest driver of costs for
[01:04:40] the transmission line is the length of the line. Each additional mile that's added
[01:04:45] adds construction and material costs and that's the biggest needle mover for determining what
[01:04:51] the cost will ultimately be. And so um that's one of the considerations as
[01:04:56] we're looking at developing the most cost-effective project that we can. And then we
[01:05:02] um also heard that Kaiso has set a target inservice date for this project
[01:05:07] of 2032. So that's the date that we're working to meet with our project
[01:05:12] timeline. Here's a map of the area without the line on it showing the
[01:05:20] starting and end points as identified in that 22 23 transmission plan by Kaiso.
[01:05:26] That red triangle is the existing substation in Imperial Valley. And the white triangle
[01:05:32] up in the northwest corner is an approximate location of the new substation. Since
[01:05:38] that is being built uh by another developer, we we are not here to
[01:05:44] talk about that. We don't have that location to provide to you today, but
[01:05:48] we do know that it will be north of that song's generating station. And
[01:05:55] this I think you've already seen. This is the preliminary proposed routing corridor. This
[01:06:01] is the starting point. And when I mentioned earlier that we're at the beginning
[01:06:05] of that routing and sighting process, this is where we're starting. No final decisions
[01:06:11] have been made. We are at the beginning of the study and analysis of
[01:06:15] this route. We're at the beginning of really hearing public comment on this route.
[01:06:19] Uh but this is the starting point for us to continue to refine and
[01:06:24] develop. I know that it is this is a very high level map um
[01:06:28] and that is because our development and engineering is also at a very high
[01:06:33] level stage at this point. Our continued public outreach and stakeholder conversations as the
[01:06:40] project develops will continue to provide more detailed information as it becomes available. Oops,
[01:06:49] wrong way. And so this uh highlights the segment that's in Temecula also still
[01:06:58] very high level but it shows some of the topography and the features of
[01:07:01] the map just to give a better understanding of the portion that is in
[01:07:06] Riverside County and that passes through the city of Temecula. It's approximately 5 miles
[01:07:12] of the current proposed alignment. Um and the the corridor as was mentioned earlier
[01:07:18] is still 1,000 ft. That's not ultimately what the right of way would be
[01:07:23] even if the alignment didn't change. That's just a very wide steady corridor for
[01:07:28] us as we're continuing to understand what potential impacts might be, what our concerns
[01:07:33] and questions and how can we incorporate that into the design and development of
[01:07:38] our project. Here is again the timeline of the project. And you've heard us
[01:07:49] talk about each of these pieces a couple times. I I also want to
[01:07:53] reiterate the in-person public meetings that will be held in the late summer and
[01:07:59] fall. Uh we don't have the dates for those yet or the locations. We're
[01:08:04] using the information that we gather in this early public outreach process to identify
[01:08:09] the places where those need to happen and um the folks that we need
[01:08:13] to hear more from especially as there is more information that's available about the
[01:08:18] project and the status of it. Um we do know that things will change,
[01:08:23] information will change and we want to continue to communicate out about that. Those
[01:08:30] public meetings will be an opportunity for us to communicate and for the community
[01:08:34] the community to communicate with us. We will plan to file our project application
[01:08:40] before the end of this year. Another opportunity for us to communicate with agency
[01:08:46] oversight and for the formal record of the proceeding before the CPU to begin
[01:08:52] and to have public comment on the record and public participation. Those are additional
[01:08:56] opportunities for communities and stakeholders to be involved. And again, we are shooting for
[01:09:01] a construction timeline in the fall of 2029 and an inservice date in 2032.
[01:09:10] Um, I think I've got some information on here for you all to contact
[01:09:15] us. I think you also have that. I'll just end by saying um that
[01:09:21] we understand the questions and the concerns that are raised by a project like
[01:09:27] this and that is exactly why we are out holding virtual open houses and
[01:09:33] public open houses to be able to hear and take that feedback. We're grateful
[01:09:39] for the time. We're grateful for the input. We'd like to keep the dialogue
[01:09:42] open. Thank you. I want to thank you all so far. I know we
[01:09:47] have some questions coming up, but again, I want to thank you guys for
[01:09:50] coming out here, being able to present this, and allowing the community to be
[01:09:53] able to be heard and have questions as well. So, with that being said,
[01:09:58] I would like to start opening this up with our council first, as we
[01:10:02] always do, with questions. uh as the mayor today I have some questions that
[01:10:06] I would like to lead with and if anybody whether Kaiso or SDG&E would
[01:10:11] like to be able to come up and answer any of these questions that
[01:10:15] would be great. So thank you very much. So first I'd like to start
[01:10:19] off by asking a question regarding the planning and the transparency of this project
[01:10:24] so we can ensure that the council and the public fully understand all of
[01:10:28] the options tonight. Queso, I believe you're in the house. if you can come
[01:10:32] up just for a minute. Uh can you please share on the primary maps
[01:10:36] and full bids submitted by Queso in 2023 for this project? They received four
[01:10:44] bids specifically from Horizon West, SDG&EC, and California Grid. Of all the bids, Queso
[01:10:55] picked Horizon West map, which Queso has revealed was the only primary map going
[01:11:01] through our city of Temecula. All of the other biders maps went through open
[01:11:07] spaces and not through populations. >> Okay, remember up or down? And although Horizon
[01:11:17] West won the bid, you gave it the route over to SDG&E if I
[01:11:23] was correct on that. So, we'd like to see what SDG&E's original 153 mile
[01:11:29] route that did not go through the urban areas of Temecula as well as
[01:11:33] the other maps from the biders that did not go through the urban area
[01:11:36] of our city. Would you by any chance have those today? I know that
[01:11:40] we had asked for them before. Um I I don't have copies of those
[01:11:46] in terms of with me. >> Okay. So we want to respect everybody. I
[01:11:49] know >> those the we do provide in terms of a selection document >> that's
[01:11:55] posted on our on our website. The the full bids themselves um have significant
[01:12:02] amount of confidentiality and and that within the bids um and so those have
[01:12:07] not been made available. Um we like I said is is we do make
[01:12:12] available a selection report. Um I will note as we go through the the
[01:12:18] uh selection process there there's a number of factors that are taken into consideration
[01:12:24] to come up with the selection of the winning the the awarded bid. um
[01:12:30] looking at in terms of um rightaway being one component costs and and a
[01:12:38] number of other factors with regards to the to the biders. So um that
[01:12:43] is that is all a part of the analysis and for those components the
[01:12:48] the individual bids themselves are are um confidential with the exception of what we
[01:12:54] have provided within the selection. um reports. >> Okay. Would any of my council
[01:13:02] members like to ask a question on that one directly? Yes. >> Yes, I
[01:13:05] would. Um you didn't answer the question of Yeah. [applause] Why was that route
[01:13:15] selected? I don't care about the bids. I don't care how much money it
[01:13:18] was going to cost. Why was that particular route selected? going through a dense
[01:13:26] residential area >> uh down a environmentally uh delicate stream bed. Um and Temecula
[01:13:42] is known as a hot air balloon community. So, how in the world can
[01:13:48] hot air balloons exist with 200 foot towers of high uh power going through
[01:13:55] it? I mean, it it makes zero sense to me. And so, that's what
[01:14:00] I want to answer to. I could care less about the bottom line. Tell
[01:14:03] me why it came to me. Well, as as I indicated, the the routing
[01:14:10] is one of the factors when going through of the selection. And so taking
[01:14:16] into consideration of of all of the factors, it was determined that at the
[01:14:22] the the bid that was selected um was the the um taking all of
[01:14:29] that into consideration the the appropriate the appropriate um alternative or selection or or
[01:14:37] proposal to proceed with. So, so when a hot air balloon and and it
[01:14:43] happens often, you see it on the news, hot air balloons hit those how
[01:14:48] power lines because you're at the mercy of the wind. So, you don't always
[01:14:52] have the ability to outmaneuver a power line. And so, therefore, you're putting and
[01:14:58] I if if someone were to die with those power lines, I'll be the
[01:15:03] first one to support whoever is going to sue you guys forever. >> [applause]
[01:15:12] >> All right. Thank you. Thank you for your question, Mr. Mayor. Prom, we
[01:15:18] need to just keep it to questions, guys. We'll have our time for comments,
[01:15:20] but thank you very much, Sue. >> Boy, I don't envy your position here.
[01:15:26] Um, so just following up on on the mayor's original question, your selection criteria,
[01:15:33] there's a lot, but it's it's a bit of a black box when it
[01:15:36] comes to the public or or even our city understanding why this particular alignment
[01:15:41] or why that particular project was selected uh of the four. Um but in
[01:15:47] that criteria and what you do have on your website talks not just about
[01:15:52] you know the the alignments themselves and different proposals but it specifically mentioned um
[01:15:57] local opposition uh in in its analysis along with cost um and the only
[01:16:04] local opposition in any of the bids as I understand it there's only one
[01:16:08] urban area it's going through which is you know the city of Temecula. So,
[01:16:12] how ho how does and and if you could also clarify because we've heard
[01:16:16] several different uh descriptors of what I I always say cal IO but what
[01:16:21] the agency how you prefer to be called but if you could explain to
[01:16:25] us how how did you come up to this decision given that those don't
[01:16:30] seem like you know criteria when you and the CUPC CPU and others are
[01:16:37] supposed to select the environmentally superior alternative in this analysis Well, that's that's one
[01:16:44] of the components and and as Erica indicated that is identified as preliminary and
[01:16:51] does will go through the SQL process with the CPU for the uh detailed
[01:16:57] permitting and routing. um a preferred alternative will be submitted by the proponent um
[01:17:04] as well as alternatives are required and they'll go through the the EIR in
[01:17:08] terms of the uh environmental re review um to determine as to what a
[01:17:14] final route will be. Okay, but it didn't answer the the question again. I
[01:17:21] I I I don't understand how I know this is frustrating but just bear
[01:17:24] with me here. No, no. >> How opposition comes into the selection criteria like
[01:17:30] that's specifically mentioned on your website. So why was that even discussed as part
[01:17:35] of why you would or how you would select a project? That doesn't seem
[01:17:38] like a criteria that should be considered by the state of California. Well, as
[01:17:44] we look at in terms of the the preliminary proposed routing um as like
[01:17:50] I said, one of the factors um that that gets weighed as we look
[01:17:57] at it. And so as we're looking at um which alternative or which um
[01:18:03] project sponsors project to proceed with, we give consideration to to that routing um
[01:18:11] and to like I said in terms of other factors which include costs which
[01:18:15] includes the uh track records of the the biders um cost containment that is
[01:18:22] determined within the the bid um and and like I said is all of
[01:18:26] that is outlined within the selection report that is publicly available and posted on
[01:18:32] our website um with the selection um of the the project sponsor. >> Okay.
[01:18:40] >> All right. All right. Thank you very much for your question. I believe
[01:18:43] Council Member Brenda Kelus. >> Yes. Thank you. Uh this question is for yourself
[01:18:48] as well as SDG&E. Um as was said, this wasn't your original route that
[01:18:53] you submitted. My question would be if you can't tell us due to confidentiality
[01:18:58] of what your original route was, can you explain to us why you believe
[01:19:02] that going through this route initially wasn't in the best interest of SDG&E since
[01:19:07] that was not submitted on your initial proposal? Uh that's a that is a
[01:19:18] a challenging question to answer because we have we we have uh we are
[01:19:23] in a different phase of the project now. We have um we are refining
[01:19:27] and developing the project that we acquired in the this past summer of 2025.
[01:19:33] I will say that we have spent a lot of time looking at the
[01:19:37] different ways to get from Imperial Valley to north of Songs and we know
[01:19:41] that there are alternatives in different segments of the line and those alternatives will
[01:19:48] be submitted to the CPU for their review. Also there it is a challenge
[01:19:56] to say the least to get about 140 miles from Imperial Valley to the
[01:20:01] north of Songs. There are a number of considerations that we have to weigh
[01:20:06] for a pro for a proposal as well as for alternatives. Kaiso's project objectives
[01:20:11] are the first. There's constructibility and feasibility. Where can the towers go? Where can
[01:20:18] they where does the topography allow them to be built? where is there space
[01:20:22] to put them? Um, there's cost. We talked about affordability and length. There's environmental
[01:20:27] concerns that need to be studied in a transparent and public way. We haven't
[01:20:31] completed that yet. There are community concerns. There are cultural resource concerns. All of
[01:20:36] those are potential impacts that will go into both a proposal and an alternatives
[01:20:42] analysis that will be submitted as part of our of part of our application.
[01:20:48] that will be a chance for us to share what what we think about
[01:20:54] those alternatives and that route and then ultimately it will be the CPU that
[01:20:59] studies and analyzes it to determine what actually should get built and where it
[01:21:04] should go. And I I I know that's it's a hard um that's a
[01:21:09] hard answer. Um, but because we're in this preliminary phase of development, I don't
[01:21:14] I I wish I could be more concrete, but I think that those that
[01:21:18] additional information will be part of our public outreach process. >> Absolutely. And just
[01:21:23] a follow-up question on that, would it be fair to say that your original
[01:21:27] bid that you guys would like to win, right? because that's millions of dollars
[01:21:30] in cost generated for your private entity. You believe that the route that you
[01:21:35] submitted was the best for your shareholders at that time in order to win
[01:21:38] the bid. >> If if we didn't believe that, we wouldn't have submitted it.
[01:21:43] >> Thank you. >> Okay, to go. >> Yes, please go. >> Thank you,
[01:21:50] Madam Mayor. I'm just trying to build off of your question because I have
[01:21:53] several questions and trying to figure out where they're going to align. But if
[01:21:56] we're talking about planning, we're talking about maps. Um you had mentioned that this
[01:22:00] is like the very early stages of this process. It doesn't feel that way.
[01:22:04] Um when we received emails in April, um it feels like very late in
[01:22:08] the game, right? [applause] So So my question is just essentially like why does
[01:22:14] this feel so late to us when you're saying it's like hey this is
[01:22:17] just the beginning, you know, it doesn't feel that way from from our perspective.
[01:22:23] And looking back at the timeline, there's three years between the start and where
[01:22:27] we are now. And to get an email in April just seems um doesn't
[01:22:32] seem like it's the beginning of the process. So I don't know who'd like
[01:22:34] to answer that or or speak to that. >> Yeah, I I understand that.
[01:22:38] Um and it it feels like that in some ways to us as well
[01:22:42] because the competitive solicitation process started in 2023. Um and and we were a
[01:22:48] bidder in that. And so we know that the need for the project has
[01:22:51] been identified for a couple of years. The awareness of the project in the
[01:22:55] public also has been this is a unique process for an electric infrastructure project
[01:23:01] for SDG&E and I think you know relatively in the state in this transmission
[01:23:06] plan there were three projects that went through the competitive solicitation projects. Many of
[01:23:11] the other ones, the rest of the other 42 projects um did not go
[01:23:16] through this process, but this extends the timeline. There is a transmission plan, there
[01:23:21] is a bidding, there's an awarding of the project, and then there's a project
[01:23:26] development phase because whatever is submitted in the comp the competitive solicitation process is
[01:23:32] extremely high level and it's a bid. It's not a fully developed, fully engineered
[01:23:37] project. So since that project was awarded originally to Horizon West and then it
[01:23:43] was acquired by SDG&E in July of last year there has been some development
[01:23:49] of the project but really we've taken it up in earnest at 9 months
[01:23:54] ago. Um and so in order to know have any information to share even
[01:23:59] a highlevel public route we needed to take that time to understand what it
[01:24:05] could be these these very preliminary engineering studies technical studies that's what we've been
[01:24:11] working on for the past nine months in order to have something to to
[01:24:16] share. It's uh there are many questions that we get where we don't have
[01:24:20] specific answers to them because we have not developed the project to a high
[01:24:26] level of engineering or sighting and because we are so early in the process.
[01:24:32] So um I know that does those are a lot of steps that all
[01:24:38] took a lot of time. I understand that that would feel that this this
[01:24:42] project has been out there for a long time, but I just have to
[01:24:45] emphasize again how much more there is of the process to come. We uh
[01:24:52] when we're submitting an application to the CPU, we don't usually start um with
[01:24:57] public outreach 6 months or more before we file because we usually like to
[01:25:03] know a lot more about the writing, about the routing, about the structures, about
[01:25:08] the impacts, um because it does make it easier to provide information and to
[01:25:12] have that dialogue. But given the size of this project, the places where the
[01:25:17] route currently goes, the questions that we knew would come up, we made a
[01:25:22] decision to have these discussions earlier before we have uh even settled on what
[01:25:28] our proposal will be to the CPU before the CPU does their public outreach.
[01:25:34] And so that's that's years to come. So there is, as I said earlier,
[01:25:39] lots of opportunities for participation. Written comment, oral comment, on the record, off the
[01:25:45] record to us. There are lots of opportunities for continued engagement. >> All righty.
[01:25:50] And I believe if if you want to just stay at the podium one
[01:25:53] more time. Sorry. Believe I have one more question from Mayor Prom. >> I
[01:25:59] should have brought a bigger water bottle. >> If you need more water, let
[01:26:02] us know, please. >> You some. >> Okay. So, so the maps that are
[01:26:06] they're provided are like a, you know, treasure map on the back of a
[01:26:11] Yeah. >> You know, thank you. >> restaurants, you know, placemat, right? But, but
[01:26:16] you the >> Caliso and SDG&E aren't making decisions on that. You have a
[01:26:23] lot more detail in in these and and specifically running along some of the
[01:26:29] alignments that we're most familiar with in our our backyard. There's only one place
[01:26:34] you can put a line of that magnitude and it's along the Temecula Creek.
[01:26:38] So you have higher level engineering and drawings and details than than what you're
[01:26:43] providing us today. >> Uh we we really do not we are actively studying
[01:26:48] those things. We have identified using a map that that high level those high
[01:26:53] level locations. Now we need to go out and do field surveys. We need
[01:26:57] to do LAR and and check those physical locations. We need to send out
[01:27:01] um biologists and other folks to go out and do field surveys for those
[01:27:06] to identify habitat. >> I understand how that works because I actually used to
[01:27:10] do that for a living. >> But what I'm wondering is like your your
[01:27:14] alignments don't have a lot of wiggle room around them. You're not going to
[01:27:18] put it into a neighborhood with existing houses. You're not going to put it
[01:27:21] in the middle of a street or a freeway. So, so you're already selecting
[01:27:25] areas where you know you have a high likelihood of placing the alignment. So,
[01:27:31] what I'm asking is why wasn't that information shared with the city early on
[01:27:37] in this process? And and I'll also say, you know, no clapping. Come on,
[01:27:42] let's keep it together. I'll I'll also say when you when you came to
[01:27:45] the city's meetings, you provided and brought forward every map except the map of
[01:27:51] the city of Temecula. Now, but I also have it on good authority that
[01:27:56] you did the same to tribes in San Diego County when you met with
[01:28:00] them and had missing maps of their specific tribal territory. So, >> I'm having
[01:28:07] a hard time understanding how this is a community outreach process. It's open. It's
[01:28:12] transparent. you're trying to get, you know, the feel of of what's going on
[01:28:16] when you're showing up to meetings with mi municipalities and tribes and and other
[01:28:21] entities who are going to be impacted the most by these projects, knowing full
[01:28:26] well where these alignments are and not divulging exactly what you know about those
[01:28:30] alignments. >> Uh I I'll say on the meeting with the city that was
[01:28:34] a display problem in a PowerPoint slide and and so that it was it
[01:28:40] just wasn't clear. is a highlevel map but it wasn't uh it was not
[01:28:45] at all an attempt to leave out information and we offered to come back
[01:28:49] and correct that and we haven't had that opportunity yet. We are providing the
[01:28:54] information that we do have what we do know and I I don't know
[01:28:59] what you're referring to in terms of the tribal meetings. We have tried to
[01:29:02] be very open and transparent and and that sort of goes back to my
[01:29:05] earlier point about how we get asked questions about really specific location of sighting
[01:29:11] and exactly where will the right of way be and we don't have an
[01:29:14] answer because we genuinely don't have an answer. We don't know but we want
[01:29:19] to understand what are the concerns, what are those specific areas, uh questions, issue
[01:29:26] things that we don't know about that are on the ground. We're looking at
[01:29:30] maps. We're going to go out and look in the field to engineer it,
[01:29:33] but we also need to know from the folks who are there what are
[01:29:37] those things that we need to know that helps us to site to even
[01:29:40] understand where it could be cited. That's why we have a thousand ft corridor
[01:29:45] of a place where it might go. But again, this is no final decisions
[01:29:49] are made. No routing has been finalized by us or by ultimately the state
[01:29:55] agency that will make that decision. Okay, good. All righty. Thank you for answering
[01:30:01] that. I'm going to ask some questions here because I know a lot of
[01:30:05] these questions are probably things that the public is going to ask. But what's
[01:30:10] a really good thing right now is we have these wonderful individuals here who
[01:30:14] are going to help answer those questions. So, everybody can get those questions answered.
[01:30:18] So, with that, uh, I'll just leave it ended open for anybody who would
[01:30:22] like to answer this. Uh independent real estate valuation data shows the placing of
[01:30:27] high voltage corridors near residential parcels can slash properties and empty lots values to
[01:30:35] up to 50%. How does SDG&E plan to financially compensate Temecula property owners, developers,
[01:30:43] and municipal tax base for immediate destruction of the of the residents family wealth
[01:30:49] and hard-earned property investments? >> [applause] >> So, we really hope to design a
[01:31:03] project that limits any direct impact to private property. That that is all that
[01:31:09] is our that is certainly our goal. And because we don't know the route
[01:31:13] yet and we don't know if or what those impacts might be, it's hard
[01:31:17] to answer that question. However, we prefer to work with any private land owners
[01:31:23] and um understand concerns, understand what impacts might be and the type of property
[01:31:32] or the value of property uh if that is where the the project routing
[01:31:36] leads. So, we would interact directly with that property owner to understand what their
[01:31:41] concerns and damages might be and then we would go from there. Thank you
[01:31:48] for that answer. >> Any of my colleagues have any other questions about property
[01:31:55] value? Yes, sir. >> No, not property value. >> Not property value. Anybody to
[01:31:58] my left? Seeing none, I'll go to my next question and thank you very
[01:32:01] much. Our city's economic growth relies on vibrant housing, business, and new construction. What
[01:32:09] developer will buy empty? Will a developer buy empty lots or building uh family
[01:32:14] residential tracks directly under a 500 KV corridor? And how will you offset the
[01:32:22] long-term economic strategization? I cannot say that word today. This project forces into the
[01:32:31] fi uh the fiscal security of Temecula's families. Thank you for that opportunity. Um,
[01:32:42] we work with developers frequently along our two 230,000 volt lines or 500,000 volt
[01:32:48] lines. So, I can assure you home development projects are continuing in around those
[01:32:52] type of assets. However, they value those uh what they ultimately develop them for
[01:32:58] is really up for those individual speculators. But we have not seen the existing
[01:33:02] transmission lines in San Diego County or Orange County actually prevent development of housing.
[01:33:08] >> Okay. Any of my colleagues have anything? I just wait. I might have
[01:33:12] you ask the next answer the next question. Anything? >> I do have a
[01:33:15] question on that, mayor. >> Yes, please go ahead. >> Uh, with that being
[01:33:17] said, in regards to developers, the city of Temecula, especially in this corridor, is
[01:33:21] already developed. Um, the homes are already built. So, in this area, I'm not
[01:33:26] concerned about develops coming in. I'm more worried about and concerned about the the
[01:33:30] current property owners there and [applause] and I understand that you work with the
[01:33:36] private homeowners. Um, but has SDG ever done a study on the equity lost
[01:33:42] near these transmission lines? And if so, have they reimbursed these homeowners for the
[01:33:47] equity that they lost? >> I'm not familiar with that. Um, we have I
[01:33:53] would say we have very public line sighting processes here in the state of
[01:33:57] California and uh within those documents we may be able to find examples where
[01:34:01] that has been done historically. It's not uncommon to study that. >> Thank you.
[01:34:06] >> Thank you very much uh Mr. Kus. Okay sir, maybe you can help
[01:34:10] us with this one. So Temecula is the most important thing for us besides
[01:34:18] our residents is their safety. So I want to ask this question. Temecula is
[01:34:23] completely surrounded by high fire risk zones. During a wildfire, minutes matter. A lowflying
[01:34:32] firefight firefighting helicopters are our primary defense. How can SDG&E justify stringing massive high
[01:34:42] voltage lines and towers directly through our airspace knowing they can create a deadly
[01:34:49] physical barrier that can and probably will actively threaten lives, property, and total financial
[01:34:57] investments of our citizens. Can you help me understand that [applause] >> we don't
[01:35:03] think there's a lack of coexistence there? We work in very detailed ways with
[01:35:07] our firefighting communities to have that awareness, co-rain with them, etc. Right. Um, just
[01:35:14] this weekend, and folks may or may not be aware of this, there was
[01:35:17] the tank um up in Orange County, right? That behind the scenes almost nobody
[01:35:22] knows Edison had to deenergize several transmission lines associated with that. This interconnectedness of
[01:35:28] the grid in moments like that matter. Now, while the temperature was really very
[01:35:32] cool, had that showed up in 100 degree days, it would have been a
[01:35:36] very big deal. And so, these transmission lines have to be weighed on totally
[01:35:40] how they provide for a community, the reliability, and the benefit. This line in
[01:35:44] most likely scenarios will provide resiliency in wildfire space. But I will also tell
[01:35:49] you, it's one of the main reasons we wanted to step in and build
[01:35:52] this transmission line is we think SDG is the world's best operator of transmission
[01:35:56] lines in high fire threats area. And one of the reasons I will tell
[01:36:00] you that is personally I live in a high-f threat area. I have 230,000
[01:36:04] volts line half a mile either side of my home. Right? And so this
[01:36:08] is not something our teams take lightly in building assets like this in wildfire
[01:36:13] spaces. But what I will tell the community, wherever the line ends up being,
[01:36:18] it will be safe, it will be reliable, and its fire safety will be
[01:36:22] the top thing for SG&. >> Thank you for that. And I believe some
[01:36:27] of my council members have other questions. Yes, sir. >> Well, just following up
[01:36:32] on the thread of of uh wildfire risk. Um I having spent the better
[01:36:39] part of my career working on wildfire and wildland urban interface uh projects and
[01:36:44] specifically research on community resilience. Um it's I can unequivocally say that this project
[01:36:55] creates a significant risk of of fire within the community and the surrounding area.
[01:37:00] um you know and and I' I'd love to hear why you think that's
[01:37:05] not the case because you know and and I understand that you SDG now
[01:37:10] consider considers itself a leader in in you know wildfire resilience and and and
[01:37:16] uh you know safety of the grid but y'all were also responsible for the
[01:37:21] Witch and Gujito fire in 2007 that burned down a significant part of >> San
[01:37:26] Diego County and caused by a line like this though. No, not okay. We
[01:37:30] can talk about the, you know, severity because the relative risk of these lines
[01:37:34] really does matter. These lines are almost never ever the source of ignition or
[01:37:40] wildfire. Never. >> Almost. Almost never. >> Disagree with you on that on a
[01:37:45] national scale. >> We shouldn't disagree. I think what we should provide is facts
[01:37:49] that where fires happen, it is in the lower voltage and as you get
[01:37:53] them into these structures almost never because of how high they are and how
[01:37:57] far the wires are away from each other. That's just a fact. Almost never.
[01:38:03] >> Almost never. >> All right, we're going to we're going to disagree on
[01:38:05] that point. >> We don't have to disagree. I'll I'll provide you that study
[01:38:08] of the individual line level. >> I would love to see it and I'll
[01:38:11] be happy to provide you others as well. Yeah, >> but you know what
[01:38:15] what surprises me is how cavalier, you know, you are with the wildfire issue
[01:38:19] because it's a serious threat. And placing this type of infrastructure in our community
[01:38:24] not only enhances that that risk uh in in a pre-existing high-f fire risk
[01:38:30] zone, but it severely impedes the ability of our fire department to actually respond
[01:38:36] to those incidents because of the high voltage lines and because of the air
[01:38:40] attack and other, you know, resources that they're going to bring in. you're placing
[01:38:45] this in specifically in the zone that poses some of the highest threat to
[01:38:50] the city of Temecula. The other piece too is firefighters generally don't like fighting
[01:38:56] fire under high tension power lines um when there's a fire going on in
[01:39:00] a creek where these lines are placed. So, I I'm just I'm finding it
[01:39:05] really hard to understand how you're saying, "Well, this isn't a a fire problem
[01:39:08] because there's layers of issues that, you know, that we're just simply not going
[01:39:14] to be able to handle um when it comes to fire risk for Temecula."
[01:39:18] >> Mayor Prom, I'm sorry if any way, shape, or form I came off
[01:39:21] as cavalier. This is the number one thing we worry about every day and
[01:39:24] we've worried about every day since 2007. And in 19 years, STG has not
[01:39:29] started wildfire. And what I can tell you is when we carefully examine the
[01:39:32] facts, which I will provide to you, 500,000 volt lines do not start ignitions,
[01:39:38] they do not. Okay? And that's just a simple matter of fact, right? And
[01:39:42] so we don't have to disagree about that, right? The the benefits of often
[01:39:47] lines like this come in in the rights away or fire breaks that they
[01:39:51] can cause, right? We coordinate directly with the firefighters in San Diego County that
[01:39:56] are fighting any fire anywhere that may start two miles away from our transmission
[01:40:01] lines but may burn there and we actively coordinate with them and in most
[01:40:04] cases they'll say let it burn under your lines right and that's in a
[01:40:08] wildland interface space where this line is I don't suspect that that's where where
[01:40:13] uh the treatment would be but our intensity of working with our fire partners
[01:40:17] is is unmatched we own the helicopters to get on into any potential wildfires
[01:40:23] in and around our assets. And again, I not to be cavalier at all,
[01:40:27] this is something that is everything that we do. And should this line end
[01:40:30] up anywhere near Temecula, anywhere near this proposed route, you will absolutely have the
[01:40:36] best operator who is the best safety provider in this space. >> Okay. >> All
[01:40:42] righty. Thank you for that. And I believe we have another firefighter here who'd
[01:40:47] like to be able to ask you a question. >> Just a few questions
[01:40:49] on uh fire. How much money has SDG paid out in wildfire settlements in
[01:40:55] the last 25 years? >> I think I don't think not even a single
[01:40:59] dollar in the wildfire fund as we think about it here within the state.
[01:41:02] Not a single dollar. >> Not in that wildfire fund. If you're talking back
[01:41:06] to 2007, sorry, I wouldn't know that. >> 2007 was 2.4 billion. Thousands of
[01:41:14] homes burned in that fire as well. And we talk about almost never, right?
[01:41:19] that that these lines almost never start fires. It's not never, right? It's not
[01:41:23] 100%. They will. [applause] >> I I don't think I don't think we'll find
[01:41:28] a single line of 500,000 volt that has ever started an extreme wildfire in
[01:41:32] the western United States. I feel that strongly about it. Starting an extreme fire
[01:41:37] is what we're talking about here. >> Well, extreme is subjective, right? Because it
[01:41:41] can start out as a little brush fire. >> We can start with 2.4
[01:41:43] billion, but I'm quite confident there's not a 500,000 ft line that's done that.
[01:41:47] This next one is a rhetorical question uh which you don't have to answer,
[01:41:51] but I think it's important for us to stop pretending that major utility infrastructure
[01:41:58] through high fire severity zones like the one that is proposed here comes with
[01:42:03] no consequences. There are consequences and there's the absolutely the possibility of wildfire through
[01:42:09] this corridor. I I will answer it only because if you take a look
[01:42:14] at the map and it is one of the biggest challenges we have here
[01:42:17] in the western states in order to get power from outside of California and
[01:42:21] into California, there's not a spot around our state's borders where we can cross
[01:42:26] without going through the high fire threat district. Right. And and that's just really
[01:42:31] very critical for us all to consider. If there was a means to get
[01:42:34] from where this line originates in Imperial Valley up into uh Orange County without
[01:42:39] traversing the wildfire threat area, all of us would have would have thought about
[01:42:43] doing that. It's just not possible in this case. >> Go ahead, >> Mr.
[01:42:51] Schwank. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um, yeah. So, trying to build
[01:42:55] off my colleagues a little bit, thinking about, you know, even if these lines
[01:43:01] never start a fire, fires happen. Yes, >> we've had fires in this creek
[01:43:05] in the past in their >> active wildfire season for Riverside. Yeah. >> And
[01:43:09] so, I'm mostly concerned about right next to homes, not being able to an
[01:43:14] air attack, like thinking about there's there could potentially be a fire and you
[01:43:19] have these resources and you're mentioning you have helicopters and that's great. Um, but
[01:43:23] I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned about um sort of the the Temecula Valley
[01:43:31] Hospital component of it as well is very close. And if we're talking about
[01:43:36] flight paths and we're talking about air attacks, um, how do these lines impact
[01:43:40] the existing flight path to the hospital? Have you reached out to the hospital
[01:43:44] and done any work on on modifying or the potential modifications with the FAA
[01:43:49] or or sort of building off of the sort of air attacks and and
[01:43:53] flight paths? >> Um I'm just going to join Kevin for a second to
[01:43:56] talk about the hospital. So um we will uh go through an FAA review
[01:44:02] uh if the route stays where it is to determine that there is no
[01:44:06] operational risk or conflict with the hospital. We don't see there being a need
[01:44:12] for any conflict there right now, but since we don't have a precise location
[01:44:15] for the route. Um, I can't say that with certainty other than we would
[01:44:21] coordinate with the FAA to make sure we would we would be required to
[01:44:24] do that. We would never place a line where it impeded the Hilo pad
[01:44:28] from the hospital. So, that would be a barrier to placing the line there.
[01:44:32] Um, and so that's for the further development that needs to come to determine
[01:44:35] what those limitations or restrictions might be both from the hospital's perspective as well
[01:44:39] as the FAA's perspective that is going to make sure that there's no aircraft
[01:44:43] conflict. Okay. >> And I would like to make sure it's clear that the
[01:44:46] line itself does not provide prevent firefighting on them, under them, uh, air drops
[01:44:52] across them happens frequently. If that's the right thing in our coordination with fire
[01:44:56] agencies, if the right thing is to drop retardant on those lines, that's what'll
[01:45:01] happen. >> Uh, next question I have for you, still staying within public safety,
[01:45:07] uh, question. I know you're stating that wildfires, this isn't really a thing that
[01:45:11] happens. We're saying that it can possibly happen. But I do want to put
[01:45:15] out there for the record and ask that uh Temecula currently maintains an excellent
[01:45:19] ISO rating, class 2 rating, which directly keeps our residents homeowners insurance affordable as
[01:45:26] of today by introducing massive industrial uh ignition risks and obstructing aerial firefighting assets
[01:45:35] in a high fire zone. Have you had the opportunity yet, sir, to calculate
[01:45:40] how much our ISO rating can and will drop? And will SDG&E step up
[01:45:46] to pay back the skyrocketing insurance premiums for our citizens when the project destroys
[01:45:51] their uh financial security and instability? [applause] >> That's a hell of a question
[01:45:58] to try to answer. So, no, I have not done any studies on the
[01:46:02] ISO ratings here, right? But again, I want to make sure it's clear. These
[01:46:06] are not the type of lines that create wildfires. These are also these are
[01:46:13] also the the the the type of lines that also do not prevent firefighting.
[01:46:17] And I know we keep saying that. That is just untrue. These lines do
[01:46:22] not prevent air attacks at all. They happen all the time on on any
[01:46:27] structures we have in and around San Diego. We witness it. I've seen them
[01:46:31] happen up here in Riverside this year. direct drops onto Edison lines. Right? So
[01:46:36] the lines themselves do not prevent air attack. >> Okay? >> And and the
[01:46:40] men and women that fly if if you're very if you've never gotten into
[01:46:43] a CalFire and the way they coordinate the air attacks, you you'll really quickly
[01:46:46] learn the reason why those lines are not do not end up being a
[01:46:50] hazard is that they're absolute professionals in understanding how to fight in and around
[01:46:55] those assets. >> Okay. Thank you for your statement. uh open up to anybody
[01:46:59] else to finalize any questions on public safety. >> Yes, sir. >> Just a
[01:47:06] a quick one un un related to public safety, but I was I was
[01:47:10] curious why uh Caliso and um SDG are traveling to the city of Temecula
[01:47:16] with the armed security detail. Um you know, we're consistently one of the top
[01:47:21] 25 safest cities in the nation. Um police presence here was fairly substantial today.
[01:47:27] So, is it the city or something that we're doing that makes you feel
[01:47:33] like you needed a security detail today? [applause] >> Really great question for the
[01:47:42] public discourse. So, um very informative. Uh so I think it was in response
[01:47:47] to understanding that the Riverside County was sheriff's office was spotting additional folks here
[01:47:53] in in in response to how many people were attending. That simple. An existing
[01:47:57] protocol. You you responded by posting uh sheriff deputies. Our security detail came in.
[01:48:03] I myself did not uh arrive here with security. My piece of 2013 Tacoma
[01:48:09] trucks out there in the back. I mean, in case you think this was
[01:48:14] additive to to this mayor prom. >> Well, it's I say it because you
[01:48:20] know you're you're coming. Say why? >> I Yeah. I mean, it's a little
[01:48:24] surprising that you chose to do that. Coming to the city of Temecula, it's
[01:48:27] a it's a showing of of trust and faith and, you know, Riverside County
[01:48:31] Sheriff's Department and the city of Temecula providing the kind of service that >> Yeah,
[01:48:37] understand that. But bringing in private security, it's just a it's an odd move.
[01:48:41] It's never happened in this city hall before. I don't think uh Mr. Washington,
[01:48:45] I'm not sure that's even happened at the county board of supervisors meetings. And
[01:48:48] I know you guys have had way more contentious meetings up there than than
[01:48:52] we have. Um, and so it just it it struck me as a surprising
[01:48:56] move by San Diego Gas and Electric to come to our town and have
[01:49:00] that sort of uh >> I appreciate I appreciate the discussion on it. Very
[01:49:04] helpful. >> Okay. >> All right. I've got four [snorts] more questions. Let's get
[01:49:09] out of the public safety area. I think we beat that with the beat
[01:49:13] that pretty well. Let's move into let's talk about our tribe Pchanga. I can't
[01:49:21] speak for Pchanga, but as mayor, I have an obligation to ask this question.
[01:49:27] Have you evaluated whether this corridor directly threatens our tribal neighbors and their ancestrial
[01:49:34] sacred lands? Why should the city of Temecula support an intrusive infrastructure project that
[01:49:42] shows complete disregard for the cultural heritage, sovereign rights and historical legacy of Pchanga?
[01:49:51] [applause] [cheering] Of course, we would never do that, but we can discuss uh
[01:50:00] citing transmission lines and doing it in a very e environmental uh way is
[01:50:07] is part for the course for any transmission line in California. No transmission line
[01:50:12] is ever going to get built that rises to that level of disrespect you
[01:50:16] just mentioned. But we have met with Pchanga and Erica can brief you on
[01:50:20] that. Yeah, our um we have placed a top priority on our dialogue and
[01:50:28] partnership with our tribal partners that may be along this route. Those were among
[01:50:33] the first folks that we reached out to when SDG&E obtained the project, understanding
[01:50:37] how culturally rich this region is. Um and so input from them as we
[01:50:43] develop is going to be crucial to understanding how we can reduce and avoid
[01:50:49] as much as possible any impacts to cultural resources to areas of ancestral origin.
[01:50:55] Um and we know that that those exist along the preliminary route and that
[01:51:01] is why we need continued study. We need that to be a publicly transparently
[01:51:05] studied process to understand what those potential impacts might be. We want to hear
[01:51:10] directly from the tribe what is a meaningful way for us to avoid that.
[01:51:15] Um can we avoid that and what from them from their perspective is a
[01:51:19] meaningful way to mitigate any impacts should there be any. We want to hear
[01:51:24] their voices. And so that's why we've had um several conversations with different representatives
[01:51:30] of the Pachchanga tribe and we we will continue to do that as development
[01:51:33] moves forward as long as they're um wanting to to continue to dialogue with
[01:51:38] us. And so far they they have been >> and can you can you
[01:51:42] help me understand if you guys don't have a route how are you going
[01:51:45] to decide whether it it impedes in their areas? I I think that's where
[01:51:51] the dialogue comes in, right? We can say here's this general area. Tell us
[01:51:55] about this area and what is it that is your that are the priorities?
[01:51:59] What are the concerns? What are your questions about this place where that these
[01:52:03] area where it might go? And then we can take that and inform our
[01:52:07] project development. And then ultimately in that SQA process, studying any potential impacts to
[01:52:12] cultural resources is a very um technical and transparent part of the public process.
[01:52:18] So in addition to the dialogue that we're having, the CPU will also take
[01:52:22] this piece on and make sure that to the extent that there are impacts
[01:52:27] that they can be avoided and reduced and they again will choose the route
[01:52:31] and and identify the route that poses the least impacts. >> And how soon
[01:52:36] do you figure that those routes so that way the city as well along
[01:52:40] with our the tribe Pchanga can look at that together because it sounds like
[01:52:44] you guys don't have any of that currently. We're going to continue to share
[01:52:48] information as the project is developed over the summer. We talked about those public
[01:52:53] meetings that that we will have. We'd love to come back and have more
[01:52:56] specific conversations with you all when when we get to that stage of project
[01:53:01] development. We'll file application at the end of the year where there will be
[01:53:06] our proposal in it and alternatives and an assessment of potential impacts. And then
[01:53:11] the CPU, the CPU will have their process that will be a couple years
[01:53:16] long and they will provide a schedule and opportunities for additional input through that
[01:53:20] as well. Okay, thank you for that. And I will open that up to
[01:53:26] any of our council members. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Stew. >> Yeah. So, um
[01:53:32] did you take into consideration other historical uh uh significance of this route because
[01:53:41] it is the old Butterfield stage route which was basically the Southern Immigrant Trail
[01:53:47] and to litter this trail with these high powered super tall lines would totally
[01:53:56] destroy the historical significance of even that >> and so even the you know
[01:54:03] Pchanga tribe was this whole valley so really as far as I'm concerned put
[01:54:08] it outside the Temecula Valley and you'll be safe >> inside the Temecula Valley
[01:54:14] is all culturally sensitive so that you know and I I and I realize
[01:54:21] we're early even though we're we're we feel like we're not early but I
[01:54:26] I I hear you guys saying that there is opportunities I think it would
[01:54:30] make us all feel better if you had routes that didn't include Temecula in
[01:54:35] it. >> Yeah. [applause] >> Um yeah, I there I we don't know what
[01:54:42] alternatives there will ultimately be. Um but I feel pretty sure that there will
[01:54:49] be alternatives that avoid the Temecula segment of the route in order to ident
[01:54:53] to determine whether there is an alternative that reduces environmental community cultural resources all
[01:55:00] the things so that we just talked about. Um but I also want to
[01:55:04] note that there are cultural resources all over the Southern California region. There are
[01:55:11] se San Diego County just in particular has more federally recognized tribes than any
[01:55:17] county in the country. So we know the challenge that we have here to
[01:55:22] find a route that doesn't have impacts. I don't I don't know if we'll
[01:55:25] be able to find that. We're trying to weigh all of these significant routing
[01:55:30] criteria to identify the best route. Ultimately, the CPU has to weigh that. But
[01:55:37] I don't know that that even the CPU will be able to identify a
[01:55:41] route that doesn't have impacts to the environment or cultural resources or all of
[01:55:47] these things. I think it's how can we mitigate, avoid, reduce, where can this
[01:55:54] go that is the least impactful. That's where we're trying to get right now.
[01:55:59] So that that's my concern about the CPU is um because according to your
[01:56:04] timeline it looks like it's December you're going to submit a route and >> before
[01:56:09] the end of the year >> before the end of the year. >> So
[01:56:11] and how are we going to be notified of that route to and is
[01:56:17] is this meeting the C CPU meeting is this a closed door meeting? Do
[01:56:23] is it a public hearing? Is it something that we're going to be notified
[01:56:26] well in advance so we can >> That's a great question. >> Yeah, we
[01:56:29] we will certainly be continuing to provide updates about when we file our application.
[01:56:34] The CPU will also notice uh interested parties including the city of Temecula. Um
[01:56:40] and it's not one meeting. It's a yearslong process that has multiple steps and
[01:56:45] stages including specific opportunities for public comment, open hearings, you can provide written comment.
[01:56:53] um you can provide uh in-person comment and they'll decide what the dates of
[01:57:00] those things are. So when we have them or when the CPU has them,
[01:57:03] it there are specific notice requirements in their regulations that provide for public awareness.
[01:57:10] The the role of SQUA in large part is public awareness and public input.
[01:57:16] And so those all of those requirements will be fulfilled. >> All right. I
[01:57:20] just want to make sure that you guys are aware. We just want to
[01:57:23] know as soon as we possibly can so we can make our >> understood
[01:57:27] >> uh opinions known. So Sure. Yeah. Thank you. >> Uh Mayor Pro Tim.
[01:57:35] So if we're if we're talking about c we'll let Banga speak to their
[01:57:38] cultural resources, but we do know that this alignment is going through a traditional
[01:57:43] cultural property that's you know designated and sits along the corridor for you know
[01:57:48] their creation story which was fairly significant. Um I'm not sure if you guys
[01:57:53] looked into the Liberty Quarry at all. I' I'd recommend it. Um yeah >> the
[01:57:59] [applause] the the reason I bring it up is because this alignment is going
[01:58:03] through you know a very similar area that [snorts] was designated and talked about
[01:58:07] during that you know 7 and 1/2 year process um that identified you know
[01:58:12] this river corridor is the last fully protected free- flowing river in Southern California.
[01:58:16] Also provides the drinking water supply for Marine Corps base camp Pendleton. the uh
[01:58:23] wildlife corridor that sits here is the last inland to coastal wildlife linkage and
[01:58:29] habitat linkage left in Southern California. Um, you know, I mean, I could go
[01:58:33] on this, you know, and and I I wasn't being facitious in the letter
[01:58:36] I submitted to SDG saying, you know, you could have taken a crayon and
[01:58:40] drawn just about any other location, you know, besides this and found a less
[01:58:44] sensitive spot. it. You know, given all the history that's gone into this region
[01:58:49] and the dedication of our tribal partners, our federal partners, um, you know, the
[01:58:54] city and and our community to protect protect what are arguably some of the
[01:58:59] last of their kind in all of Southern California. It just kind of surprises
[01:59:03] me that this alignment is even under consideration. >> I I can assure you
[01:59:09] that all of those areas would be steadied understanding what the impact what they
[01:59:14] have been. I I guess that's my question >> in relation in relation to
[01:59:17] this project. >> Well, but in in relation to the land itself, it has
[01:59:22] been studied and you're also aligned directly adjacent to and potentially through the Santa
[01:59:28] Margarita Ecological Reserve, which is one of the largest does not go through the
[01:59:33] Santa Margaret. >> Well, it's right on the edge, right? >> Uh it it
[01:59:36] does it does there are no direct impacts to the preserve in the preliminary
[01:59:40] alignment as we said. How how do you know that if we don't know
[01:59:43] where the preliminary because the map I'm looking at >> we do know that
[01:59:45] a thousand feet corridor does not go through the ecological preserve. >> So it's
[01:59:51] going through private property predominantly then >> uh we don't know can have a
[01:59:58] more detailed discussion about that portion of the alignment when we have a map
[02:00:02] in front of us. It's really difficult to it's really difficult to do that
[02:00:06] in this context. I think my larger point was we as part of our
[02:00:11] process, as part of the SQA process, the impacts of a transmission line to
[02:00:16] all the resources that you just talked about will be steadied. But also, I
[02:00:21] just want to note that this is a very constrained region. It is a
[02:00:26] really big challenge to get from Imperial Valley to north of Songs without creating
[02:00:32] impacts no matter what potential alternative or alignment is chosen. And so there's there's
[02:00:38] um a phenomenon of just a trading of impacts that happens. You can eliminate
[02:00:43] an impact in one area and then if you move the alignment you create
[02:00:47] new impacts in another location. And so that's part of this deliberative iterative process
[02:00:53] to understand from our perspective and eventually the CPU will take it on. How
[02:00:58] can we find a location that is the least impactful? We have to do
[02:01:03] some study to understand how a transmission line would affect different pathways to know
[02:01:09] what that might be. And that's what we're at the beginning of right now.
[02:01:13] >> But I guess I'm still I mean we can talk about this later,
[02:01:17] I'm sure. But um I I I guess I'm still not understanding what the
[02:01:20] point of the project is, you know, because it was it was provided to
[02:01:24] us both in in your materials and in in the presentation earlier in fairly
[02:01:28] obtuse terms, you know, talking about grid stability, talking about moving trans, you know,
[02:01:33] uh electrical, you know, capacity into, you know, north of Songs and Orange County
[02:01:38] and so forth. But can can someone provide us like where exactly is the
[02:01:42] energy coming from that's being transmitted and where exactly is it intended to to
[02:01:48] go ultimately like who are the end users on this >> the the resources
[02:01:59] that it's it's um intended is developed and included within the CPU's um IRP.
[02:02:08] They provide us with the locations of the resources right down to um kind
[02:02:14] of lack better the bus bar the substations where they're uh projecting the needs
[02:02:20] taking into considerations uh a number of factors as they go through that bus
[02:02:25] bar mapping process with the methodology is documented on the the IRP website taking
[02:02:31] into considerations costs different types of resources the mix of resources um environmental from
[02:02:38] the land use point of view of the resources. >> Okay. But where is
[02:02:42] the energy coming from? >> It's it's coming from from lack of a better
[02:02:46] east of here in the southern areas. Um I I I don't have if
[02:02:51] if I can if you look in terms of in the transmission plan. I
[02:02:56] I don't have the numbers right here. Um we have a number where we
[02:03:00] look at the zonal aspects of it. And so there is in the southern
[02:03:04] all the way out to to the Arizona border. There's resources on on the
[02:03:08] eastern which go on kind of the Delaney, Colorado. Um the whole areas. >> So
[02:03:13] are you anticipating like the renewable renewable? It's renewable resources in Imperial County. >> Some
[02:03:19] of them are. Yes. >> Are you anticipating any import from out of state?
[02:03:24] there is in the in the portfolios of the CPU in terms of out
[02:03:29] ofstate wind from the New Mexico area that would be feeding into here as
[02:03:32] well. And delivery is intended to go >> well delivery in terms of as
[02:03:38] we look at the renewable resources is is for the resource or the loads
[02:03:44] within say California is what the portfolio is based upon and and the lines
[02:03:49] that we look at bring basically those resources to be deliverable to the loads
[02:03:55] and and those will be in the San Diego and and a lot of
[02:03:59] it is the coastal area that tie into the north of Songs area prov
[02:04:03] provides more for the the local tying in the to the 230 KV system
[02:04:08] in that area. Like indicated, the the lines themselves go um as as indicated,
[02:04:14] there was three uh competitive solicitation projects. One was a line that goes east
[02:04:20] of north of um Imperial Valley. There's the line that goes from here to
[02:04:26] north of Songs and ties into the north of Song substation to the 230
[02:04:31] KV system just north of of of Songs, the the Song's generation uh location
[02:04:38] as well as the a 500 KV line that goes up to Sarano um
[02:04:43] and ties into the 500 KV system in that area to make an integrated
[02:04:48] uh u uh project in all in terms of as part of the transmission
[02:04:54] plan, like I said, is to make the resources that are within the portfolios
[02:04:58] as identified in the locations of the portfolios to the loads and and those
[02:05:04] the loads in in a large part in terms of our in the coastal
[02:05:07] area um from San Diego all the way up to LA. So, is it
[02:05:12] fair to say that there's a lot of uh unused or abandoned energy in
[02:05:16] the desert that's not currently making its way into the the areas where you'd
[02:05:22] like to distribute it? Well, there that's that's one of as we look at
[02:05:26] is is making access to those resources to um to be able to be
[02:05:31] deliverable and be incorporated um based upon the the um resource needs. um to
[02:05:41] to supply the loads in the area. So it's it's continued development um as
[02:05:46] we look at the renewable resources um that have been identified to be to
[02:05:52] be installed between now and and as we look at the next 10 and
[02:05:56] the CC and the CPU are required to provide us out a 15 year
[02:06:00] target now for the loads and the forecast of the loads as well as
[02:06:05] for the resource portfolios for us to plan the transmission system to to to
[02:06:10] be able to um deliver that power reliably um to meet the the reliability
[02:06:16] needs of the state as well as the the the state's goals as well.
[02:06:21] So ignoring for a moment the Anza-Borrego State Park and and you know BLM
[02:06:27] land and all of that that this is traversing in San Diego County, I
[02:06:31] think the question for everybody, you know, sitting here today is why are we
[02:06:36] becoming the dumping ground for abandoned energy created in the desert [applause] to be
[02:06:41] able to move it into, you know, areas that don't benefit our own community.
[02:06:46] I mean, it just it I'm having a really hard time understanding how the
[02:06:49] CPU in the state of California think that our community, the only urban area
[02:06:54] that's being impacted by this project, should take the burden for a project that's
[02:06:59] clearly benefiting Orange County, Los Angeles, and San Diego. >> [applause] >> Well, it
[02:07:06] as we look at it, it benefits the the entire really from the point
[02:07:10] of view of the um ability to supply the loads within the California area,
[02:07:16] California system um as well as the renewable resources that are required in terms
[02:07:23] of for the state for overall um reliability for resource adequacy um as well
[02:07:30] as the state's um goals. >> But isn't that outdated engineering? I mean, we've
[02:07:34] been talking for years about distributed energy, micro grids, you know, other forms of,
[02:07:39] you know, a more resilient reliable infrastructure that does not include specifically the development
[02:07:45] of high, you know, energy power lines. >> I would say renew or the
[02:07:50] u distributed generation is a component of the mix. Um but to meet the
[02:07:57] the overall reliability needs and um transmission connected resources um have been identified and
[02:08:06] and that would be in terms of also as to um the CPU and
[02:08:12] their IRP process which is an open and transparent process um as to those
[02:08:17] reli those resource needs as well. >> Okay. We'd really like more information on
[02:08:22] that if it is that open and transparent. You know, I I've been I've
[02:08:26] been looking and and I I can't for the life of me figure out
[02:08:29] and and why nobody has it on the tip of their tongue where's the
[02:08:32] energy coming from and where is it going? What is the what is the
[02:08:35] critical need that this is filling? the the energy the energy is coming from
[02:08:41] and and I could probably I don't have in front of me the within
[02:08:44] our transmission plan and our subse hang our our subsequent transmission plans we do
[02:08:51] identify the the zonal locations that that the CPU has provided. So where that
[02:08:58] energy comes from is um is is transparent as to what we're planning for
[02:09:05] and identified within our transmission plan. Um, as well as in the CPU's IRP,
[02:09:13] they do provide a complete workbook and it comes out in in the development
[02:09:18] of the IRP before it's it's approved by the commission. Um, that clearly identifies
[02:09:24] all of the locations and resource types that they've included in the in the
[02:09:29] IRP, right down to the location. >> You can make sure we get a
[02:09:33] copy of that. I'd appreciate >> I can I we can we can take
[02:09:35] that as to provide you to the links to those by all means. >> All
[02:09:39] right. Thank you for that answer. I have a couple other council members who
[02:09:42] have a few questions and I have one or two right after. But just
[02:09:45] kind of doubling down and asking a little bit more about what uh Mayor
[02:09:49] Prom was asking about. You know, one of the things that I had noticed
[02:09:52] is on your slides you had said over the next 20 years California will
[02:09:57] need at least by 2035 85 gawatts. Is that correct? And then within 10
[02:10:04] years of that by 2045 we're needing 160. So we're doubling the amount of
[02:10:08] energy needing. So my question to you is why? And is that going to
[02:10:13] data centers? For instance, the one in Imperial County that has been submitted and
[02:10:18] is going through the process that that entire county does not want to deal
[02:10:21] with Imperial. So is that going to be part of the energy that's going
[02:10:24] to be used in these data centers? And if I'm correct, I believe there's
[02:10:28] over 300 data centers currently in the uh going through California uh ready to
[02:10:33] be implemented. So, can you help me understand that a little bit more, please?
[02:10:36] >> The the data center loads that we plan for um are included within
[02:10:43] the CEC's load forecast as to what they've developed in their for forecasts. Um
[02:10:49] I will say those have increased over the last probably three years in the
[02:10:55] forecast that we have um identified. I believe the total over the 2030 to
[02:11:02] 20 or 2035 to 2040 time frame that's included in the portfolio or in
[02:11:07] the CEC's forecast is about 4.9 gawatt. Um, and so if we look at
[02:11:12] the load growth that the CEC's load forecast currently has, and I'm referring to
[02:11:18] in terms of what's in the 2526 transmission plan that we just had approved
[02:11:23] by the board um, a week ago, um, in those time frames, the load
[02:11:29] increase that the CC has increased, it's probably about the data center load is
[02:11:33] about onethird of um, by 2035, the load forecast for the for the Kaiso
[02:11:39] system has been forecast to increase by about 15 gawatt by 2035. By 20
[02:11:44] gawatt in in the 20 40 time frame and by the 2035 to 2040
[02:11:52] it's about 4.9 gawatt which is included as data center load within the CEC's
[02:11:57] load forecast that they develop as part of their their forecast for the state
[02:12:03] of California. >> Great. and and would I assume correctly that as this continues
[02:12:08] to roll out that we're going to see more and more of these projects
[02:12:11] wanting to be able to be pushed into communities? Is that correct? >> I
[02:12:15] I I can't in terms of respond as to in terms of it depends
[02:12:20] on where those locate. Um we have had a significant amount of um the
[02:12:26] data center load growth being in the um greater bay area, the south of
[02:12:31] greater Bay Area. Um and we have transmission projects that have been identified to
[02:12:36] to um support the the load growth in that areas where data center is
[02:12:42] a component of it. >> And what are the energy sources that are stemming
[02:12:46] to be able to utilize that energy? the the energy resources are the resources
[02:12:50] that make up in terms of within the the portfolio of or the the
[02:12:55] uh the IRP um that is designed to meet the load growth and the
[02:13:00] locations where they have identified those renewable development. >> So is that wind which
[02:13:06] what kind of energy is being sourced to utilize that? Um, in a lot
[02:13:09] of ways, a lot of the u the the resources like you identified in
[02:13:15] terms of in the portfolio um make up a lot of it is is
[02:13:19] either solar storage um or wind or are a large component of uh of
[02:13:26] the resources that are identified. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Council Member Stewart, I
[02:13:31] believe you have a question. >> Yeah. So, um I'm just going to say
[02:13:36] this. The Temecula Valley is a high wind corridor and it's coming straight through
[02:13:41] where these transmission lines are supposed to go through. So that that is another
[02:13:46] consideration, but that's not what I'm solar production. I mean, there's so many homes
[02:13:52] with solar on their houses right now. I'm having trouble understanding how the uh
[02:13:58] need for additional power is so great unless it is for data centers. Um
[02:14:06] and and just the fact that the energy efficiency of everything from refrigerators to
[02:14:14] to uh air conditioning units have gone so uh so well that again I'm
[02:14:22] having trouble understanding this this additional power need that and to Mayor Prom's uh
[02:14:30] point this we have become basically the uh dumping ground of this for to
[02:14:38] to supply power for San Diego County high density areas along the coast. It
[02:14:45] has really nothing to do when you say California grid security that's along the
[02:14:51] coast. When it comes out to here, we're producing a lot of that electricity
[02:14:55] on our houses. you you don't go into Los Angeles and find a whole
[02:14:59] lot of solar systems, but out here in the valleys where we get sun,
[02:15:03] you know, intensely, there's a lot of people with a lot of solar producing
[02:15:08] a lot of electricity. So, that that's where it's not making any sense to
[02:15:13] me that you want to put it through Temecula for grid security and for
[02:15:20] um Los Angeles and Orange County. I mean, and San Diego County. I mean,
[02:15:26] and and honestly, that's where it's all going. That's what Saninophre did produce, all
[02:15:32] that power. Why don't they re reuse Saninophre? There's there's ways to create nuclear
[02:15:40] energy now in smaller nuclear reactors that are incredibly safe, uses totally different uh
[02:15:49] radioactive material and so and can actually be reused. So why aren't we looking
[02:15:55] that route whether instead of and and it's to me that's security. A nuclear
[02:16:02] power plant is way more security than some solar or wind farm. And so
[02:16:09] um that's what I don't quite understand is I don't understand the load that
[02:16:14] you're talking about keeping increasing increasing unless it's for data centers. That's the only
[02:16:18] thing that makes any sense. I I I [applause] will leave I will leave
[02:16:24] a lot of that in terms of is would be discussion with the California
[02:16:27] Energy Commission within their IRP process. Um they do develop the forecast and like
[02:16:33] I say is it it is looking out into a 10 to 15year time
[02:16:37] horizon. Um they do do an hourly as they look at the profile. That
[02:16:41] is one of the things that um that is shifting and as as you
[02:16:46] look at the solar um the peak shifts has shifted to a later hours.
[02:16:52] Um as we look at things of the of in terms of just fuel
[02:16:56] switching and electrification and electric vehicle requirements those are driving a significant amount of
[02:17:04] the the load growth that is is within the California Energy Commission's load forecast.
[02:17:11] um and those impacts on the profile um are are are driving those needs
[02:17:17] for the for the requirements. It also drives also the especially the changing of
[02:17:23] the profiles um the resource portfolio and resource mix um that the CPU develops
[02:17:30] as part of their integrated resource uh portfolio or plan. Um, and the question
[02:17:36] in regards to nuclear would be one I would I would suggest that you
[02:17:40] bring up and participate within the CPU's IRP because that's that's not a component
[02:17:46] that we're responsible for with regards to the resource planning and and like I
[02:17:52] say the the the re the inclusion and of um specific resource types. But
[02:17:58] I would encourage you to participate in the CPUC's process. I do have a
[02:18:02] quick concern follow up on the whole solar because I do know now that
[02:18:07] there is almost no solar going on anybody's houses right now without batteries and
[02:18:13] so that that solar that load that like you said has shifted to the
[02:18:17] evening I totally agree with you it is but we're using our own power
[02:18:21] at that point we're using the battery power we've stored up in our batteries
[02:18:25] to charge our cars so again it it it doesn't it doesn't make sense
[02:18:31] what you're saying as far as the uh load increase in the evening because
[02:18:38] if we're producing our solar power and then we're storing it and then and
[02:18:43] we're probably still shoving some back into the grid on top of that. So
[02:18:48] again, but I don't want to belabor it. So >> yeah, no, and I
[02:18:51] and I will just like I say encourage you and and we can provide
[02:18:54] you links directly to the to the CEC's load forecast. Um they do forecast
[02:19:00] and there is a significant uh distributed generation behind the meter solar as well
[02:19:06] as growing as to storage that they do incorporate into their load forecast. um
[02:19:12] and into the profiles that they develop. Um basically like I say is they
[02:19:19] develop an 8760 forecast for every year out 15 years that is incorporating the
[02:19:26] growth of behind the meter solar as well as storage and the impacts of
[02:19:31] the profiles to come up with the load forecast. But like say we can
[02:19:34] provide you with some links to the CEC's load forecast information if you would
[02:19:37] like. >> All right. Thank you very much. and I believe council member Calfus.
[02:19:42] >> Yes, thank you, Mayor. Uh to go back to an original question that
[02:19:45] you had a few minutes ago talking about the tribal communities. Um I just
[02:19:48] want to touch on that real quick before we move forward. Um first off,
[02:19:52] is it fair to say that SDG&E has has traversed through tribal communities in
[02:19:56] the past? And if so, you talked about mitigating the impacts. What were some
[02:20:01] of those mitigations uh that you had with the impacts? Good question. And did
[02:20:05] they include whether to the the sovereign land or public land that you've traversed
[02:20:09] in the past or private land paying a one-time fee or recurring fee to
[02:20:14] the owners of those lands? So, the mitigation to the impacts through tribal communities
[02:20:20] and has SDG paid impact fees, if you will, to those communities once you
[02:20:26] traverse them? >> I I don't know. I'm not sure exactly what you're referring
[02:20:30] to. I will say we have facilities that are on or near our tribal
[02:20:35] partners' land throughout our service territory. So, um we have easements and leases from
[02:20:41] them. So, we pay them for the right of way that we use different
[02:20:46] locations, uh different infrastructure, different places are are structured differently, >> but there are
[02:20:53] leases out there between SDG&E tribal communities. >> We do have right of way
[02:20:58] with uh tribal communities. Yes. Do you have right-of-way leases with any public or
[02:21:02] private entities as well? >> I I don't know the answer to that off
[02:21:08] the top of my head. We'd have to get back to you on that.
[02:21:11] >> Yes, please get back to us. Um and if so, I know I
[02:21:14] speak on behalf of the Temecula community when I say that Temecula is not
[02:21:18] for sale. Thank you. [applause and cheering] >> I'll take that for 200. All
[02:21:30] right. Uh any other questions? Yes, sir. >> Last one. >> Um just on
[02:21:34] the uh alternatives analysis, uh you mentioned SQUA. Is is NEPA >> going to
[02:21:40] be required as well for the project? >> Yeah, [snorts] you you mentioned BLM
[02:21:43] land earlier, Bureau of Land Management. So the substation in Imperial Valley is almost
[02:21:48] entirely surrounded by land that's managed by Bureau by BLM. And so we will
[02:21:54] likely no matter which way we go need right of way from them and
[02:21:59] that would trigger review under the federal environmental review act. >> So so under
[02:22:04] federal unlike SQA federal requires a much more rigorous alternatives analysis. >> It is
[02:22:09] different than the state review. Yes. >> Yeah. Well not just different I mean
[02:22:12] it's actually referred to as the heart of environmental impact statement in the in
[02:22:17] the regulation itself. Um, and so just starting off this project, you've provided an
[02:22:23] alternative, which I'm assuming is the preferred alternative at this point. But, you know,
[02:22:30] you you create these alternatives based on the project description. What is the need?
[02:22:36] You know, what are we trying to accomplish with this project? And then you
[02:22:39] back into historically this, you know, you would back into different potential solutions to
[02:22:45] meet that objective. But I I still don't have a clear objective of what
[02:22:49] what it is CPU or or anybody is trying to to accomplish under this
[02:22:54] scenario. But my my bigger concern is that we've seen these maps, we've seen
[02:22:58] these alignments. You say, "Oh, this is just preliminary and we're here to talk,
[02:23:02] but clearly time has gone into both the bid, the proposal, the acceptance." Um,
[02:23:07] and the situation we're in now with that line. And my concern is is
[02:23:12] we're we're starting off the at least from a federal perspective, the NEPA process
[02:23:16] absent the kind of alternatives analysis that one would expect under that scenario. >> The
[02:23:22] NEPA process has not begun yet much like SQA has not begun either, but
[02:23:26] there will be a robust alternatives analysis as you identified. Uh the NEPA review
[02:23:32] is agency specific. uh policies have changed in the last couple of years and
[02:23:36] so BLM has their own guidance about how they will conduct NEPA review including
[02:23:41] alternatives analysis. We will um obviously provide data and information to the agency as
[02:23:47] they do that but that will be part of the process and that has
[02:23:51] not begun yet. So, and and I guess that's why why why even have
[02:23:54] a map at this point, right? I mean, if if the alternatives analysis is
[02:23:59] supposed to be rigorous, including the no project alternative that's supposed to be analyzed
[02:24:03] at the same level as any of the other alternatives. So, we're not we're
[02:24:07] not seeing that conversation at all, and we're not seeing any rigorous review of
[02:24:11] any of the other um alternatives, including the several that were presented to Cal
[02:24:16] ISO in the bid process. So I'm, you know, I'm just saying it it
[02:24:21] concerns me that we're backing into this, at least from a NEPA perspective, in
[02:24:25] the wrong wrong direction and you're already presenting, you know, and and we're here
[02:24:29] today talking about, you know, the preferred alternative in essence. So, I think I
[02:24:35] mentioned this earlier. Usually, we uh we don't come out this early with a
[02:24:40] map for the reasons that you're talking about right now. But we wanted to
[02:24:45] have early discussion with stakeholders, with community members, with um local jurisdictions to understand
[02:24:53] what the preferred route should be, what our proposal should be to these agencies
[02:24:59] and then also what alternatives should be evaluated and studied. That's part of this
[02:25:05] public engagement process. That is our goal. We aren't backing into anything. those processes
[02:25:11] haven't started yet. But when we had some early discussions with stakeholders, what we
[02:25:17] heard over and over again was, well, we don't have anything to react to.
[02:25:20] This is a huge geographic area that you need to cover that Kaiso identified
[02:25:26] in the transmission plan. It would be helpful to us to to see a
[02:25:30] map so we can react to it and give you feedback and then additional
[02:25:34] alternatives development flows from there. And so that's part of what we're responding to
[02:25:38] in this process. So why I so I I'll just end on on a
[02:25:42] couple of quick things. So if if what we're describing from you know the
[02:25:47] environmental perspective, cultural perspective, community perspective, economics, so forth is not appropriate for our
[02:25:55] our community specifically. um then then why not just take an eraser and you
[02:26:01] know align that thing along a different corridor or something where where we're able
[02:26:05] to have a I think a more fair conversation about this because what you've
[02:26:09] done is you've come to Temecula there's been some hiccups in the public outreach
[02:26:13] and marketing campaign here um and and I'm I'm just trying to figure out
[02:26:17] like it there there's probably there probably was a better way of of handling
[02:26:21] the the roll out of this to have a more fair balanced and I
[02:26:24] think transparent conversation on I I can assure you our goal is to have
[02:26:29] that transparent conversation. That is genuinely what we're trying to do and hearing your
[02:26:34] impact and feed impacts and feedback is is loud and clear. We we're hearing
[02:26:39] that obviously no decisions have been made. No final route has been identified and
[02:26:45] ultimately it is the CPU that decides that route. And so this will all
[02:26:50] all of the public impact um information and feedback is part of the process
[02:26:56] and will be both received by us as well as by the agencies that
[02:27:01] are involved. And so that is how you continue that public transparent process. Make
[02:27:06] sure that your um information, your data, your perspective, your very strong opinions are
[02:27:12] all part of that record. That's the goal and that will be factored into
[02:27:16] the for the decision makers when they ultimately determine if it will be built
[02:27:20] and where it will be built. >> But you hold a lot of the
[02:27:23] cards right now and for those decision makers giving them an alignment that does
[02:27:28] not include the city of Temecula is fully within your purview at this point,
[02:27:32] right? >> We [applause] no decisions have been made. No final no even our
[02:27:39] not even our final proposal has been identified. That is what we are trying
[02:27:43] to get information on in this public outreach process. >> Well, we would appreciate
[02:27:48] continuing that dialogue. I I also want to just close the loop on the
[02:27:52] 500 KV fire risk piece real quick. CPU's own publications, including multiple ERS. Uh,
[02:27:59] and I'm just reading from one. I was I know I've read this somewhere
[02:28:02] before and I know it's in a lot of the documents that we've reviewed.
[02:28:05] ignition sources related to construction operation of new 500 KV circuit would have a
[02:28:09] very high potential to ignite wildfire surrounding the corridor. This is the CPU's I'm
[02:28:15] not I'm not looking for a response because I clearly have a company on
[02:28:19] this AI for that but uh really very careful I said you can stop
[02:28:25] wildream wildfire nobody's asking you to speak right now thank you >> yeah why
[02:28:29] don't you sit down >> I will do that thank you [applause] [cheering] >> this
[02:28:38] is the California Public Utility Commission's own document and own publication making those this
[02:28:44] is not a Google or an AI search. This is a qualified response from
[02:28:48] somebody who spent 20 years doing research in wildfire and urban interface fires. Sir,
[02:28:53] what you're saying is just patently wrong in the state of California. Do not
[02:28:56] speak. >> Well, if you're going to call >> the state of California, the
[02:28:59] state of California would disagree with you. >> Sir, if you could do me
[02:29:02] a favor, sir. >> Started a major wildfire is what I said. We can
[02:29:06] all go back and check the records. >> We're done. >> Construction could start
[02:29:09] an ignition. A major wildfire. Hasn't happened. Let's get our facts right, >> sir.
[02:29:13] >> Yes, sir. >> Listen, sir. We're just trying to be able to have
[02:29:16] dialogue. So, can you please just I understand that you have your opinion. Our
[02:29:21] mayor prom is sitting here as an expert as well, being able to share.
[02:29:24] I'm looking right at his computer, exactly the document that he's talking about. So,
[02:29:28] let's just I I know this is very tense. Let's give each other the
[02:29:31] ability to have that conversation completely. I appreciate you. Thank you guys for answering
[02:29:36] so far. Anything else? [applause] Okay, I've got two more and then we're going
[02:29:42] to open it up. All right, we've talked about a lot of things. I
[02:29:46] want to say first off, thank you very much for our county board of
[02:29:49] supervisor Chuck Washington for being here because this is actually going to land right
[02:29:53] in his backyard. Temecula's and our region's economy thrives on our worldclass wine country
[02:30:00] and massive tourism industry that brings millions of dollars into our local businesses and
[02:30:06] schools. Can SDG&E show us any definitive evidence after you finalize your project that
[02:30:17] turning our scenic landscape and our homes into an industrial power corridor will not
[02:30:23] permanently wipe out the asset value of our local tourism economy. [applause] I I'm
[02:30:35] going to give you another unsatisfying answer on this one because we don't know
[02:30:40] where the routing will be. We cannot >> Can I ask Can I Can
[02:30:44] I ask you a question? I don't want to interrupt, but I'm Have you
[02:30:47] guys done these before? Like I I would assume you guys have some type
[02:30:53] of data or have done a little bit of preeminent pre just a little
[02:30:58] bit of what's the word I'm looking for? Thank you. Information on this and
[02:31:05] I I I know you're sitting there, you're by yourself. Trust me, I I
[02:31:08] get it. But you see the importance to our community. And I'm just here
[02:31:12] to tell you to be in this position as the mayor and to sit
[02:31:16] with incredible council members and a community that does not want to see the
[02:31:20] destruction of our city. I need to have more factual information to understanding how
[02:31:25] you guys coming in are not going to destroy everything that's been built over
[02:31:30] decades of time and to be able to destroy businesses, tourism, families, and schools.
[02:31:34] Please help me understand that. [applause] I I hear you and appreciate what you're
[02:31:41] saying. I think the challenge is that valuations and damages are very locationsp specific,
[02:31:48] property specific, usep specific. And so to to have more specific information, we we
[02:31:54] need to know those things. And so that is part of the process. When
[02:31:58] we have more specific information and we understand what the impacts are, we can
[02:32:02] work with property owners to before a decision has been made to understand what
[02:32:07] visual impacts might be um to understand what from their perspective the damages are
[02:32:12] that they might suffer, but we don't I can't speak to that specifically now.
[02:32:17] I I certainly wouldn't want to be inaccurate or make any guesses >> and
[02:32:20] I I appreciate that. But can you understand you know we asked you guys
[02:32:25] to come? Yes, I >> this is our second time that I've I'm here
[02:32:29] with you and I'm still hearing the same information. We don't have it and
[02:32:33] and I get that. But I would hope that you guys can continue to
[02:32:37] bring the information cuz you guys even said you know what questions we're going
[02:32:41] to ask. You stayed that you know what questions we're going to ask and
[02:32:45] so you wanted to prepare yourself. Then why are you guys not prepared for
[02:32:48] these questions? These are very simple questions. [applause] I I we you earlier asked
[02:32:53] me it doesn't or um one of the other council members asked me about
[02:32:57] why it doesn't feel like we're very early in the process, but we are.
[02:33:01] And this is part of how I can show you that we are so
[02:33:06] early in the development that we don't have that specific information. We need to
[02:33:11] know parcels, location, sighting to be able to answer it. And so that is
[02:33:18] a that is genuinely a demonstration of how early this development is. But hearing
[02:33:23] from you all is part of that development process. And as it advances and
[02:33:30] as we get additional stakeholder feedback and we do know parcel numbers and there
[02:33:35] is noticing of of additional public meetings and a regulatory agency process, more of
[02:33:43] that information would be available and developed. And do you guys have a mapping
[02:33:49] or some sort and I hope you guys have this of the impact region
[02:33:52] or area as far as how far out um either animals uh vegetation anything
[02:33:58] is impacted from the point of those power lines. What does that look like?
[02:34:02] >> We are currently conducting surveys on habitat presence of species. We have there's
[02:34:08] a lot of desktop information that's available. So we're >> I'm sorry ma'am. I
[02:34:12] mean in general. So I I you guys have done these Yeah, we do
[02:34:16] have the layers of data on >> what does that look like? So, if
[02:34:20] I have your tower and I sit there in my backyard, >> how far?
[02:34:25] Because I can see those towers depending upon where they're going through that corridor
[02:34:29] and I know plenty of other people here can as well. How do I
[02:34:33] know that those are or not going to affect my home or any of
[02:34:37] the residents or businesses or schools around there? What is the impact zoning area?
[02:34:41] We do not have specific structure sighting, but when we do, that will be
[02:34:48] part of the visual or aesthetics impact that is studied. >> Okay. Any other
[02:34:54] council members have anything on this one? This last question? I got one more.
[02:34:58] >> Yes, please. >> Just on that question, mayor, uh, in regards to, and
[02:35:01] we haven't really hit on it, uh, the EMF, the electromagnetic fields. >> Thank
[02:35:05] you. >> [applause] >> And I know there's various studies uh by many different
[02:35:10] agencies out there and there's a great debate on the long-term health effects and
[02:35:14] health concerns in regards to the EMFs. Um would you or have you uh
[02:35:20] committed to an independent publicly available measurements of before and after construction of said
[02:35:25] EMFs on these extra high voltage towers. California is one of the absolute best
[02:35:34] states for managing that illness or concern. Has been that way for more than
[02:35:39] 30 years. Uh all the utilities in the state are required to do exactly
[02:35:42] what you asked for on a daily basis even around any existing lines. And
[02:35:47] so yes, for this new one, there will be before and after and a
[02:35:51] study directly to anybody's home to what that impact from EMFs would be. in
[02:35:56] general across most states do not even offer any EMF measurements anymore because of
[02:36:01] the minimal impact >> and those states >> but that will be done. >> Thank
[02:36:04] you. And those studies you're referencing are publicly available. Is that correct? >> Yeah.
[02:36:08] Yeah. I don't think in the United States there's a clear standard for it.
[02:36:10] I think that's the reason why you hear some debate. I think it originally
[02:36:13] originated in in Europe maybe 40 years ago, 35 years ago, but in all
[02:36:19] the studies here in the United States, we we've not ever landed upon an
[02:36:22] exact number. It's not it's not uncommon for somebody to move into a new
[02:36:26] home, see a a power line in their backyard, to call a utility and
[02:36:30] ask them to come out and measure that. And then we actually have professionals
[02:36:34] that go out there and measure that and sit down with a homeowner and
[02:36:36] actually show them what the uh what the MSR at their property and give
[02:36:40] them other things to to show what that might compare to. But that's routine
[02:36:43] every day. >> And with that being said, with all of them that have
[02:36:46] been out there in California, [snorts] are is there an average EMFs or is
[02:36:50] there the ratio that we're looking for? you know before there's zero then after
[02:36:54] do we know that number on how much these emit >> I don't know
[02:36:57] the exact it does come down to the distance but uh rapidly when you
[02:37:01] get a 100 ft away from any of the large power lines they pretty
[02:37:05] much near near background noise >> thank you >> any other council members about
[02:37:13] health risks or concerns do you good All right, with that, uh, I would
[02:37:24] like to open it here up to the rest of my council members for
[02:37:28] other questions. I know we've been able to get questions in and out, but
[02:37:31] I think there's a little probably more specific questions. Um, I'll just say this
[02:37:37] before I finish. I really hope that your concern is more about the people
[02:37:43] rather than your power lines. I really do [applause] because in our in our
[02:37:51] position, it is my honor and duty to put people over power lines every
[02:37:56] day and this will not look good in our city and nor do I
[02:38:00] ever want something like this. So, I'll open up to the the rest of
[02:38:02] the council members. [applause] >> Yeah, I don't have any other uh questions uh
[02:38:11] to to talk about. But I think we've hit on most of the the
[02:38:13] points. I uh I I would really just ask that y'all take this meeting
[02:38:20] seriously. Take it into consideration. Recognize that, you know, this this community is is
[02:38:26] unique um in a lot of respects. And and in fact, I I kind
[02:38:31] of want to thank you all for for doing this because this is the
[02:38:37] reason why I moved to Temecula 17 years ago. This community has a remarkable
[02:38:43] spirit and a remarkable way of coming together. And surprisingly, in the middle of
[02:38:48] all the political upheaval and disagreements we can have on a whole variety of
[02:38:51] issues, this much like Liberty Corey is uniting our community in a way that
[02:38:56] I haven't seen in a very long time. And you really have to, you
[02:39:01] know, watch the documentary that was produced by Pachchanga on Liberty Corey. do some
[02:39:05] digging into this because you will see this community will give you a run
[02:39:11] for your money unlike any other. [applause] >> Questions. >> And so my hope
[02:39:23] and and question to you all is that you you you take this seriously.
[02:39:27] You take this back to state of California to have them understand what it
[02:39:31] is they're, you know, getting into. Um, but also just take into consideration the
[02:39:37] cost for municipalities like ours, uh, the tribe, the community, and all the dedicated
[02:39:42] folks who will see this thing through to the end, um, and say there's
[02:39:46] a better way to to do this, and it's not it's not through the
[02:39:49] city of Temecula. [applause and cheering] >> All right, we've got a couple more
[02:39:56] questions. I'm going to send it over to Councilman Zach. >> Thank you very
[02:40:01] much. So maybe just a few comments and sort of like open-ended questions. Um
[02:40:07] maybe I'll start with the questions first. So you know like was mentioned you
[02:40:11] know this is the beginning of this process although it certainly feels like we're
[02:40:15] at the home stretch. Um I've been looking at the grid. I mean it's
[02:40:19] a complex grid right there's just no way around you know looking at um
[02:40:24] the electric grid and and and getting power to and from you know everyone.
[02:40:30] I I was looking at data centers is a big one. EVs is another
[02:40:33] big one, right? So, we need to think about um you know some of
[02:40:37] the impacts that aren't necessarily associated with some of those things. Um my concern
[02:40:42] is is you know the alternatives like we haven't talked about a lot of
[02:40:46] alternatives right and so hopefully through this process we can look at alternatives you
[02:40:50] know upgrading existing infrastructure we talked about more localized power generation and things like
[02:40:56] that. So, you know, just know we're we're ready uh for this fight. We're
[02:41:00] ready to uh to start uh in earnest in this. Um but I don't
[02:41:05] want it to come off as we're just being nimi, right? Like just not
[02:41:08] in our backyard. I'm sure you build into this process. You know, there's probably
[02:41:11] not a community you go to that says, "Oh, can we have a 500
[02:41:14] KV line run through our community?" Right? You you already know this is a
[02:41:18] problem, right? Um and so I will fight for Temecula 100%. But I'll also
[02:41:25] fight for Myetta. I'll fight for San Diego County. [applause] I have I grew
[02:41:29] up in east in San Diego in the mountains in Julian and San Diego.
[02:41:33] And so I have friends in the desert. Ansgo State Park is a beautiful
[02:41:36] beautiful culturally rich environmentally sensitive landscape that I will fight for as well. Um
[02:41:42] so there's not a u for me there's not a better alignment. you know,
[02:41:47] it's it's thinking about um impacts to our community, of course, and that's why
[02:41:52] I'm sitting here and I'm gonna fight for it, like I said, and everyone
[02:41:55] up here is and everyone in the audience and everyone in the conference center
[02:41:59] and everyone watching online. Um, Mayor Prom mentioned, you know, just the fact that
[02:42:04] this has brought the community together. Um, this is your first meeting you ever
[02:42:08] attended, but I talk a lot about building community. Hey, this is great. We're
[02:42:11] building community. We're getting folks to come out and and be part of this
[02:42:14] community. It's really important and I think it I think Temecula sort of speaks
[02:42:18] to that. Um so I'll sort of wrap up with that. I I really
[02:42:24] want us to to truly think through alternatives. Um I'm looking at you know
[02:42:29] the cost effective way to this. California is already paying significantly higher uh energy
[02:42:35] rates than the national average and I don't understand how this project will will
[02:42:39] lower rates. is certainly not going to lower already insane rates and the cost
[02:42:43] of living is already through the roof. So, I'll stop there for now. >> Oh,
[02:42:47] great questions. Thank you very much for that. Uh, any other questions directly from
[02:42:52] Yes, >> Council Member Calfus, please. >> Uh, one question in regards to alternatives.
[02:42:56] We haven't hit on it. Can you just discuss um underground undergrounding these wires
[02:43:01] and what that process looks like, right? Because we talked about there's no good
[02:43:05] route to send these high voltage lines through. Can you just walk us through
[02:43:11] what SDG&E has done as regard in regards to underground? >> I'm sure that
[02:43:20] could be something to get studies as part of the ultimate project. It could
[02:43:23] be interveners uh stakeholders ask for that on on a general scale. Uh overhead
[02:43:30] lines are somewhere around $15 million a mile. um a direct bearing underground for
[02:43:36] 500 KV might be 150 or 160 and that's just based on something I
[02:43:41] think that Edison um a project that they're moving forward with. U the thing
[02:43:47] with undergrounding of course is the massive disturbance that it actually takes to get
[02:43:51] them underground right as well. And so it won't be something that will be
[02:43:55] dismissed. It'll something that'll be studied. uh its relative cost impact could be significantly
[02:44:01] against the project though but it will be studied. >> Thank you very much.
[02:44:05] That's all mayor. >> All righty. Thank you for that question Stu. Yeah, I
[02:44:12] you know, for me it's all about alternate routes and I I really really
[02:44:18] and I understand you guys are in in the early process and I understand
[02:44:23] why we feel like you're not, but I it sounds like you are. So,
[02:44:28] I'm I'm giving you that credit that you know what you say is is
[02:44:32] true. So, um, the Temecula Valley is too beautiful, too nice, too everything to
[02:44:38] disturb like like is planned. So, if you can if you can reach down
[02:44:46] and figure out an alternative route that skates by us, that's what I want
[02:44:51] to see. But anyways, that was my [applause] welcome. All righty. At this point
[02:44:57] in time, that ends council questions. We are now going to be moving to
[02:45:01] public comments. All right, we were going to take a break, but let's keep
[02:45:05] rolling with it. Uh, yes. Um, Madame Mayor, um, as a reminder at the
[02:45:12] beginning, we I do have approximately, >> well, I'll just say over a hundred
[02:45:16] comments. So, um, I'm going to go ahead and read two names at a
[02:45:21] time. Um, so folks can go ahead and come on over from the conference
[02:45:26] center as well as the patio. I think both of those spaces are full.
[02:45:31] Um, and each speaker will have one minute. If you have heard something that
[02:45:37] someone else has said, you might want to go ahead and focus on something
[02:45:41] else. Um, your one minute starts when you literally start speaking and the the
[02:45:49] podium clock will show you exactly how much time you have left. and I
[02:45:54] will just keep calling the names um so that we can just roll as
[02:45:58] quickly as possible. If I could just let everybody know, I understand that there
[02:46:02] have been individuals who are expecting or have written speeches 3 to 5 minutes
[02:46:06] long. Again, this is for us to be able to make sure that every
[02:46:10] single one of you 100 plus get heard today. That is our goal. I
[02:46:15] want uh SDG&E uh Cuck all of them to be able to hear what
[02:46:21] you have to say here in our city and whether you are for against
[02:46:24] this project. So thank you for that. >> Thank you madame mayor. Okay, with
[02:46:28] that the first speaker will be Shaliny Renfro to be followed by Rachel Allen
[02:46:37] to be followed by Paradise Verona. Good to see you, ma'am. Haven't seen you
[02:46:47] in a while. It's good to be back. I wish it were under different
[02:46:52] circumstances. Honorable mayor and city council members, my name is Shaolani Renfro or Shawl.
[02:47:01] I am one of the co-founders of the newly formed coalition, Save Temecula, Fight
[02:47:06] the Power Link. Our two-week old petition to stop SDG&E currently has over 6,000
[02:47:14] signatures. Multitudes of residents are rising up and voicing the many ways SDG&E's plan
[02:47:23] would devastate our community. It's important to note that this decision does not need
[02:47:30] to wait for the CPU. We get to decide it here tonight when our
[02:47:36] city commits to immediately invest the financial and other resources necessary to win this
[02:47:44] fight. We are at a pivotal moment now during the preliminary routing and planning
[02:47:50] stage and applications. >> Your time is up. The next speaker is Rachel Rachel.
[02:47:56] >> They messed with the wrong city >> followed by Paradise Verona to be
[02:48:00] followed by Patricia Granja. So Rachel Allen followed by Paradise Verona. >> Thank you
[02:48:07] for coming. >> Good afternoon everybody. My [snorts] name is Rachel Allen and I'm
[02:48:14] a local realtor here in Temecula. I work directly with families who choose this
[02:48:18] community because of its beauty. Constructing massive 500 KB transmission towers through Temecula Creek
[02:48:25] will absolutely impact South Temecula and surrounding communities. Families do not move here to
[02:48:29] stare at 200 foot industrial transmission towers outside their homes. I also have serious
[02:48:35] concerns about wildfire exposure and insurance availability. We're in the middle of a California
[02:48:40] insurance crisis with rates rising and insurers pulling out of high-risisk areas altogether. So
[02:48:46] I have to ask, did SDG&E Queso, and the CPU fully evaluate this proposed
[02:48:51] route against Southern California's highf fire severity zones, the Temecula wind corridor, and the
[02:48:56] earthquake fault zones? So why should Temecula bear the visual impacts, wildfire concerns, and
[02:49:04] economic consequences while receiving no benefit from this project? I will add the investigation
[02:49:09] of the famous eaten fire is pointing to failed transmission equipment. The next speaker
[02:49:13] is Paradise Paradis Verona to be followed by Patricia Grancha to be followed by
[02:49:21] Charlie Co. >> Good evening. Hello. Hi there. Thanks for having me so much.
[02:49:26] So whether you've lived here for 30 years or just moved here, today's decisions
[02:49:32] affect all of us the same way. So thank you for having me. My
[02:49:35] name is Parody Spirona. here as a resident, a parent, and someone who truly
[02:49:39] loves Temecula. My family chose here, like many of you, for the beauty, and
[02:49:45] that identity took years protecting. And we have welcomed over 3.4 million visitors just
[02:49:52] last year and generated over 1 billion in tourism. And that's because we value
[02:49:57] the the opportunity to welcome folks into this beautiful valley. Now, imagine [snorts] these
[02:50:03] towers. is going to disrupt so many different local businesses, so much of our
[02:50:09] community, and wildfire concerns are immensely real here. In my own lifetime, there's been
[02:50:15] 3,600 California wildfires linked to utility equipment and transmission systems. And so, I just
[02:50:23] wanted to leave that. I know that there's a lot of folks wanting to
[02:50:25] Thank you, ma'am. Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. >> Next
[02:50:27] is Patricia Branch to be followed by Charlie Co to be followed by John
[02:50:33] Hicks. Good evening, Patricia. >> Um, good evening. Thank you for having me. Location
[02:50:38] and distance to these electric lines matter. These lines cause electric interference by electrical
[02:50:44] fields, magnetic fields, and corona discharge. That's the buzzing sound you hear around them.
[02:50:49] Comparing a 500k volt electrical wire to a microwave is negligent. And that's what
[02:50:53] you said during your meetings, dear. There have been numerous destructive fires tied to
[02:50:58] power lines. I can name a few. Dixie fires, Zog fire, the Calivore fire,
[02:51:02] the Electra fire, the campfire, and so on. Please quit trying to gaslight us.
[02:51:07] These lines will be emitting emitting electricity 247. We are in a fire zone.
[02:51:13] On a personal level, I have been evacuated. I was evacuated with the Samantha
[02:51:16] fire. There's no way for us to escape. Um, on a personal level, I
[02:51:21] will no longer be able to view the luscious surrounding. I'm by the creek
[02:51:26] bread creek bed. I won't no longer be able to hear the frogs croak
[02:51:31] croaking at night that I fall asleep with and the birds chirping. I urge
[02:51:35] you to find a better path. >> That is your time, ma'am. Thank you.
[02:51:38] >> Thank you. Charles Co to be followed by John Hicks to be followed
[02:51:42] by Dennis Long. >> And just let you know if you have not spoken
[02:51:45] here before, there is a timer right in front of you that gives you
[02:51:48] a countdown and uh once it hits red, you know you're kind of in
[02:51:51] that 10 15 second mark. So, just let you know, sir. Thank you for
[02:51:54] coming. Thank you, madame mayor and council members. My name is Charles Co. I've
[02:51:59] lived with my wife near Temecula Creek in for um 33 years and um
[02:52:06] it's a lovely place. Um Matt Ram mentioned the Liberty Quarry a while ago
[02:52:12] and I spoke against that quarry many many times and in fact I'm even
[02:52:16] in their video and um I'm totally prepared to speak as many times I
[02:52:22] need to against this crazy project. Um, in fact, I'm hoping, in fact, I
[02:52:27] think the city was prepared to sue should the uh Changa Indians not come
[02:52:33] to the rescue at the 11th hour and saved us by buying the property.
[02:52:36] There probably is no property to they could buy to save us this time.
[02:52:40] So, it's on our on us. We got to make it happen. And um
[02:52:45] just an observation, >> I think we've heard a bunch of politicians tonight, not
[02:52:49] people who really mean what they say. Thanks. Thank you very much, sir, for
[02:52:53] your time. [applause] >> John Hicks to be followed by Dennis Long to be
[02:52:58] followed by Renee Carter. >> Thank you for coming, sir. >> Good evening, Madame
[02:53:03] Mayor, Mayor Prom, members of council, and city staff. Uh, I'll take my minute
[02:53:07] just to say one thing. I open my personal phone and information up to
[02:53:12] either one of you on that sit on this committee and anybody else in
[02:53:15] the city, Temecula. I'm in a unique position to be able to answer every
[02:53:18] single uh question that unfortunately Southern California Gas and Electric was not able to
[02:53:23] answer. I have it right here. I was one of those I was going
[02:53:25] to come in with a five minute speech that can tell you that Riverside
[02:53:29] County as a whole will be holding the burden uh on its population in
[02:53:34] the number of 81 to 87%. And I got and it's respect to community
[02:53:39] on house associates I have exhibits. In order for you to understand what they're
[02:53:43] trying to accomplish, you have to understand how power companies deal with energy trading,
[02:53:48] power trading, power procurement, and energy procurement. I happen to know how that works.
[02:53:54] So any of you that have a question, I will leave my number with
[02:53:58] uh staff and I can talk to you all directly and then I would
[02:54:01] welcome another opportunity to come here. >> Thank you, sir. Next speaker is Dennis
[02:54:06] Long. >> Yes, please. If you can leave your information, we'd be happy to
[02:54:08] get a hold of you, sir. Thank you for coming up. The next speaker
[02:54:11] is Dennis Long to be followed by Renee Carter to be followed by Gerald
[02:54:16] Jared Sleser. Thank you, Dennis. >> Good evening. Thank you for letting me come.
[02:54:21] This is my speech that I prepared. My wife proof read it. Now I
[02:54:25] have to go off script. I'm a father of three. My daughter gave us
[02:54:30] two grandchildren and my two sons are Eagle Scouts. This is a over $2
[02:54:36] billion project, 150 mile in length. Correct. My son's Eagle projects were about $1,000
[02:54:45] and they needed to come in under budget. You're not in budget when you're
[02:54:50] passing off the cost to 9%. Let me help you with your study. Leave
[02:54:55] Temecula now. Thank you. [cheering] [applause] >> Thank you, sir, for your comments. Next
[02:55:01] speaker is Renee Carter to be followed by Jared Slush Sleser to be followed
[02:55:06] by Lawrence Sleser. Who was that first one? >> Renee Carter. Renee Carter. Renee
[02:55:15] Carter. >> Renee, raise your hand if you're coming in. Or >> Renee Carter.
[02:55:19] Okay, we're going to move on. Jared Sleser. Jared Sleser to be followed by
[02:55:24] Oh, wait. >> Lawrence Sleser. >> Jared by Okay, there we go. We got
[02:55:29] two Slesers in here. Sounds good. >> Mayor Alexander and the Temecula City Council.
[02:55:36] My name is Jared Sleser. For the past 16 years, I've worked in the
[02:55:39] energy sector. I spent a decade working on energy efficiency programs for the major
[02:55:43] utilities like SDG&ECE, IID, the gas company, and so on. Six years ago, I
[02:55:49] started a company called Transform Power. We install solar, and we're based locally here
[02:55:53] in Temecula. The most important factor that I believe we're overlooking is that the
[02:55:58] utility company does not need the power that these lines are meant to carry.
[02:56:03] Over the last 3 years, 3,433 megawws of solar have been installed in SDG&E
[02:56:09] andCE territory. That's an average of 1144 megawws per year. This proposed project is
[02:56:16] meant to carry 1,500 megawatts of power. At our current pace in SDG&EC territory,
[02:56:23] solar installers will have installed 8,000 megawatts of solar paired with batteries by the
[02:56:29] project completion date of 2032. These solar installations will provide double the amount of
[02:56:35] power these lines are meant to bring. >> And that's your time, sir. >> Thank
[02:56:38] you for coming in, though. [applause] >> Then Larry, I would assume that was
[02:56:45] your son. >> Sorry. >> Larry Sleser to be followed by Melanie Neman to
[02:56:50] be followed by Adam Ruiz. >> Madame Mayor and should I say Dr. Mayor,
[02:56:55] [laughter] thank you. And members of the council, I want to thank you for
[02:56:59] looking out for us. I really appreciate it. [applause and cheering] >> We all
[02:57:03] appreciate it. And uh what I'd like to say is just make sure we
[02:57:09] need it. Try to hold their fire feet to the fire. Make sure that
[02:57:13] uh we can't accomplish it with what Mayor Stew said. Uh batteries. I understand
[02:57:18] the uh problem between 5:00 in the afternoon and 9:00, but I think batteries
[02:57:25] could take care of that. The next thought is, as Mayor Cauus said, how
[02:57:30] about undergrounding? So, it's only five miles in the city. Why not have that
[02:57:35] undergrounded? And lastly, if you see that beautiful um graphic behind you, the city
[02:57:42] um medallion, we don't want to have high high transmission lines going through our
[02:57:47] emblem. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Larry. Good to see you. Next
[02:57:52] speaker is Melanie Neman to be followed by Adam Ruiz to be followed by
[02:57:57] Christopher Bailey. >> Good evening, ma'am. Thank you for coming. >> Good afternoon, Mayor
[02:58:03] Anderson, city council and staff. My name is Melanie Neman. I live on Lomolinda
[02:58:07] Road near Garter Middle School. My home borders the Temecula Creek basin. Last week,
[02:58:12] I received a letter from SDG&E notifying me to expect a field crew to
[02:58:17] access my property as soon as May 18th and possibly multiple visits over the
[02:58:22] next 18 months. I received this letter in my mailbox on May 21st. Questions,
[02:58:28] why did I receive the notice and why was it so late? How many
[02:58:33] other residents received this letter and where are their properties located? How exactly could
[02:58:38] this project affect the resident properties that received this letter? What are your plans
[02:58:44] for mitigation? How could I possibly even sell my home today or for the
[02:58:51] next 18 months or whenever this is settled? I'm opposed to the SDG&E project
[02:58:57] anywhere in Temecula. Thank you. >> Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker is Adam Ruiz
[02:59:02] [applause] to be followed by Christopher Bailey to be followed by Eric Schwarz. Adam
[02:59:07] Ruiz, thank you for coming with your expertise. >> Thank you. Uh good after
[02:59:11] well now evening I guess mayor, members of the city council. My name is
[02:59:14] Adam Ruiz and I'm here on behalf of the Temecula Advocacy Coalition which is
[02:59:18] a partnership of Visit Tmcula Valley Oldtown Temecula Association and the Temecula Valley Wine
[02:59:23] Grower Association. TAC represents the organizations at the core of this region's visitor economy
[02:59:29] and today we're asking the city council to formally oppose the proposed route of
[02:59:33] the project. We want to be clear. We understand the need for in infrastructure
[02:59:37] and that's not what we're opposing. What we're opposing is this specific route which
[02:59:41] would run a 500 KV transmission towers directly across State Route 79, Veil Lake,
[02:59:46] Gowway Downs, the Deeportola Wine Trail, and the Temecula Parkway corridor. That is the
[02:59:51] heart of wine country. That's what visitors come here to see. Tourism generates more
[02:59:55] than1 billion dollars in annual economic impact for this region. That economy is not
[03:00:00] separate from the landscape. It is the landscape. And once you put industrial transmission
[03:00:03] infrastructure across those viewsheds, you cannot undo it. Uh running out of time here.
[03:00:08] We left a more detailed written comment. Look forward to continue to work with
[03:00:11] you guys. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, sir. [applause] >> Christopher Bailey
[03:00:15] to be followed by Eric Schwarz to be followed by Lorie Holsey. Mr. Bailey,
[03:00:21] good to see you. >> Good evening. uh truncated statement here also. So, good
[03:00:25] evening honorable mayor and members of the city council. On behalf of visit Temecula
[03:00:30] Valley, we stand in opposition to the proposed route of San Diego Gas and
[03:00:34] Electric's Golden Power, Golden Pacific Power Link through our region. Temecula Valley's tourism and
[03:00:40] agricultural economies depend on the natural beauty of our landscapes. The introduction of 500
[03:00:46] kilowatt kilov volt transmission towers across state route 79 veil lake gowway downs and
[03:00:52] the Temecula parkway corridors threaten the scenic character that draws millions of visitors each
[03:00:57] year. This route also poses unacceptable wildfire risk placing high voltage overhead lines in
[03:01:03] high severity fire zones near our vineyards, businesses, workforce and visitors. While infrastructure expansion
[03:01:10] may be necessary, this project should account for the 1 billion economic impact created
[03:01:15] by local tourism and follow a route that does not damage the viewscape and
[03:01:20] ambiance of Temecula Valley. We urge the city council to demand alternative Eric Schwarz
[03:01:27] followed by Lorie. >> Hey guys, remember thumbs up, thumbs down. I know we're
[03:01:31] very excited, so we can just keep it moving. Thank you guys for all
[03:01:34] of your comments so far. So again, Eric Schwarz to be followed by Lori
[03:01:39] Holy to be followed by Robert Quaid. >> Good evening. My name is Eric.
[03:01:44] I live in Morgan Hill along the Temecula Creek. It's little doubt in my
[03:01:47] mind that the proposed route of the Golden Pacific Power Link will have detrimental
[03:01:50] effects on Temecula's economy, home values, and safety. Fire risk is not theoretical or
[03:01:56] hyperbole. Two years ago, Morgan Hill, June 24, we had a fire that was
[03:02:00] successfully mitigated by Calire uh aviation assets. I'm not convinced that uh the power
[03:02:06] lines will will uh not be encumbered encumbering to the aircraft. A deluge from
[03:02:13] 50 ft is much more effective than a >> please keep it down. Sorry.
[03:02:16] Can you pause this time for one second? I'm so sorry everybody. We're trying
[03:02:19] to hear if we can just keep it down a little bit. Thank you
[03:02:21] so much. Go ahead, sir. >> Dropping for effect from 50 ft is going
[03:02:25] to be much better than a fine mist from 200 ft. Additionally, sometimes we
[03:02:30] get a stray hot air balloon right out behind my fence. It's pretty cool.
[03:02:35] My dog goes crazy, but those power lines will definitely be a risk to
[03:02:38] those uh uh pilots. Thank you very much. >> We appreciate your comment. Thank
[03:02:43] you. [applause] Lori Holy to be followed by Robert Quaid to be followed by
[03:02:51] There are many more residents who strongly oppose this project but are unable to
[03:02:55] attend this due to work schedules, family responsibilities, and other obligations. Please understand that
[03:03:00] the number of people presented at this meeting do not reflect the true level
[03:03:05] of concern throughout this community. Many hard-working families or residents want their voices heard
[03:03:10] and share these same concerns about safety, health, fire risk, and preserving Temecula's identity.
[03:03:17] Many residents feel and long-term impacts have been adequately addressed, including environmental concerns. And
[03:03:24] above all else, as a teacher, if I came to a job and gave
[03:03:27] the data you guys gave, I'd be fired. Thank [applause] you, >> Robert Quaid.
[03:03:36] Again, [applause] Robert Quaid to be followed by I think it's Ed Gerso >> to
[03:03:44] be followed by Samantha. >> Good afternoon, neighbor. >> Good evening, Madame Mayor, members
[03:03:48] of the council. >> Yes. Uh let's uh let's be clear. I think the
[03:03:52] the routing of this these lines had something to do with uh the city's
[03:03:57] best friend, Governor Gavin Newsome and his cronies up in this PUC, you know,
[03:04:02] particularly for all the years that we've supported him. But the point is it's
[03:04:05] like this is like having we are the only area outside of SDG&E service
[03:04:10] area that is getting these lines. That would be like my neighbor who owns
[03:04:13] two houses next to me with wanting to build a dog walk across my
[03:04:16] property so his dogs can get back and forth. Well, all I have to
[03:04:20] say to Gavin Newsome and the whole program running [snorts] this through our city,
[03:04:25] keep your dog walk. >> Thank you very much. [applause] >> Ed Jerso, I
[03:04:32] think it's Ed Jerso. Okay. Samantha Newan, Mike Flora, Kathy Seismore. Okay, I'm gonna
[03:04:46] read all these names again. Renee Carter. >> Oh, coming on up. Kathy, go
[03:04:53] ahead and come on up. >> I'm slow, but I'll >> Okay. [laughter] Great
[03:05:00] to see you, Miss Kathy. Come on up. All right. In 2022, I had
[03:05:11] the privilege of being a member of the committee that updated our quality of
[03:05:15] life master plan, the document that governs our city. Um, I helped to write
[03:05:19] the QLMP and this project violates it. Core value number one commits to hardening
[03:05:26] our community against wildfire. This project runs 500 kilova lines through a high severity
[03:05:33] wildfire zone. Core value 4 commits to protecting wine country from urban encroachment. Core
[03:05:39] value 5 envisions a city surrounded by unscarred natural terrain. This project scars it.
[03:05:46] Core value six says that the city's strength is its people. Whole bunch of
[03:05:52] them are here today. So um let me just say that um this project
[03:05:58] doesn't serve a single home in Temecula. All of the risk, none of the
[03:06:02] watts. Um yeah, one thing I've lived in Temecula 20 30 years. We don't
[03:06:08] back down. We're a force to be reckoned with. >> Thank you, ma'am. [applause]
[03:06:13] >> All right, our next speaker. >> I'm gonna go ahead and just play
[03:06:16] um these cards one more time. And if you are here, um please um
[03:06:21] come on up. Renee Carter. Renee Carter. Okay. Renee Carter. Okay. Ed Gerso. Ed
[03:06:33] Jerso. Okay. Samantha Newwin. Samantha Newwin. Okay. Mike Flora. Wait, there's some people coming
[03:06:47] through. >> Okay. The back. >> Can you say the name one more time?
[03:06:53] >> Yeah. I'm happy to say the names one more time. Renee Carter. >> Ed
[03:07:00] Gerso. Okay. Samantha Nuin, Mike Flora. Okay. Chris Seismore to be followed by Dax
[03:07:13] Snider. >> Keep going through Chris. >> Okay. Dax Snyder to be followed by
[03:07:20] Aaron Dornan. >> She'll be back. Can we? All right. Um Jim Naiderrecker. Jim.
[03:07:32] Wonderful. >> Welcome Jim to be followed by Edward Hubler and Amomar Camp Nar.
[03:07:40] >> Good afternoon sir. Good to see you as always. >> It's actually good
[03:07:43] evening. I believe the proposed transmission line poses a real safety spread threat despite
[03:07:50] studies claiming there are no causation between EMF exposure and cancer or leukemia. A
[03:07:56] study conducted at Slater Elementary School in Fresno, California, located near high voltage transmission
[03:08:01] lines reported 13 cases of cancer over 19 years. The expected number of cases
[03:08:07] was only 3.2. That's a third that's a 322% increase. At the Monaceto Union
[03:08:14] School, there were six childhood cancers in 7 years. That was 15 times the
[03:08:19] expected rate. At 200 feet beyond the right ofway, the approximate magnetic field is
[03:08:24] 5 to 20 millig. >> The exposure in those schools was 3 to five
[03:08:29] millig. So all the homes south of the creek and the businesses north of
[03:08:34] the creek are going to get 5 to 20 millig approximately. That's totally unacceptable.
[03:08:40] Um the the data in those schools demonstrates >> that is your time sir.
[03:08:45] Thank you for >> it's not a good idea. >> Thank you very much.
[03:08:49] Okay, [applause] D I think it's either Dax or Dan Snider. Come on up,
[03:08:56] sir. >> Good evening, sir. Thank you for coming. >> Good evening. Um, mayor,
[03:09:05] council, neighbors, and also SD G. I I'm here as right now as a
[03:09:13] representative for the Red Hawk Community Association. We've got um several if not many
[03:09:20] complaints and concerns about this project and we we uh put together a letter
[03:09:26] and we uh sent it off to uh everyone in the association and we
[03:09:31] mailed a copy to the council for your review. Uh basically we're very much
[03:09:36] opposed to this for a number of reasons that have been spoken so far
[03:09:41] and um mostly the uh the property values whether you're in direct site it
[03:09:46] affects everyone. A drop affects everyone in comparisons. Um the environmental impacts and also
[03:09:54] the uh long-term health uh implications whether they're proven or not they're still perceived
[03:10:00] and that means something. Um, myself, Don R. Snider. I'm the president. >> And
[03:10:05] that's your time, sir. I appreciate you very much for coming in. Thank you.
[03:10:10] [applause] >> Madame Mayor, I'll go ahead and make an announcement at this time.
[03:10:14] It looks like there are some seats available in the council chambers. If there
[03:10:18] are individuals in the conference center or in the patio that have filled out
[03:10:22] speaker cards and would like to speak, please go ahead and make your way
[03:10:26] over there. It looks like there's about 20 seats or so here. Um, and
[03:10:29] I'm also going to call these cards uh, one last time. Renee Carter, Ed
[03:10:36] Gerso, Samantha Nuin, Mike Flora, Chris Seismore, and Amomore. Okay, those are they have
[03:10:48] been discontinued, withdrawn. Dax already spoke. Um, Dr. Erin Dornan. Okay, we will start
[03:10:56] a fresh here. Edward Hubler to be followed by Sariah Badin Badinha to be
[03:11:05] followed by Christa Chich. >> Hello sir. >> I spent most of my career
[03:11:16] as a corporate executive and whenever we started a project the first and foremost
[03:11:22] thing that we talked about was cost. We all know that it's cheaper to
[03:11:26] come through Temecula than it is to go onto the south side of Mount
[03:11:31] Palomy down Highway 76. That's the reason that they chose Temecula is because it's
[03:11:39] going to be a whole lot cheaper for them and the CEOs of the
[03:11:43] companies can put more money in their pockets. >> Thank you very much for
[03:11:46] your comments, [applause] >> Sia. Sia Binat Christa Chich. >> Good evening, Christa. >> To
[03:12:03] be followed by Gabrielle Renfro. >> Good evening, mayor and city council members and
[03:12:10] city staff. My name is Christa Chich and I serve as the executive director
[03:12:14] for the Temecula Valley Wine Growers Association. I'm here today in opposition to SDG&E's
[03:12:19] proposed Golden Pacific Power League route through Temecula Valley and our wine country. Temecula
[03:12:25] Valley Wine Country is more than just a tourism destination. It's an agricultural preserve,
[03:12:29] an economic engine, and a source of pride for our great community. Families, venters,
[03:12:34] and local businesses have spent decades building a world-class wine destination centered around scenic
[03:12:39] beauty, hospitality, agriculture, and outdoor experiences. Massive industrial towers cutting through our wine region
[03:12:46] would permanently damage the rural character character and visual landscape that attract millions of
[03:12:51] visitors each year. We respectfully urge the city council to formally oppose this proposed
[03:12:57] route and advocate for alternative alignments that avoid Temecula Valley and Temecula Valley wine
[03:13:03] country. Protecting our region today means protecting its economic sustainability, agricultural heritage and quality
[03:13:10] of life for future generations. >> And that is your time. Thank you for
[03:13:13] your comment. >> Gabrielle Renfro to be followed by Ross Jackson to be followed
[03:13:18] by Michelle Cormack. All right. >> Good evening, sir. It's a long time. >> Good
[03:13:35] afternoon, mayor and council members. My name is Gabriel Renfro. First, huge thank you
[03:13:42] uh to you for taking the concerns of residents seriously. We are trusting in
[03:13:46] you to be our heroes. I strongly oppose these monstrous towers that would cut
[03:13:51] through our neighborhoods, increasing our costs and risking our safety while providing no direct
[03:13:56] benefit to to Temecula residents. Our community is prepared to fight this for as
[03:14:01] long as it takes. But let's not do this for years. Let's squatch squash
[03:14:04] this thing now. To SCG&, you don't want this fight. Temecula is going to
[03:14:09] stop you every single step of the way. We will drain your time, your
[03:14:13] money, and your energy. Don't do it. Get out. To my neighbors in the
[03:14:18] audience, I encourage you to join the Save Temecula Facebook group, which is an
[03:14:22] activation hub for future activities. To sign the change.org petition, to go doortodoor and
[03:14:26] pass out save Temecula flyers. Get one of these sweet t-shirts and put a
[03:14:31] sign in your front yard. Woo! >> Thank you. All right, [applause] Ross Jackson.
[03:14:38] Ross Jackson. Hi, welcome Ross. To be followed by Michelle Cormarmac to be followed
[03:14:44] by Monty Sharp. >> Thank you. I know you guys are very excited to
[03:14:48] hear what they have to say. Remember, let's try and business business meeting. All right.
[03:14:51] But thank you though. I appreciate your energy. >> Good afternoon, Mayor, Council. My
[03:14:55] name is Ross Jackson, secretary of the board of Temecula Oldtown Association. We've heard
[03:15:02] a number of uh stories about pros and cons. What we would like to
[03:15:07] suggest is that simply keep your decisions made with a community's voice in mind
[03:15:15] and a long-term character of our city remain part of the conversation. On behalf
[03:15:21] of the president, Julie Null, and our board, we would like for you to
[03:15:25] please oppose this item. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Ross Jackson.
[03:15:33] [applause] Michelle Cormarmac to be followed by Monty Sharp to be followed by Bob
[03:15:39] Cormarmac. >> Thank you for coming in, Mr. Chelle. Good to see you. >> Hello,
[03:15:43] madame Madame Mayor and our beloved city council. I want to thank you guys
[03:15:47] so much for your love for this community, love for the people, your well-informed
[03:15:53] and wellthoughtout questions. I know we are in great hands. There's just you covered
[03:15:57] most of what I have, but there's something I want to state. We back
[03:16:00] up to the creek, our house, and we have measured the distance across from
[03:16:04] our back fence to the back wall of the homes across the way. It's
[03:16:07] 600 ft. They say they need a 10,000 ft corridor. We do not have
[03:16:11] a 1,000 ft corridor there. We also, it's right where the wildlife preserve is.
[03:16:16] So, it's full of trees and shrubs. And we were forced to go on
[03:16:20] the California fair plan this year for our fire insurance. We don't need something
[03:16:24] else that's going to contribute to that. My own brother lost his home up
[03:16:27] in paradise to power line fire along with 18,000 homes up there. So we
[03:16:34] just want I just thank you guys for for having our backs and SDG&E
[03:16:38] we don't trust you. You say mo so many statements that are very misleading.
[03:16:42] We are not going to trust you. >> Thank you very much Monty Sharp.
[03:16:48] Monty Sharp to be followed by Bob Cormarmac to be followed by Rose Corona.
[03:16:54] Mr. for Monty Sharp. Pastor, how are you, sir? >> I'm great, thank you,
[03:16:58] madame mayor and city council, we are blessed to [snorts] have you. [applause] SDG&E
[03:17:08] has said that the cost is basically going to determine the route, but they
[03:17:12] [snorts] have not acknowledged the cost to our community. They have not acknowledged the
[03:17:15] cost to our families and especially our children and longevity of life and quality
[03:17:19] of life. the tower poles and the lines that run right next to the
[03:17:22] homes of Veil Ranch and Veil Ranch Middle School to which they argue there
[03:17:26] is no health problem. Yet studies do suggest to the contrary. Uh in a
[03:17:31] 1999 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences report concluded that ELFs and EMFs exposure
[03:17:39] can not be recognized as being entirely safe. They cannot. So we put our
[03:17:46] kids at risk. It's playing like playing Russian roulette with our children's lives. Now
[03:17:50] I know that these people would not do that with their children. Why should
[03:17:54] we have to be forced to do that? In addition to that, our communities
[03:17:59] being faced with >> Thank you, Monty. >> I'm being done. [laughter] I'm being
[03:18:03] done. >> The next speaker is Bob. Thank you, sir. Please submit any of
[03:18:07] your comments into the email. I know you were. Um, the next speaker is
[03:18:12] Bob Cormarmac to be followed by Rose Corona to be followed by Tim Parks.
[03:18:18] Hello, Bob. Good to see you. >> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank
[03:18:21] you, Madam Mayor, City Council. Thank you for your support. I'd like to say
[03:18:24] that um historically in California, half the most destructive fires have been caused by
[03:18:30] power lines. Why? Because power lines like to use creeks and drainages to install
[03:18:36] these power lines. Creeks and drainages significantly influence wind-driven wildfires. The proposed power lines
[03:18:43] are directly targeting a drainage with heavy vegetation that runs throughout our city. Every
[03:18:48] day, the wind blows through that drainage depending on which type of weather we're
[03:18:54] having. Here are some examples of these fires. 2018, the Campfire, the deadliest in
[03:18:58] California history with 85 thou uh 85 deaths and 18,000 structures. 2025, the Aladena
[03:19:06] fire only burned 14,000 acres but destroyed 9,000 buildings, mostly homes, and killed people,
[03:19:12] 19 people. This was an area very much like we live. And in 2021,
[03:19:17] the Dixie Fire, the largest in California history. >> That is your time, sir.
[03:19:21] >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, Bob. I appreciate you. >> Rose Corona
[03:19:24] to be followed by Tim Parks to be followed by Marsha Casto. Miss Corona,
[03:19:29] good to see you, ma'am. It's >> a lot to get me out here.
[03:19:34] And before you start my time here, I just would like to thank um
[03:19:38] as many people know, I my family's been here for over 50 years and
[03:19:43] it's a long long time to see a lot of change and I thank
[03:19:46] you for all of the work and hard hard questions that you put together
[03:19:53] and really did your homework on this. And as somebody who came here when
[03:19:58] there was 200 people in town, I really appreciate the work you put in
[03:20:03] and I wish that CDG& had done the same. I just will be as
[03:20:08] quickly as I can. My name is Rose Corona and many of you may
[03:20:12] know me and my family as the owners of Big Horse Feed and Merkantile
[03:20:15] and Corona Ranch on Hawaii Highway 79 Temecula Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. I
[03:20:20] preface my comments to say first of all that I'm not here to speak
[03:20:23] on behalf of my family who've owned the [gasps] for over 50 years but
[03:20:28] may or may not be impacted by the potential project but more so I
[03:20:31] I'm here to speak on behalf of the citizens of this community as a
[03:20:35] voice who has seen a lot in 50 years and >> and that's your
[03:20:38] time ma'am I'm so sorry >> Tim Parks >> thank you great to see
[03:20:42] you [applause] >> Tim Parks to be followed by Marsha Queso to be followed
[03:20:48] by Linda McDonald just to remind people as well. Don't forget you have your
[03:20:51] timer in front. I know it's a lot. You have so much information you
[03:20:54] want to share. So, thank you. Go ahead, sir. >> Yes. Thank you for
[03:20:57] this moment. Uh longtime resident since 91, own a couple properties out here, and
[03:21:04] I appreciate the health concerns. I appreciate uh the historical aspect of the city
[03:21:12] and the blight that it will cause. I don't like the disclaimer, however, that
[03:21:17] the city has nothing to do. I would hope that our city has a
[03:21:22] say in this matter that legally we can go against this. Um such as
[03:21:30] the historical value we mentioned that as far as the Butterfield stage um the
[03:21:36] real estate values all of that you've covered today I appreciate but uh I
[03:21:42] oppose this project. Thank you. >> Thank you very much sir for your time.
[03:21:45] Thank you for coming. [applause] >> Marsha Queso. Marsha Queso to be followed by
[03:21:50] Linda McDonald. And then Alyn Travis. >> Hi Marsha. >> Hi. Good evening. I'm
[03:21:59] Marsha Kaso and I live in Paloma del Soul for 36 years. I don't
[03:22:04] trust these people. I'm sorry. I don't. There's no clear transparency here as far
[03:22:10] as I can see. And I want you guys to protect our city and
[03:22:17] I will do as much as I can to protect Temecula. I love this
[03:22:22] city and I don't want these transmission lines coming through. It affects our health.
[03:22:28] It affects our our children's health. Something needs to be done. And where are
[03:22:32] the attorneys of uh Pachena Indian? I'm going to go over there and go
[03:22:37] talk to them. Okay. They need to come here and defend us as well.
[03:22:42] Okay. Everybody needs as a community to come forward and and defend our city.
[03:22:49] Do not trust these people. Please do not trust them. I beg you. I
[03:22:55] beg you. That's all I could say. Thank you, ma'am, for coming. Linda McDonald
[03:23:00] to be followed by Olin Travel to be followed by Yuan Hawks. >> Howdy.
[03:23:07] Linda McDonald here. Um, 40-year resident. So, I've been through this before. This ain't
[03:23:13] my first rodeo. I fought you guys before when you tried to come through
[03:23:16] here 25 years ago. We won. Liberty Quarry tried to get in here. We
[03:23:21] won. So, that should be a little bit of a notice to you that
[03:23:25] we're not going to back down. We will win. And this is the stupidest
[03:23:28] route I've ever heard of to come through. Here's a here's something you guys
[03:23:34] can do. Ordinance. Get an ordinance going. You guys declare that no power lines
[03:23:42] can come through this city. Do it. It's all I got to say. >> Thank
[03:23:46] you, ma'am. [applause] >> Olin. Olin Travis. >> Hi there. >> Hi. Hi, Ollin.
[03:23:53] Thanks for coming in today. >> It's Arlland. >> Arlland Arllin. I uh I
[03:23:57] have sloppy handwriting. >> No problem, sir. Um >> that's why I type [laughter]
[03:24:02] >> Thank you for coming. I typed up um uh I I typed up
[03:24:06] my thoughts on the project. Um I have uh I'm semi-retired. I've got 30
[03:24:11] years in the business. Uh I uh spent some time uh doing projects for
[03:24:17] San Diego Gas and Electric. >> Uh >> if we can just hear you
[03:24:20] in the mic so we everybody can hear everything you have to say. >> So
[03:24:23] anyway, uh so hello. Hi, sir. >> Mayor Alexander, Councilman, fellow residents, uh guests.
[03:24:33] Uh I I submitted my comments. You have them to be part of the
[03:24:38] record. Um I'm available uh for uh to help out. Uh I helped out
[03:24:46] on the Valley Rainbow Project that we successfully kept out of this uh valley.
[03:24:52] And um and I wanted to mention a couple things while I'm here. Um
[03:24:58] if you look at the Ironwood project, the Ironwood project is a um 500
[03:25:04] KV uh line that will come into uh Imperial Valley to bring wind power
[03:25:11] >> and Horizon Wind is uh the sponsor of that project. The next speaker
[03:25:16] is Yuan Hawk to be followed by Jim Schlash to be followed by Michael.
[03:25:22] Farewell. >> How are you, ma'am? >> Good. Good evening, madame mayor and council
[03:25:27] members. My name is Dr. Yuan Hawk. I am a longtime resident 19 years
[03:25:35] in Temecula. I'm here to strongly oppose this project. Temecula is a home. It's
[03:25:44] not a dot on the map and this project is not a line on
[03:25:50] the map. I want to urge you and to stand with us to protect
[03:25:56] our home and defend our homeland and we are here. You see hundreds of
[03:26:03] us here. We will stand with you. So, please consider to oppose this project
[03:26:09] and keep our home safe for us and for our future. Thank you. >> Thank
[03:26:14] you, ma'am. [applause] >> Jim Schllo to be followed by Michael. Farewell to be
[03:26:21] followed by Jillian Larson. >> Thank you for coming in, sir. >> Yeah. Hi,
[03:26:24] I'm Jim Schllo. I'd just like to say first, thank you for your insightful
[03:26:28] questions. I thought they were awesome. And uh as an engineer, I'd like to
[03:26:32] say to the STG folks, uh there's no way you start a $2.3 billion
[03:26:37] project with as little planning as you did about Temecula. >> If you could
[03:26:40] just come closer to >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Thank you. >> So, um
[03:26:42] yeah, I encourage the the city council to uh you know, not take their
[03:26:46] word for it and uh you know, start doing forcing them to do the
[03:26:50] engineering studies that they need to do. Look at the alternate routes, hold their
[03:26:54] feet to the fire, let me know how I can help. And just thank
[03:26:58] you for your support. Thank you so much for coming in, sir. [applause] >> How
[03:27:07] are you? >> I'm good. How are you? Thank you all. My name is
[03:27:09] Michael Farewell. I live in the Red Hawk community in the fairways. First of
[03:27:12] all, city council members, thank you. You did an ad admirable job representing us
[03:27:16] today. Appreciate that. Uh, real quick, California doesn't care about us. That's the truth,
[03:27:22] right? So, we have to fight for ourselves. The problem is they passed SB49,
[03:27:26] so it's going to limit our ability to limit uh to litigate. So, we
[03:27:29] have to unite early and we have to push for alternatives quickly. I'm sure
[03:27:33] they have plans, so we need to push them toward that. Thank you all.
[03:27:37] >> Thank you, sir. [applause] >> The next speaker is Jillian Larson to be
[03:27:41] followed by Joseph Kamroski to be followed by John Mitchell. >> Hi, Miss Jillian.
[03:27:47] Good to see you. >> Good evening. Good evening, everybody. I'm here opposing obviously,
[03:27:53] but first of all, and actually only this doesn't matter anymore what I was
[03:27:57] going to say. Thank you to the city staff for your excellent, well-prepared information
[03:28:02] that you gave us that covered everything on mine and I'm sure everybody else's.
[03:28:06] Thank you to our city council for your intelligent, educated remarks and questions and
[03:28:12] answers. And I have to say to the people behind me, and I won't
[03:28:15] turn around because I want to be heard. Um, you came to us without
[03:28:19] a horse. It's not a cart without a horse. You don't have a horse.
[03:28:23] And also, it was a case of not ready, aim, fire. It was fire,
[03:28:27] aim, and not ready. So, if this is the project that's going to go
[03:28:31] in with this kind of preparation, lack of answers, not really getting anything clear,
[03:28:37] having no information for us, please just leave us alone. You've got a fight
[03:28:42] on your hands, and you don't want to pick Temecula. So, thank you everybody,
[03:28:46] and thank you everybody for being here. This is not going to happen here.
[03:28:51] Thank you. >> Thank you. [applause] >> Joseph Kamroski to be followed by John
[03:28:56] Mitchell to be followed by Cindy Allen. >> Good afternoon or good evening, Dr.
[03:29:00] Kamaroski. Good to see you. >> Thank you, Mayor Alexander. Dr. Alexander, city staff.
[03:29:04] I have never been more proud to be a Temecula resident than tonight. Thank
[03:29:07] you so much for what you're doing. I'm going to speak from two hats.
[03:29:10] H number one, I'm an elected official for Temecula Valley Unified School District. and
[03:29:15] these power lines become danger close to uh Veil Ranch Middle School. And I
[03:29:19] speak on behalf of the 800 students that are enrolled there and the parents
[03:29:22] and the community members that live there. I condemn this. Secondly, I speak as
[03:29:26] a resident. Stu, you hit on my argument with the balloons. That's what I
[03:29:29] was going to center on. That's the very DNA and identity of Temecula. What
[03:29:33] I didn't hear was the FAA mentioned in depth. So when the CPU kicks
[03:29:38] in with SECA, make sure you tag that national governing body and force as
[03:29:42] much impact as you can on this vacuous and empty SDG. And to answer
[03:29:47] your question that they couldn't answer, it's called the Federal um Communications Commission FCC.
[03:29:53] They don't have the answers and they never will. Brendan, I'd be happy to
[03:29:56] educate you on EMFs. Thank you so much for your time. Um and I
[03:30:00] know you're going to do the right thing. >> Thank you. >> Not the
[03:30:02] wrong city. John Mitchell to be followed by Cindy Allen to be followed by
[03:30:08] David Allen. >> Thank you for coming, sir. >> Uh John Mitchell, I moved
[03:30:15] to Temecula with my wife 5 years ago. We live on the creek and
[03:30:20] I want to thank the um council for their uh questions. I think they're
[03:30:25] very intelligent. I wish I could say that the answers that we got from
[03:30:29] the Golden Pacific Power Link were anywhere informative or close to that and I
[03:30:34] hope that the next steps the council makes is to engage our legal council
[03:30:38] and start putting injunctions and lawsuits on these guys. That's all I have to
[03:30:42] say. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. [applause] >> Cindy Allen to be followed
[03:30:47] by David Allen to be followed by Aleandro Thornton. Good evening, Madame Mayor and
[03:30:53] council members and everyone else here. Um, my name is Cindy Allen. I'm a
[03:30:58] Temecula concerned citizen here to oppose the SDG&E power lines being put directly through
[03:31:05] our city. Um, bringing in many of those high powered lines d will directly
[03:31:12] affect the health of the residents in and near the proximity to the power
[03:31:15] lines. They are known to cause cancer and leukemia. No matter what you say,
[03:31:20] I know it to be a fact. Do your homework. Other issues when purchasing
[03:31:26] homes, people did not expect these power lines to be here. They bought their
[03:31:30] homes. You can't put them in after you buy. They're going to degrade their
[03:31:34] properties. Um, and then I just have a question for SDG&E. Would you live
[03:31:40] a thousand feet from these power lines with your family and your children and
[03:31:47] grandchildren? I can't imagine you doing that. I couldn't imagine doing it. So, please
[03:31:53] come. >> Thank you, ma'am. That's your David Allen. >> Thank you so much.
[03:31:56] >> David Allen to be followed by Aleandro Thornton to be followed by Lisa
[03:32:01] Sleman. >> Good evening, Mr. Allen. >> Hello. I oppose this method. Period. There's
[03:32:10] no give and take or nothing. Take your toys and go home. I will
[03:32:15] not put up with it. And I I've spent $50,000 in my house. I
[03:32:20] have solar panels and battery backup systems. I'm not draining any power from them.
[03:32:26] I got my own power. But that's the way I feel about it. They
[03:32:30] can go home. >> Thank you, sir. [applause] Aleandro Thornton. Aleandro Thornton. Lisa Sleman.
[03:32:42] Okay. Aleandro Thornton. Lisa Sleman. Mark Winkler, just to as people are coming up,
[03:32:51] I'm just going to let everybody know we're going to continue this. We're not
[03:32:53] going to take a break if my council's okay with that. Uh we're over
[03:32:56] halfway through and so we want to make sure everybody gets heard and then
[03:32:59] we'll take a break uh after the motion. Yes, ma'am. >> Good evening. I'm
[03:33:04] a homeowner in the Temecula Creek area directly impacted by the proposed project. I
[03:33:09] stand you before you today in strong opposition to this project and the placement
[03:33:13] of massive transmission towers behind our homes. Like many people, purchasing my home was
[03:33:18] one of the biggest financial decisions of my life. After going through a divorce,
[03:33:22] I essentially put all my eggs in one basket to create a stable and
[03:33:27] fresh start for myself. I invested everything into my home and because I believed
[03:33:33] in the safety, beauty, and long-term value of Temecula. With this propos proposed project,
[03:33:38] I'm being told that my investment, my sense of security could be significantly damaged.
[03:33:44] Homes affected by these transmission tales could see property values significantly reduced. This in
[03:33:50] turn should be reflected in our property tax assessments which will affect you. These
[03:33:56] towers would permanently change the character of the Mecculara Creek area. Families chose this
[03:34:01] community for its open space, scenic beauty, and quality of life. Not to below
[03:34:08] is Mark Winkler to be >> Thank you for coming up by Bill Beal
[03:34:12] to be followed by Dennis Fitz. >> Good evening, Mr. Winkler. >> Good evening,
[03:34:18] council. Thank you. I appreciate you fighting with the full weight of your authority,
[03:34:22] your resources, and your financial commitment. The supposed greater good scenario would have tally
[03:34:27] to take all the risks with no benefits and SDG&E reaps the profit. In
[03:34:32] return, our city receives increased health and safety issues, environmental damage, visual blight, declining
[03:34:38] property values, and rising insurance concerns, harm to our local economy, erosion to our
[03:34:43] city tax base. Temecula will carry the brunt of the devastation caused by a
[03:34:47] giant transmission infrastructure where none existed before. In a region threatened by wildfires and
[03:34:53] earthquakes, these risks are very real, not theoretical. We need action, advocacy, expert resources,
[03:34:59] and a united front. Together, we are stronger. That is why community members and
[03:35:03] I have formed Save Temecula, a nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting the power link.
[03:35:08] Our mission is simple. Unite residents, businesses, and community leaders to protect Temecula's future.
[03:35:14] Other alternative routes and technologies exist. The TNG board would not put this monstrosity
[03:35:20] in next we wouldn't put it in ours to be followed thank you for
[03:35:23] your times to be followed by Christina >> Braamonte so again Bill Vilville okay
[03:35:34] Dennis Fitz up thank you Mr. Fitz. >> My name is Dennis Fitz and
[03:35:42] I'm a retired environmental researcher from the University of California, Riverside. All indications are
[03:35:49] is that distributed power is the future. San Diego Gas and Electric should get
[03:35:56] out of the past and look into the future. They could be building an
[03:36:02] outrageous power line that could be obsolete the day it is built. Thank you,
[03:36:09] sir. >> Christina Braamonte. Christina. >> Mayor, >> thank you. >> Council, thank you
[03:36:20] so much for your insightful questions. I couldn't have done it better myself with
[03:36:25] or without a PhD or any kind of education. Thank you so much for
[03:36:29] working so hard on behalf of this beautiful city. Mother's Day, I should have
[03:36:39] been celebrating, but instead I drafted a petition. One of my guiding principles in
[03:36:49] life as a mom is Mother Teresa's saying, "We can do no great things,
[03:36:57] only small things with great love." And I feel like we have to come
[03:37:04] together as a group and fight these. I don't care what it takes, but
[03:37:08] my mama bear says Thank you, ma'am. [applause] Don Don Smitty. Don Smitty. Don
[03:37:19] Smitty to be followed by Mike Walkshaw. Yes. Come on up. That person isn't
[03:37:30] answering. Don Smitty. No, Don Smitty to be followed by Mike Walkshaw to be
[03:37:36] followed by Sandy. >> Yeah, that'd be it. [laughter] >> Thank you for coming,
[03:37:46] sir. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam uh Alexander. I app and council members. I
[03:37:52] only have a couple of items. One is the height of the towers. If
[03:37:56] a developer came in here and said, "I wanted to build 12story or 19story
[03:38:01] buildings," you probably would not approve that because we don't have those here in
[03:38:05] Temecula. Another one is for our relatively friendly people here. I heard from a
[03:38:13] pro their project management perspective and some of the things I didn't hear about
[03:38:18] are one, do you have a riskmanagement plan and can we see it? Two,
[03:38:23] you talked about stakeholders, but are you talking about did you do a stakeholder
[03:38:27] analysis including future stakeholders, not just people today, but what are you doing to
[03:38:33] impact the future people and the future of our environment? Because are when we
[03:38:38] talk about stakeholders, we're not just talking about people, we're talking about the environment
[03:38:43] as well. And from that perspective, >> and that's your time, sir. >> Thank
[03:38:48] you. >> Thank you so much for coming. >> Thank you. >> Thank you
[03:38:50] for your comments. Okay, Sandy B, come on up. To be followed by James
[03:38:58] Nollo to be followed by Orion Roofs. Thank you, ma'am, for coming. >> Yeah,
[03:39:03] thank you. I just have a couple questions. I just want to know by
[03:39:06] the time they have a specific structure location on this matter, is it then
[03:39:11] too late? Is that why they're hemming and hawing and not telling us? Also,
[03:39:17] how many microteslas is deemed safe? Microtesla is a unit of measurement for electromagnetic
[03:39:22] field we'll be exposed to in America shortterm is 100 microteslas long-term point4 not
[03:39:34] four point 04 is deemed safe 200 meters is supposed to be the setback
[03:39:40] those houses in Dherty didn't look 200 meters behind so I don't think our
[03:39:45] safety really matters one bloody bit I think the dollar does. That's why they
[03:39:50] don't bury these. They could bury them. They don't because we don't matter. The
[03:39:56] dollar does. F that. Thank you, ma'am. >> James Nollo to be followed by
[03:40:02] Ryan Roos to be followed by Janette Noa. >> Thank you for coming up,
[03:40:09] sir. >> Thank you, uh, Mayor and Council. I'd like If you can get
[03:40:20] right into the microphone, that'd be great. >> Okay. How's that? >> Perfect. Wonderful.
[03:40:23] Thank you. Uh I was a worker at Sanonafry and we learned about radiation
[03:40:34] and so uh one of the things is that you're ex the power lines
[03:40:40] that I learned about a town on a river and another town on the
[03:40:45] river and uh one town was getting cancer and the other town wasn't. the
[03:40:53] town down river from the other one had power lines going across the river
[03:41:00] and so the town below uh was drastically more cancer and so with the
[03:41:10] power lines going over the water district and the kids >> and that's your
[03:41:16] time. Thank you for your comments, no sir. >> Ryan Roofs, Ryan [snorts] Rooves,
[03:41:25] Janette Noa, welcome Janette. After Janette is Katherine Lopez, >> hi ma'am. >> Foremost,
[03:41:32] thank you so much for your fight and for fighting for us. Second of
[03:41:36] all, if Mr. Washington from the Riverside County Board of Supervisors is still here.
[03:41:41] Please take up this fight for us because where I live, I live on
[03:41:45] Summit View and I invite the people from SDG&E to come to my house
[03:41:50] and stand in my front yard because I am across from where the panels
[03:41:55] and these big towers are going to be. Madam May, we can't be here.
[03:41:58] Yes, if you can just talk. >> You will see what we will see.
[03:42:01] you will see the destruction. And most importantly, if you don't think Temecula is
[03:42:06] important, then go and tell that to Disneyland because if you go to California
[03:42:11] Adventure and you go on the soaring ride and they say the most beautiful
[03:42:15] parts of Southern California, they show Temecula. That's how beautiful we are. That's how
[03:42:21] important we are. And that's why this cannot pass. Thank you, ma'am. [applause] Okay.
[03:42:30] Um, madame mayor, I'll just remind the audience on your behalf that we need
[03:42:35] to speak into the podium and your comments need to be addressed to the
[03:42:38] mayor and the council, please. >> Thank you very much. >> Katherine Lopez to
[03:42:43] be followed by Nancy Snowden to be followed by Taylor Law. >> Katherine Lopez.
[03:42:51] Katherine Lopez. Okay. Nancy Snowden. Nancy, welcome Nancy. And then to be followed by
[03:43:03] Taylor Law and Jodie Christopher at the very end, which were coming near, I
[03:43:10] will read all the comment cards that were not um answered to one more
[03:43:14] time just to make sure we didn't miss anybody. Um, welcome Nancy. Thank you.
[03:43:18] >> Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Um, my name is Nancy Snowden and
[03:43:24] I'm here representing uh my community called Aubry Place. I'm on the board and
[03:43:31] we are on the corner of Butterfield and uh Channel Street. We border the
[03:43:36] Temecula Creek. So, this project um would directly affect our homes and we have
[03:43:44] 180 units in our community. So, we want to just let you know that
[03:43:49] we're against it and I really appreciate tonight and the questions and answers that
[03:43:53] you posed were really great. So, thank you for this informative evening. Thank you
[03:43:59] very much for coming, ma'am. Taylor Law to be followed by Jodie Christopher to
[03:44:05] be followed by Bob Cal. >> Hi, ma'am. >> Yep. Just leave it right
[03:44:13] there. Okay. Good evening. My name is Taylor Law and I live on Temecula
[03:44:18] Creek Road in Behinger Creek neighborhood and my home backs up to the creek.
[03:44:22] Um, my four kids attend three local schools and most mornings before my kids
[03:44:25] wake up, I go for a run with friends along the creek trails and
[03:44:29] into the hills. We run here, we walk our pets, we ride our bikes,
[03:44:33] we gather at parks, we walk with our families. And these moments matter, so
[03:44:37] please don't take that away from us. Two years ago, on the last day
[03:44:40] of school, a fire erupted. Um >> if you can pause for one second
[03:44:44] because I'm very thankful for your slides that you're putting. There we go. Thank
[03:44:47] you very much in the back. Thank you. >> Second. Okay. Um a fire
[03:44:52] unrelated to power lines erupted directly behind my house in the creek area. From
[03:44:56] our backyard, we saw red and orange flames racing through the brush towards our
[03:44:59] neighborhood and even closer to those on Morgan Hill. Uh we all watched CalFire
[03:45:05] save our neighborhoods. The airplanes flew skillfully close to the homes on Morgan Hill
[03:45:09] and just above the ground. Helicopters dumped water again and again, douncing the fire
[03:45:13] until it was out. CalFire responded so quickly with air support and firefighters on
[03:45:18] the ground that were delivered by helicopter directly to the creek bed. They were
[03:45:22] able to do this because the creek bed was open and unobstructed. If high
[03:45:26] voltage power lines had been there, the aircraft operations would have been impossible. That
[03:45:30] puts every family in this area at greater risk when the next fire comes.
[03:45:34] And in California, we know there will next fire. Thank you. Next speaker is
[03:45:38] Jodie Christopher. [applause] Next speaker is Jodie Christopher to be followed by Bob Cal
[03:45:45] to be followed by William Boy. Good to see you, Mr. Christopher. >> It's
[03:45:49] good to see you guys, too. And I want to say again, just like
[03:45:52] everybody else said, mayor, city council members, and our staff, um, thank you for
[03:45:57] what you've done tonight. It's I'm very proud of you all. Um, my concerns
[03:46:01] are not, uh, EMF. My concerns are nonionized radiation. This is something that we
[03:46:06] don't measure and it is a c it is caused by our power lines.
[03:46:12] We we keep saying that this is not a problem. It's not a problem.
[03:46:17] It's not a problem. The health concerns based off of these high power lines
[03:46:21] are a huge problem. Please consider that SDG&E you also have a high power
[03:46:27] line corridor just south of us. Why aren't we using the same corridor that's
[03:46:31] already there? Why are we proposing a new one right through a city? It's
[03:46:34] ridiculous. The third thing is is this is outside our state's power. We're bringing
[03:46:40] power from outside our state to inside our state because we can't build power
[03:46:45] here in our state. It's ridiculous. We need to stand up as citizens and
[03:46:50] get power back in California. >> Thank you so much, Mr. Christopher. Bob Cal
[03:46:54] to be followed by William Boy to be followed by Barry Schmidt. And Mr.
[03:47:00] Bob, good to see you. council. >> I'm very much against the uh power
[03:47:04] lines going through Temecula as you would would think. Uh the broader question is
[03:47:10] why do they need 160 gawatts of power by uh 2045 when each gawatt
[03:47:17] is one nuclear reactor. So if you have uh need 160 gawatts of power
[03:47:23] by 2045, you're going to have 160 nuclear reactors you're going to need along
[03:47:29] the state and you're not going to have enough solar power from El Centro.
[03:47:33] That's where the solar power is right now. They're building out. So uh uh
[03:47:37] they just don't have they're where are these solar panels coming from? They're going
[03:47:41] to come from China or they're not going to come from the United States.
[03:47:45] And uh we're going to have to import these and I don't even know
[03:47:47] if they have enough to to supply us all. Thank you. >> Thank you,
[03:47:51] sir. William Voit to be followed by Barry Schmidt to be followed by David
[03:47:56] Sola. >> Thank you, Mr. Voit. Coming in. >> Thank you for stepping up
[03:48:02] and and um >> Oh, sir, unfortunately, we cannot have any of our devices,
[03:48:08] but thank you so much. >> That's fine. Uh, I wanted to say thank
[03:48:11] you to you all for stepping up and and and being the champion for
[03:48:15] the city and uh, I really appreciate it. My name is William Vote. I
[03:48:19] am a resident and only been here for about seven years. I put my
[03:48:23] entire life savings into a home that's 500 ft from these lines. I'm on
[03:48:28] Nighthawk Pass. Like my neighbor um, just spoke eloquently earlier. You know, this this
[03:48:35] really can't go through. I'm here for my grandkids. We've moved my whole family
[03:48:39] here. Their schools are right there next to these power lines. You know, I've
[03:48:42] I've seen videos of people walking on those trails behind my home. I want
[03:48:46] it to be the way it is now forever for my kids and for
[03:48:49] our house and for our family's future. We can't I'm for sustainable power and
[03:48:54] for green power, but I not at the expense of our future, not at
[03:48:58] the expense of Temecula. Period. >> And that is your time, sir. Thank you
[03:49:02] for coming and giving us comments. Barry Schmidt to be followed by David Sola
[03:49:07] to be followed by Michael Antonucci. Barry Schmidt. Barry. Okay. David Sola. David. Okay.
[03:49:22] Michael Antonucci. >> Michael. He had to leave. I think I heard. Okay. Tara
[03:49:27] Thomas to be followed by Mary Mikolich. Welcome. >> Hello, ma'am. Good to see
[03:49:36] you as always. >> Thank you so much for having me and for the
[03:49:40] great work you guys have done already on this. My name is Tara Thomas
[03:49:43] and I serve as a children's pastor in Temecula and I'm here to voice
[03:49:46] my opposition to the proposed project. I'm here to point out that yes, there
[03:49:51] is a school along the proposed lines, but there are also many churches along
[03:49:54] the route as well. And many of these churches have preschools. And um these
[03:50:00] preschools serve the youngest and smallest residents of Temecula. And as stated um on
[03:50:06] earlier and on the SDG&E website um they provide free measurements for electric and
[03:50:12] magnet magnetic field upon request and um that SDG&E follows California Public Utilities Commission
[03:50:20] guidelines to mitigate exposures. So this raises a question for me. What effects do
[03:50:25] these frequencies have on the youngest and most vulnerable among us? I'll leave those
[03:50:30] um answers to our resident expert, Dr. Kay. But why would we risk exposing
[03:50:36] them to these effects for a company to save money? I propose that we
[03:50:40] do not run the lines through Temecula. >> And thank you, ma'am, for your
[03:50:42] for your comment. [applause] Next is Mary Mikolich to be followed by Jessica Chadwell.
[03:50:50] Mary. Okay, Jessica Chadwell to be followed by Michael Fineberg. Oh, there we go.
[03:51:10] And after Michael, we will have Lorraine White to be followed by Alice Richter.
[03:51:16] >> Thank you for holding out, sir, and being here to speak. >> Thank
[03:51:20] you for this opportunity. Michael Fineberg, 36-year resident, uh, local rancher, and very conveniently,
[03:51:27] I am a power line fire lawyer. In 2018, uh, I'm sorry, in 2007,
[03:51:35] a power line fire was ignited by SDG&E power lines on my friend and
[03:51:40] ranchers property, Glenn Drown, in the Ramona, San Pasal area. I've heard the COO
[03:51:46] say the same thing. That's the corporate statement. We did not cause that fire.
[03:51:51] They didn't cause that fire. You know what they did? They paid my clients
[03:51:54] $600 million because they didn't cause the fire. And yet that continues. This is
[03:52:00] a matter of corporate integrity, believability, support, and follow-up support. The power line fires
[03:52:07] across this nation where I have been and including the campfire where eight of
[03:52:12] my clients died were caused by transmission lines just like the lines that are
[03:52:18] planned here. Those were older. So was the one in Ramona. However, >> and
[03:52:22] that's your time, sir. I would love to keep listening to you if you
[03:52:25] can. Actually, I just want to make sure I have his information. >> We
[03:52:27] have everyone's information. Yes. >> Outstanding. We'll be reaching out to you. >> Thank
[03:52:30] you. >> Thank you very much, sir. The next speaker is Lorraine White. [applause]
[03:52:36] Lorraine, are you here? Welcome. And then Alice Richter and Sarah Guyger. Thank you
[03:52:43] for coming. >> Good evening. Thank you, city councils. Thank you for being rock
[03:52:46] stars. I think everything's been said. You did your homework. You had intelligence questions.
[03:52:51] I wish I could turn around and address them who I want to address.
[03:52:55] I've been in the business world [snorts] for 30 years and you were not
[03:52:59] prepared. And it's it's really it's embarrassing and it's disrespectful. And one of you
[03:53:04] didn't even stay. I live in Morgan Hill. >> Ma'am, you need to speak
[03:53:07] into >> I live in Morgan Hill. My backyard is Temecula Creek. I had
[03:53:12] someone from Edison come out said how long tall they would be. They would
[03:53:16] be all the way to my fence all the way across my yard. My
[03:53:20] property value goes down. My insurance guy said, "We won't get insurance." And I've
[03:53:26] been watching your faces from the other room the whole time. Please at least
[03:53:30] look like you care and please come prepared next time. And thank you again.
[03:53:34] I'm proud to be from Temecula. Thank you ma'am for your comments. Alice Richtor.
[03:53:40] Alon Musk has the answer >> to be followed by Sarah Geger. >> She
[03:53:45] made it in her time. >> Alice Richtor. >> Alice. >> Okay. Sarah Guyger.
[03:53:54] Welcome, Sarah. To be followed by Teresa >> Breaker. >> Thank you for waiting.
[03:54:02] >> Uh, good evening. My name is Sarah Guyger and I have been a
[03:54:05] resident of Temecula for 17 years. Our family does not want this project here.
[03:54:10] My own house backs up to Temecula Parkway. We do not want the upheaval,
[03:54:13] the mess, the fire danger, the health consequences, the eyes, the decreased home values,
[03:54:18] or the environmental impact. Temecula, an upscale rural city known for its beauty, wineries,
[03:54:23] horse trails, and tourism, is obviously the wrong location for this SG& project. Quite
[03:54:28] frankly, it's appalling that no one had the sense to stand up and say
[03:54:31] to their committee, you know what? This is a terrible idea. It doesn't matter
[03:54:35] if it is moved to a few miles in any direction outside of our
[03:54:38] city or even if it's suggested to put lines underground. SDG&E ultimately, if you
[03:54:42] cannot complete this line without going through or by Temecula, then you need to
[03:54:46] kill this project. Full stop. Thank you. [applause] Teresa Teresa Breaker to be followed
[03:54:54] by Peggy Bartell's to be followed by Miguel Gonzalez. >> Hi ma'am. >> Hi.
[03:55:02] Thank you city council. You're doing a great job. Uh we have a home
[03:55:08] that's directly on Temecula [clears throat] Creek and we paid a premium for our
[03:55:13] view and that was two years ago and now it's we're already impacted. It's
[03:55:19] not like a future impact because if we tried to sell it today, we
[03:55:25] would have to uh disclose this going in and that it's on the map.
[03:55:32] We'd have to give the map and show them. It's going right. Uh you
[03:55:37] could see this on here if that's our view. It would be destroyed. Can
[03:55:44] you show that? >> Uh I believe if we can just open that up,
[03:55:47] please. So that can be powered on. >> Yeah. >> Oh, for Oh, for
[03:55:51] that. I apologize. Not for your phone. I'm so sorry though, ma'am. Well, thank
[03:55:54] you. >> Everybody saw it, but thank >> Thank you very much, ma'am. I
[03:55:59] appreciate you. Peggy Bartell's to be followed by Miguel Gonzalez to be followed by
[03:56:05] Christopher Müller. Hello. Thank you for allowing me to speak here tonight. I want
[03:56:12] to talk a little bit about California having the highest death rates related to
[03:56:17] transmission line wildfires in the nation. Other comparisons are when you look at in
[03:56:26] Oregon, the transmission line related wildfires have killed 12 people. In Washington, three people.
[03:56:34] In Idaho, one person since 1994. In California, since 1994, transmission line fires have
[03:56:42] killed 157 people. You need to ask why are we putting transmission lines up
[03:56:50] in residential areas? We can easily divide a 500 kilovolt line and bury it
[03:56:58] underground. That's the first thing. The second thing is the proposed project area, the
[03:57:04] Temecula Creek corridor is the second highest wind velocity area. >> And that's your
[03:57:10] time, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> Riverside County Miguel Gonzalez. Thank you very much,
[03:57:14] ma'am, for your time. >> Miguel Gonzalez to be followed by Christopher Mohler to
[03:57:19] be followed by Hong Min. >> Evening, Miguel. >> Good evening. Good evening. >> As
[03:57:29] long as it's not a phone, we can have it on there. >> Um,
[03:57:33] I came to this meeting expecting to see more information on the alignment. I
[03:57:40] opened the website for the California Energy Commission and anybody is can see in
[03:57:45] there that there are already uh transmission lines that go from Imperial Valley to
[03:57:50] Sanonre. So the rightway is already in place. Um and they are 230 KV
[03:57:56] and 69 KV but the rightway is there. So I would like to see
[03:58:00] more homework from this project to see why to Temecula. this point I will
[03:58:06] oppose the project to go to Temecula Creek and I can mention multiple reasons
[03:58:10] why but I would say just simple I will oppose the project as it
[03:58:13] is right now. >> Thank you very much sir. >> Christopher Mhler to be
[03:58:19] followed by Hong Men to be followed by Abraham Feltus. >> Good evening Mr.
[03:58:25] I believe it was Muller. >> Madame Mayor council members thank you for the
[03:58:30] meeting. This project is a product of a problem that SDG has created themselves
[03:58:41] through their suppression of the ability of homeowners to put solar systems on their
[03:58:47] homes. They've did this through legislation that was put forth by the Edison Electric
[03:58:54] Institute, an association of investorowned electric companies of which SDG&E is a member. SGAA
[03:59:01] has is a guaranteed profit for their infrastructure investments. However, the homeowner does not
[03:59:10] have any guarantee that the money that they've put into putting solar on their
[03:59:15] home will ever be returned. And this is due to legislation that has been
[03:59:19] put forth by the Edison Electric Electric uh Institute. This will continue. They've >> And
[03:59:29] that's your time, sir. >> That's it. Thank you. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. Thank
[03:59:32] you very much for coming in. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Hung Hung Min
[03:59:36] to be followed by Abraham Beltus to be followed by Stephanie Baxter. >> Always
[03:59:40] good to see you, sir. >> Madame Mayor, uh, city council members, staff, good
[03:59:45] evening. My name is Hong Min. I'm the CEO of Temecula Valley Hospital and
[03:59:49] I am here to speak out in opposition to the power lines. At Temecula
[03:59:54] Valley Hospital, we service about 50,000 patients through the emergency room every year. We're
[04:00:00] also a cardiovascular hub and a comprehensive stroke center. The work we do is
[04:00:06] saving lives. It's not about property values. It's not about sightelines. It's about people's
[04:00:11] lives. Over the past 12 months, we have experienced four blackouts. Three of them
[04:00:19] resulting in an internal triage. We have some infra in infrastructural issues that we
[04:00:24] need to deal with with our own power. We do not need to be
[04:00:27] spending our most valuable resource, our attention and energy focusing on building power lines
[04:00:33] that provides power not to our community but elsewhere. We need to take care
[04:00:37] of our needs first. And with that, I oppose the power lines. >> Thank
[04:00:41] you, sir, very much for coming in. Abraham [applause] Feltus to be followed by
[04:00:47] Stephanie Baxter to be followed by Christine Vanderbas. >> Good evening, sir. >> Good
[04:00:52] evening. My name is Abraham Feltus. I've been here close to 50some years here
[04:00:59] in the city of Tmicula. [snorts] I owned a industrial landscaping service here in
[04:01:04] Tmicula. Speaking of hospitals, that's one of my main customers back in the day.
[04:01:09] I'm retired now. However, Tmicula Valley is the heart of this city. It protects
[04:01:16] our heart. Our heart >> and we have to protect our heart. Not allow
[04:01:22] the Edison lines or anybody's lines that's going to expose any type of illness
[04:01:27] on our community. By doing by doing that is saying no, no, no. Shop
[04:01:33] someplace else. Put it in the ground and it will grow. Thank you so
[04:01:41] much for your time and coming and and staying with us. [applause] >> Stephanie
[04:01:44] Baxter to be followed by Christine Vanderbos to be followed by Maria Pete. Hello
[04:01:50] ma'am. Good evening. It is so great to be here with you. My name
[04:01:54] is Stephanie Baxter. I'm an elected member of the Fbrook Community Planning Group, your
[04:01:58] neighbors to the south. We are no strangers to being uh dumping grounds as
[04:02:04] I heard uh described this evening um with battery energy storage uh infrastructure projects,
[04:02:12] highdensity housing, uh things that we are not asking for but are being pushed
[04:02:16] down upon us and our local control is uh continually being overridden as is
[04:02:22] proved by this project. residents are tired of the environmental double double standards where
[04:02:28] communities are asked to destroy nature in the name of saving it. And I
[04:02:34] thank you for leading this charge. I thank you for giving us hope. Um
[04:02:38] and we I I can guarantee you there will be many other communities following
[04:02:42] along uh your lead and we are with you in people over power lines.
[04:02:48] Thank you. God bless you and we will see you in Fbrook in July.
[04:02:53] >> That's right. Thank you, Christine. Christine Bonderbos. Christine. Okay. Maria Pata. Okay. Veronica
[04:03:07] Langworthy. There she is. >> Okay. And after Veronica will be Marcus Heredia to
[04:03:19] be followed by Ron J. Wilson. All right. Good evening. Good to see you,
[04:03:27] ma'am. >> Good evening, Temecula City Council. My name is Veronica Langworthy and I'm
[04:03:32] from the city of Wdemar. I'm resident there for 20 years and um I'm
[04:03:37] glad to hear you're urging SDG&E to listen to the people of Temecula and
[04:03:41] I hope they are listening and hearing the voices that are speaking with wisdom.
[04:03:46] Um many years ago in Wdemar, there was a railroad company that came. Have
[04:03:51] you heard of the railroad in Wdemar? They found a lovely piece of land
[04:03:56] to build on. It was sandy level and you know one of the local
[04:04:00] peoples the farmer said that's a creek. We get floods. It looks great to
[04:04:06] build on but it's not a good place to do it because there are
[04:04:09] flash floods. If you've read Louis Lamore this happens. And so they built it.
[04:04:17] Train ran great. Um, flooded, railroad tracks went away, built again, flooded, railroad tracks
[04:04:26] went away, and then the railroad went away. >> And that's your time. >> Hopefully.
[04:04:31] >> Thank you, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> Marcus Heredia to be followed by
[04:04:35] Ron J Wilson to be followed by Samantha Hunter. So, Marcus, welcome. Hi, >> Marcus.
[04:04:54] I'm a citizen of Tonga. Council's right. Council has good knowledge that the mouth
[04:05:00] of the river is our creation area. the creation area. We call that place
[04:05:05] uh which literally translates to her birth canal to my the mother earth and
[04:05:15] our first village is right there eha. I work for SDSU doing habitat restoration.
[04:05:22] I personally steward all of the land right there and I walk that river
[04:05:26] almost every day. I take care of everyone there, all of our plant and
[04:05:30] animal relatives, and I make sure everyone is doing good. A lot of the
[04:05:35] things that they would have to do to clear those areas would be clear-cutting
[04:05:39] to put those lines in, and that would hurt all of our all of
[04:05:42] our animal relatives and all of our plant relatives. It would make it really
[04:05:46] difficult. Any fire retardant would be toxic to the area and to the the
[04:05:50] river itself. >> And that's your time, sir. Thank you so much for coming
[04:05:53] in, [applause] >> Ron. Ron Wilson to be followed by Samantha Hunter. >> How
[04:06:02] are you, sir? Good to see you. >> Hi, >> Madame Mayor and Council.
[04:06:06] Thank you for your wise words earlier and your good strong point of debate.
[04:06:10] I hope we do send them home today with a clear understanding that Temecula
[04:06:15] is a community that will fight for what we believe in. So, if you
[04:06:21] take your thousand foot corridor and you draw the line down the middle, 500
[04:06:25] ft away, you're going to put that outside edge right through my living room.
[04:06:29] And I'll tell you what, SDG&E I'm not going to have it. Temecula will
[04:06:34] fight you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Always good to see you.
[04:06:37] [applause] >> And Samantha Hunter. And then I will go through all of the
[04:06:42] cards that um one more time. Hi ma'am. >> Hello. My name is Samantha
[04:06:52] Jane Hunter and I am USFA's Miss Temecula. Today we stand on the precipice
[04:06:58] of a historical decision. This will affect not only our city but the state
[04:07:04] of California, United States of America and the entire world who looks forward to
[04:07:10] coming here. Another [sighs] translation which I can add, the city of Temecula, the
[04:07:17] name translates to the light which breaks through the fog in the morning. I
[04:07:23] hope that all of us together can join and be the light which breaks
[04:07:27] through this fog. This decision is a matter of life and death. It's a
[04:07:32] decision which [sighs] will affect us for generations to come. Our city will never
[04:07:39] be the same should this come to pass. And I have to tell you,
[04:07:43] I'm completely terrified. Thank you. Thank you for coming in and good to see
[04:07:48] you again. [applause] Okay, so um I am going to run through these speaker
[04:07:54] cards one more time. If you hear your name, please come on up. Renee
[04:07:59] Carter, she left. Ed Gerso, Samantha Nuin, Mike Flora, Chris Seismore. I left Amar
[04:08:11] left. Erin Dornan. [snorts] >> Good afternoon or evening. We're still in evening. Yes.
[04:08:24] >> Good evening. Um, madame mayor and council members. My name is Dr. Aaron
[04:08:28] Dornan Leudo and I live near Temecula Parkway. State planning for these steel power
[04:08:32] towers started three years ago. Yet, our community was left in the dark until
[04:08:35] last month. Today, the corporate rep sits here calling this clinical name the project
[04:08:39] to distance herself from reality. She even has the embroidered shirt ready. They think
[04:08:44] our home is a done deal. My philosophy is nothing about us without us.
[04:08:49] Deciding our [clears throat] future behind our backs is wrong. They do not care
[04:08:52] about our community, our wine country, our hot air balloon economy. The threat is
[04:08:55] real. During a recent fire in this exact path, I had to cut my
[04:08:58] work meeting short to console a young girl crying on the street because her
[04:09:01] dog was trapped inside her home while our brave firefighters fought the blaze from
[04:09:05] the air and on the ground. Multiple of my own friends lost everything in
[04:09:09] the eaten fire last year. If these massive transmission lines spark a new blaze,
[04:09:13] the bottleneck will trap thousands of families and block aerial firefighting. This will crush
[04:09:17] our property values and worsen our insurance crisis. Tmacular bears all the catastrophic risk
[04:09:22] with zero benefits. San Diego fought to keep these lines out. Our community deserves
[04:09:26] that same fierce advocacy. And that is your time. Stand with us and formally
[04:09:29] oppose this. Simon, >> thank you so much for coming in. [applause] Sora Barionat,
[04:09:38] Allesandre Thornton, Bill Vil, Don Smitty, Ryan Rofs, Katherine Lopez, Barry Schmidt, David Sola,
[04:09:58] Michael Antonucci, Mary Micheloid, Jessica Chadwell, Alice Richter, Christine Bonderbos, Maria Patza. Madame Mayor,
[04:10:17] that concludes all speakers. You are welcome to part partake in discussion and motion
[04:10:23] as needed and uh we will be taking a recess afterwards. >> Outstanding. Well,
[04:10:27] first of all, I just want to say thank you to all the speakers
[04:10:30] coming in. Thank you to SDG&E for staying and listening to us as well.
[04:10:34] Um, but again, I know this is uh this is just the beginning for
[04:10:38] our city as well as we're about to step into comment from all of
[04:10:42] our council members. I also want to say thank you to um Randy Joel
[04:10:46] for your dedication there moving forward and saying all those names and to our
[04:10:51] staff for doing your due diligence. Uh great job. So, with that, I'd like
[04:10:55] to open up to our city council members and see what else you have
[04:10:59] to say. Anybody want to start? We'll start with my left. >> I will
[04:11:04] start it off. Thank you, madame Dr. Mayor. [laughter] Uh, to reiterate what she
[04:11:09] said, I first want to thank everyone for showing up today. We had our
[04:11:13] county supervisor here. We had the mayor of Mya. We had council members from
[04:11:16] Myetta. We had commissioners. Um, but most importantly, we had hundreds of community members.
[04:11:21] And that's what this was for, to listen to you and to hear your
[04:11:25] perspective and your thoughts on these power lines coming through Temecula. Um, you know,
[04:11:30] the conference center was full, this center was full, our city hall here, the
[04:11:34] patio was full. You showed up and you showed up in force and that's
[04:11:37] what Temecula residents do when they care about something. And it made me proud
[04:11:40] to be up here representing you and made me proud to be up here
[04:11:43] fighting for you. Uh, with that said, if you can pull up the slide
[04:11:48] real quick for me. This is on SDG&E's website. Our values, the number one
[04:11:56] thing is do the right thing. And we agree with you. Do the right
[04:12:02] thing. Not the right thing for your shareholders, not the right thing for your
[04:12:07] profits, do the right things for the communities that you wish to traverse. And
[04:12:11] you have one responsibility and that is to maximize your shareholders return. We have
[04:12:17] a responsibility up here on this day and that is to protect our community
[04:12:21] members and that's what we will continue to do. As you heard tonight, the
[04:12:25] community unequivocally opposes this project. We will continue to show up. We will continue
[04:12:32] to speak out. We will continue to fight against the power line project and
[04:12:36] we will continue to fight to save Temecula. And with that being said, I
[04:12:41] will make the first motion to formally oppose this power line project going through
[04:12:46] Temecula. Um, and I would ask in that motion for city staff to work
[04:12:51] with city council on drafting the verbiage that formally opposes this project going through
[04:12:56] our community. Thank you, mayor. >> Okay. Thank you. And we will be coming
[04:13:00] up on that uh in a little bit. So, thank you very much. >> Thank
[04:13:04] you very much, Madam Mayor. Um, again, you know, not to belabor this point
[04:13:08] too much, but um, the community showed up tonight for sure. We really appreciate
[04:13:12] it. Um, I heard a ton of um, comments online as well. Um, but
[04:13:18] it's always nice to see people in person voicing their their thoughts and their
[04:13:23] opinions and and I think um, you know, I think that that matters a
[04:13:27] lot. This community has got some fight in its belly and uh, and we're
[04:13:31] we're in for the long haul. uh to SG&E, you know, certainly appreciate you
[04:13:36] coming up and and uh and going through this this process. Um obviously disappointed
[04:13:42] in in some of the the vagueness and and and whatnot, but but we'll
[04:13:46] work through it, right? We'll we'll we'll get to a place where um we
[04:13:49] have a greater understanding of what's at stake and um and what we can
[04:13:52] do about it. Um I think that uh you know when we when we
[04:13:58] look at projects like this and it was mentioned this can't be undone like
[04:14:03] this is this is a huge decision um that that is weighing on all
[04:14:08] of us and everyone in this space right and everyone in this room this
[04:14:12] is something that just can't be undone and and it's a huge scar on
[04:14:16] the landscape and it's something that um you know we're clearly going to fight
[04:14:20] with everything we've got leverage all resources uh including um but not limited to
[04:14:27] everything under the sun. You know, I think this is this is something that
[04:14:32] uh that um most absolutely needs to to stop and and we're we're here
[04:14:38] to to stop it. Um, other than that, um, you know, I think, you
[04:14:44] know, when we get to the the motion section of it and we sort
[04:14:48] of what does it look like on a on a community sort of outreach,
[04:14:52] um, everything's on the table for me. >> Awesome. Thank you so much for
[04:14:56] your comments. I'll send it all the way to the right. >> All right.
[04:15:00] So, again, I want to thank all of you guys for coming out and
[04:15:03] supporting us because really, we're just five voices. if you guys weren't there, they
[04:15:09] would probably say there's no uh no push back on us. So, the fact
[04:15:15] that you're sitting there gives us the power up here. So, thank you guys.
[04:15:20] And then um as far as the SDG&E I you know what I'm I'm
[04:15:26] going to take you at your word and that this is really the beginning
[04:15:30] process and that there is opportunity to move these lines somewhere else because Temecula
[04:15:37] is not the place for it. I mean it this valley is just way
[04:15:42] too important to and I'm sure everybody's going to say that about their valley,
[04:15:47] right? But but we're 115,000 people here in uh Temecula. So it's like and
[04:15:55] it's it's become it's it's part of our souls literally. If you live here,
[04:16:02] it's part of your soul. That being said, please move it somewhere else. That's
[04:16:11] my comment. >> Thank you, Stu. So, you know, I I think we've all
[04:16:21] heard a lot tonight about this project and there's a lot of unanswered questions
[04:16:26] that we have. Um I I'm I'm always amazed by this community and how
[04:16:33] you all come together. Um uh yeah, it is it is it is a
[04:16:39] remarkable thing to see and it's part of the reason why I brought my
[04:16:42] family here and we raised our daughter here and continue to live here [clears throat]
[04:16:50] under the best of conditions. Projects like this and their alternative analyses and and
[04:16:58] the type of work that needs to go go in should not be using
[04:17:02] predetermined measures. Um should not dismiss alternatives arbitrarily or structure analysis to favor a
[04:17:10] preferred alternative or a preferred route. Um we know this the law has spoken
[04:17:14] to this very clearly over the years. Um but already in this process and
[04:17:20] maybe it is very early but already in this process you've demonstrated a biased
[04:17:24] screening criteria artificially narrow purpose and need statement no specific purpose and scope in
[04:17:29] fact um leaving all of us to wonder what exactly are we trying to
[04:17:33] accomplish with this uh utility companies like SDG&E and others generally argue that things
[04:17:39] like 500 KV lines are needed for re regional reliability renewable energy integration um
[04:17:46] peak demand support, grid redundancy, a lot of the same buzzwords we hear o
[04:17:50] over and over again for these kinds of projects. Uh historically, that all made
[04:17:54] sense because the G grid was designed around large centralized generation plants, one-way power
[04:18:01] flow, long-distance energy transmission, and passive customers. That's not the world we live in
[04:18:07] today. It's certainly not what California is. Um that's the 20th century model. Today's
[04:18:12] model uh increasingly shifting toward distributed energy resources, behind the meter generation, battery storage,
[04:18:19] local resiliency hubs, micro grids, vehicle-to- grid systems, community solar, smart load management. Um
[04:18:27] unfortunately utilities you you keep proposing large transmission projects like this partly because the
[04:18:33] regulatory and financial system still rewards massive capital investments like this um and not
[04:18:41] rewarding the modern alternative of where our grid actually needs to go. And one
[04:18:46] of the gentlemen said it earlier best uh that you know by the time
[04:18:48] this project is done it's obsolete. Um bottom line is modern energy architecture, engineering,
[04:18:56] emerging technologies are being ignored. Uh you're not planning for uh you you actually
[04:19:01] are planning for an antiquated design that's unfortunately being rewarded by outofouch and outdated
[04:19:07] policy, law and regulation. So from the top down with the state all the
[04:19:11] way down through this, you know, proposed project, it's just providing the wrong incentives
[04:19:16] to do the wrong thing. um regulatory incentives actually favor oversized infrastructure even when
[04:19:23] distributed alternatives could substitute for transmission expansions. SDG&E in the state of California should
[04:19:30] instead have to prove why decentralized alternatives cannot achieve the same reliable objectives with
[04:19:38] lower environmental wildfire and community impacts. That should be the alternatives analysis that's demanded
[04:19:44] today under our modern uh energy infrastructure. You know, I for those of you
[04:19:53] who've been with me on this council for a long time, I have a
[04:19:56] history of of having folks jump up out of their seat and try and
[04:20:00] exercise demons from me. Um, [laughter] Erica Martin, I think you I'd love to
[04:20:08] play poker with you one day because you've you've done a fabulous job representing
[04:20:11] San Diego Gas and Electric. I'd caution uh bringing Mr. Gity to future public
[04:20:16] meetings because we saw tonight exactly what SDG&E has on the back door and
[04:20:21] it wasn't pretty. Um, sorry to say that was uh that was disappointing at
[04:20:27] best and if we're just starting our relationship here today wasn't a great start.
[04:20:32] Um, so I would hope that as we move forward in this and I
[04:20:36] would share in my council's uh colleagues comments on on how we move forward
[04:20:42] uh objectively um dispassionately uh and and use the best available science, technology and
[04:20:49] resources available to find the best solutions for the problems that supposedly plague our
[04:20:55] electrical grids in Southern California. But I will say unequivocally that you have selected
[04:21:01] one of the most environmentally insensitive routes, culturally insensitive routes and community impactful routes
[04:21:10] imaginable. And you know, we're all just sort of stunned uh by by the
[04:21:15] level at which you know this has come to our attention. Um we can
[04:21:20] do better than that. We hope you do better than that. We hope that
[04:21:23] uh like our my colleague at the end said uh that you you do
[04:21:26] the right thing. um and that you listen to what what's happened today and
[04:21:30] we save all of ourselves a lot of time, money, and uh investment in
[04:21:34] something that just uh just won't won't happen. So, thank you. [applause] All righty.
[04:21:44] Thank you to my colleagues again. Thank you all for staying uh at this
[04:21:48] time. It's been hours, but I think each one of you can can say
[04:21:52] it's worth it. It's absolutely worth it. and they need to hear us and
[04:21:57] the state needs to hear us. Not just SDG&E Sacramento needs to hear us
[04:22:03] that this is not what we're going to put in our backyard. [applause] You
[04:22:08] know, it's very interesting. Not one person came up to this podium other than
[04:22:11] SGE and Kaiso that was for this project. Not one. Not one. So I
[04:22:17] just want to encourage everybody to continue this grassroots movement because the fact of
[04:22:21] the matter is is their project is just starting but so is our grassroots
[04:22:26] movement just starting as well. So continue to just move forward and work together
[04:22:31] as as a city as we have been. Again I want to say thank
[04:22:33] you to the co my colleagues so far. Um it seems like we're all
[04:22:36] in the same position all wanting the same thing. You know, one thing I
[04:22:41] want to add that I wasn't able to before, and I think it's sometimes
[04:22:44] all about timing in Queso's May 9th, 2024 project sponsor selection report. So, this
[04:22:54] is a report that they put out. They stated in quote, "Horizon West proposed,
[04:22:59] and I'm saying this route, that would transverse an urban area. The ISO understands
[04:23:06] that routing transmission facilities in urban areas poses a risk of public opposition which
[04:23:15] can negatively impact budget and schedule risk. To that I ask, is that all
[04:23:22] you guys care about? Your budget, your schedule risk, not about the people of
[04:23:28] our city. What about the health that we talked about, the schools, the businesses?
[04:23:34] Again, people over power lines every time. Thank you guys for coming out. And
[04:23:40] at that point in time, I would like to add to make a motion
[04:23:44] to add on to what I believe uh one of my council members was
[04:23:48] motioning to. if we could. Number one, I'd ask for a um a direct
[04:23:54] uh direct to direct the city manager to do all he can to oppose
[04:23:59] the proposed project based on the information we have right now and today. Number
[04:24:04] one. Number two, at the appropriate time, I would ask that we can bring
[04:24:08] back additional information as uh referenced in the staff presentation and council comments. and
[04:24:15] to number three, bring back a formal resolution in opposition as needed. With that,
[04:24:21] I'd like to open that up to my council. I know there was a
[04:24:24] motion on the floor and I'm going to ask Calus if he was okay
[04:24:26] with that as our motion. >> Absolutely. I will second that motion, mayor. >> All
[04:24:32] right, let's vote. And my video is not working. >> I'm an I. That
[04:24:55] is a 5. And that motion passes. [applause] With that, I want to again
[04:25:06] thank you guys for coming out. I wish you guys safe travels back home
[04:25:10] in order to be able to hopefully come back again and have some more
[04:25:13] information for us as we've requested. Thank you for your time again. Uh with
[04:25:17] that, we're going to take a 10-minute recess and we'll be back to continue
[04:25:20] our meeting if anybody would love to stay and listen to more.
[04:25:46] Okay. So, thank you everybody again for uh that meeting. That was fantastic. We
[04:25:52] end up going through public comments. So, next we are going to move to
[04:25:57] city council reports. Would any of my colleagues like to add anything to the
[04:26:01] evening? >> Madame Mayor, can we go back and do our boards and commission?
[04:26:05] >> Of course, we can. Do not want to forget those important people over
[04:26:08] to my left. [laughter] We'll start out with um let me see the uh
[04:26:16] planning commission by Lenny Truly Tjo. >> Hi, I'm still here. [laughter] Good job
[04:26:22] you guys tonight. Um proud to be a Tmaculan. So, our planning commission report.
[04:26:28] Next slide, please. Um, I think everybody knows who we are. Um, and our
[04:26:34] description of what we do. Um, basically, we conduct legally required public hearings. So,
[04:26:40] we are an important commission. We had I'm going to report tonight on two
[04:26:45] meetings. Our last meeting uh the first meeting I'm going to report on is
[04:26:49] the May 6th meeting and u we had an amendment to the uptown Temecula
[04:26:54] specific plan regarding the streetscape and sidewalk improvement standards and just for clarifications and
[04:27:01] additions for this document which our staff is great about making those clarifications and
[04:27:07] making sure everything's clear there. um that was voted 50-0 by our commission and
[04:27:12] so we recommend that approval. And then we had our um an amendment to
[04:27:17] the Red Hawk specific plan to allow a wedding and special event center associated
[04:27:22] with the golf course and also a conditional use permit to allow a wedding
[04:27:26] event center to operate as part of the existing golf course between the hours
[04:27:30] of noon and 900 p.m. No more than 3 days per week. And there
[04:27:36] was one public speaker for this item and we we voted 300. I think
[04:27:40] we talked about this before with two recusals since we have three members of
[04:27:45] our commission who live in Red Hawk and who are very close to the
[04:27:50] power lines. So um anyway, we were able to actually um hear this item
[04:27:56] which had been tabled for a few months. So that was good. And next
[04:28:01] item or next slide please. And then also a conditional use permit to allow
[04:28:07] for ducks in a row which is right there in the Truax building. Um
[04:28:11] it is a eating place for a type 47 ABC license and they also
[04:28:16] have a business right next to them. Uh we were impressed with them as
[04:28:21] a business and um voted 5-0 on that project to approve it. and then
[04:28:30] the sign program and amend amendment application to modify this existing sign um to
[04:28:37] allow an additional sign location for Kurasushi on Winchester Road unit 4. I don't
[04:28:44] have a map there, but um anyway, if you were to see the sign,
[04:28:49] you would see why we voted against it for one to follow staff's recommendation
[04:28:55] on that to deny that signed program amendment. And next slide. And then at
[04:29:02] the May 20th meeting, um, we heard the general plan update presentation from staff
[04:29:07] and the city's general plan update consultant and provided general recommendations and feedback. And
[04:29:13] I think you will be hearing that tonight. And we had three public speakers
[04:29:16] for this item. I think that's all I have. >> All right. >> Sweet
[04:29:21] questions. Anybody? >> Nobody. All right. Thanks. >> Thanks. Thank you very much for
[04:29:26] your time and to you and the rest of the planning commission. Thank you.
[04:29:31] All righty. On next to our public safety reports. Oh, wait. Did my council
[04:29:36] have anything else to ask or Okay, moving on. Uh, public safety reports. County
[04:29:42] Riverside Fire Department Chief John Crater. What do you have for us today? >> Good
[04:29:46] evening, Madame Mayor, Council Member, staff, and Temecula residents. I'm here to give you
[04:29:51] the report for April of 2026. Your Temecula firefighters ran a total of 959
[04:29:59] calls in the city. 16 of those were fire related. Uh 73 traffic collisions
[04:30:05] and 692 medical emergencies. And year to date, uh your Temecula firefighters have ran
[04:30:12] 300 3,692 calls in a report. >> That's it. >> That's it. Short and
[04:30:21] sweet tonight. >> Short and sweet. Well, thank you guys. Thank you for your
[04:30:24] team and everybody who's serving to keep our city safe. All right. Next, we're
[04:30:29] going to move on. We've already done public comments. And so, next we will
[04:30:33] move on to our city council reports. Do any of my colleagues want to
[04:30:36] go first or have anything to add? Anybody to my right, to my left?
[04:30:40] Seeing none, you're good. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. Next, we're going
[04:30:45] to move on to our consent calendar. As far as today, we have nine
[04:30:50] items, and I will read the titles. Number one, wave reading of the title
[04:30:53] and text of all ordinances and resolutions, including the agenda. Number two, approve action
[04:30:59] minutes of May 12th, 2026. Number three, approve list of demands. Number four, approve
[04:31:05] city treasures report for the periods of February 1, 2026 through February 28th, 2026
[04:31:12] and March 1st, 2026 through March 31st, 2026. Number five, approve annual renewal of
[04:31:20] city insurance policies. Move to the next page for number six, approve increase of
[04:31:26] construction contingency to the fire station 84 renovation PW19-14. Number seven, authorize city manager
[04:31:36] to negotiate first amendment to construction contract for ADA transition plan implementation. ADA curb
[04:31:43] ramp replacement phase 1 PW24 TAC07. Number eight, parcel map 38833 for subdivision of
[04:31:55] one existing lot into two separate parcels located at 29885 Camino del Soul. And
[04:32:03] number nine will be a receive and file temporary street closures for 2026 summer
[04:32:09] events. Unless anyone would like to pull an item. Can I have a motion,
[04:32:12] please? >> Move to approval. >> Second >> motion to Let's vote. This thing
[04:32:24] still doesn't like me. So, >> there we go. Thank you. That motion passes
[04:32:31] 5-0. Thank you very much. All right. There we go. All right. Right. We
[04:32:39] are going to recess coun this council meeting to the succeeding meeting to the
[04:32:43] s to the scheduled meeting of the tmcula community services district the successor agency
[04:32:48] to the Temecula redevelopment agency the tmcula housing authority andor the Temecula public hearing
[04:32:54] of authority and I move that over to Stu >> and I will call
[04:33:00] to order the Temecula Community Service District meeting. Madam Secretary, please note we're all
[04:33:05] still here. Are there any public comments? All right, being none, we'll go to
[04:33:09] the consent calendar. Item number 10, approve action minutes of May 12th, 2026. Number
[04:33:16] 11, approve second amendment with Vision One, Inc. for theater ticketing software. Item number
[04:33:23] 12, set a public hearing to approve TCSD proposed rates and charges for fiscal
[04:33:29] year 2627. Can I have a motion, please? >> Move approval. >> Second. All
[04:33:36] right, it's been moved and double seconded. So, please vote. All right, that passes
[04:33:48] 50. Um, we do have a business item. Approve agreement with the easier said
[04:33:58] than >> thea family services DBA mission hope for in implementation of the Temecula
[04:34:07] family bridge program and flexible family assistance administration for fiscal year 2026 27. Can
[04:34:18] is there a staff report we're going to get? Yes, >> there is indeed.
[04:34:21] Yes. if we can just bring up those slides. So, we've been talking about
[04:34:25] this now a couple of times and we mentioned it during the budget workshop.
[04:34:28] So, a lot of this should sound pretty familiar to you, but essentially uh
[04:34:31] working with our team on homeless outreach and prevention, they encountered a significant problem
[04:34:36] in our community with a lack of emergency and transitional housing for families with
[04:34:41] minor children. And what we were finding was that these families were often the
[04:34:45] invisible unhoused. So, they're not the people that you're seeing on the street. They're
[04:34:49] not the people you're necessarily thinking of when you think of homelessness within our
[04:34:52] community. Frequently, they're living in vehicles or sometimes moving between different temporary housing options.
[04:34:58] We met families in our community where the causes of homelessness included a sudden
[04:35:02] loss of employment, an illness, a hospitalization, um sometimes domestic violence and existing resources
[04:35:10] often can't preserve the stability of the family unit, which means they can't either
[04:35:14] keep the family together intact. uh some of the solutions required separating older males
[04:35:19] in the family so either fathers or older children I mean older male children
[04:35:24] or it meant moving the kids out of their schools or moving family members
[04:35:27] away from their jobs. So the goal was to find a solution that kept
[04:35:30] their families intact and kept their stability their support systems and their income and
[04:35:36] education all consistent. Um so with that obviously that is the need we identified
[04:35:41] and then next slide please. After a lot of research, what we landed on
[04:35:46] was the solution that we proposed during the budget workshop, which is entering into
[04:35:49] a contract for family bridge housing with Mission Hope. And you heard Heather Sanford
[04:35:53] earlier come in today and speak a little bit on this item. So, this
[04:35:56] is what she was referring to. You can see the house there. They have
[04:36:00] several residences on their property. Uh they're really beautifully maintained. They get donated renovation
[04:36:05] from LAR comes in and just completely renovates these homes. They're they're fantastic. And
[04:36:11] um Mission Hope is a longtime partner with us. We've seen their outcomes within
[04:36:16] their community. In fact, on that same property, they're currently operating what's known as
[04:36:20] the empowerment village model, which runs homes in which u mothers with young children
[04:36:26] can go for a two-year program where they are in residence there and they
[04:36:29] receive um counseling, they receive coaching, um information about just financial literacy, balancing their
[04:36:36] finances, um nutrition, all kinds of life skills. And the idea being at the
[04:36:41] end of that two-year program, they can then graduate into transitional housing and then
[04:36:45] eventually into independent housing. And I mention that because although that's not the program
[04:36:49] we're contracting with them for, that is a program that provides a service to
[04:36:53] our community. They've been running it for years and they've had fantastic outcomes, which
[04:36:57] tells us that they're really wellqualified for this program. They have a strong network
[04:37:01] of wraparound services. They're able to find donors to donate vehicles, um, food, you
[04:37:06] name it. If a family needs something, they have donors who can who can
[04:37:10] step in and help. Through the program that we're bringing before you today, the
[04:37:14] city would contract with Mission Hope to operate a four-bedroom bridge housing residence for
[04:37:18] eligible Temecula households with children. They would manage all of the property operations, including
[04:37:23] the rent, utilities, maintenance, furnishings, insurance, and this is very important, the on-site oversight.
[04:37:29] So they would actually have staff on the premises to provide security and oversight
[04:37:33] and make sure everything was operating safely and and the way we would want
[04:37:37] it to. Uh they can also provide stabilization services including doing the intake, screening,
[04:37:43] eligibility verification, case management, housing search and transition planning. Um up until now that's
[04:37:49] all been done uh inhouse by city staff. And so being able to leverage
[04:37:53] Mission Hope to do that would really free up some of our staff time
[04:37:57] to pursue some other important priorities for community services. Uh next slide please. The
[04:38:03] total cost of this contract is $350,000. The CDBG public service program allocation, which
[04:38:09] you'll recall council supported putting the entire $79,000 worth of that allocation towards this
[04:38:15] service, will cover the dedicated use of the property itself. And then the remaining
[04:38:20] $271,000 which will provide all of the additional wraparound services as well as the
[04:38:25] funds that will be administered as part of family bridge housing, flexible family assistance
[04:38:30] administration, flexible emergency shelter, motel support and resource and housing navigation will be funded
[04:38:36] within our existing budget from contract reductions where we were able to realize some
[04:38:41] savings in some other areas. I did want to call your attention very quickly
[04:38:44] to the second bullet there under scope of work. So, the family bridge housing
[04:38:48] is what we just discussed. The flexible family assistance administration is the funds that
[04:38:52] council has set aside for the past several years that we've been able to
[04:38:55] allocate to find emergency and transitional housing for families in crisis. Because this shelter
[04:39:01] would only be for women with minor children, we needed alternatives for families with
[04:39:05] dads, older males involved. So, a portion of that money will then go to
[04:39:09] the flexible emergency shelter and motel support. So when we have families come in
[04:39:13] that have family units that aren't eligible for inclusion here, we still have a
[04:39:17] solution for them as well. And that concludes my report and I'm available for
[04:39:21] any questions. >> Right. Thank you for that report and a lot of good
[04:39:25] work is happening in the homeless um helping sector that we're we're trying to
[04:39:32] do. Any questions from staff? >> No questions. >> Zach, >> just one question.
[04:39:39] President Stewart. Um, so with the flexible family assistance, like we've been managing that
[04:39:43] in house, right? So we're transferring that. Um, which I think is great. Um,
[04:39:48] but what sort of controls do we still have levers on that those dollars?
[04:39:52] >> Thank you. I'm really glad you asked that. So we would still be
[04:39:55] utilizing the exact same parameters that we developed and that were approved by the
[04:39:58] city attorney for the administration of those funds in terms of eligibility, verifying and
[04:40:02] what types of proof we accept for eligibility, um, how much funds can be
[04:40:06] expended on any one family unit. uh when they would need to reapply. All
[04:40:10] of those guidelines transfer over directly and as a term of the contract, they
[04:40:14] would just be administering the funds accordance with our guidelines. >> Okay, that's perfect.
[04:40:18] I know how valuable that portion of it is. Is it's really important. So,
[04:40:22] thank you for that. >> All right. Um that being said, I'll accept a
[04:40:28] motion. >> I'll make a motion. I just want to say something super fast.
[04:40:32] Go for it. >> Just want to say thank you to Heather and their
[04:40:34] team. Um, having had the opportunity to work with all of you guys before,
[04:40:39] I know that the love and the dedication that you have to your clients
[04:40:42] is incredible and I know that moving forward with this, if we do, uh,
[04:40:46] it is just going to be a tremendous resource for our community. So, I
[04:40:50] just want to say thank Heather uh, the team and, uh, yeah, you guys
[04:40:54] just do an excellent job. Thank you. >> I will second that motion and
[04:40:58] also have a brief comment. Uh the last city council meeting where we discussed
[04:41:01] this program uh was also when we were discussing the nonprofit uh grant program.
[04:41:05] At that time I had my reservations on the the CDBG funding going to
[04:41:10] this uh versus the nonprofits. And for those that didn't see our uh annual
[04:41:13] budget hearing, we did not only uh move this CDBG funding, but we also
[04:41:17] doubled our community services nonprofit grant program, which the council said they were going to
[04:41:22] do, and they uh followed through with the word. So, I just want to
[04:41:24] thank my council colleagues and make that known to the public that uh we
[04:41:27] are happily in a fiscal position to be able to fund both of these
[04:41:31] programs. So, thank you. >> Very good. Any other comments before we go to
[04:41:35] vote? Then let's vote. >> And um I will go ahead and Yes, we
[04:41:41] have a second. And I will go ahead and um state for the record
[04:41:44] that there were no public comments on this. >> Okay. All right. That passes
[04:41:53] 50. Uh, director report. >> Nothing this evening. Thank you. >> All right. General
[04:41:58] manager. >> Nothing further. >> All right. Board of directors. No. All right. I
[04:42:03] will adjourn this until the next one. >> All right. And I will reconvene
[04:42:11] the Tula City Council to the public hearing. Uh we're going to enter into
[04:42:14] number 14 item adopt resolution uh reconfirming automatic annual fee adjustment in western Riverside
[04:42:21] County multiple species habitat conversation plan MSHCP local development mitigation fee and I believe
[04:42:29] uh Mr. Matt Peters you have a staff report for us. >> Good evening
[04:42:32] madame mayor and council members. Next slide please. So the city of Temecula is
[04:42:38] a member of the Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority or the RCA and that
[04:42:43] includes Riverside County and 18 cities. In 2003, all the member cities adopted the
[04:42:50] Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan or the MSHCP and its implementing
[04:42:57] agreement. The MSHCP is intended to preserve plants, animals, and habitat for 146 covered
[04:43:03] species on 500,000 acres. There's a lot going on with this map, but for
[04:43:09] context, this is western Riverside County. In the southwest corner is the city of
[04:43:14] Temecula. Northwest corner you have Corona and the city of Riverside. And then out
[04:43:18] to the east is is the county. So, you can just see the scale
[04:43:22] uh of the MSHCP. The MSHCP includes a local development mitigation fee that's assessed
[04:43:30] on new development for land acquisition, land management, biological monitoring, and administration. And the
[04:43:37] 2020 nexus study adopted by the RCA establishes the legal justification for the fee.
[04:43:46] And the Tmaculum Municipal Code provides for the automatic annual fee adjustment in accordance
[04:43:51] with the RCA's implementing agreement. And the MSHCP fees the city collects are pass
[04:43:57] through payments. All cities collect the payment at the time of building permit issuance
[04:44:01] and then pass through those payments to the RCA. The MSHCP adjusts annually or
[04:44:08] the development local development mitigation fee adjusts annually based on the CPI and this
[04:44:14] year's increase is 3.2445% effective July 1st, 2026. And here are the fees. You
[04:44:24] can see for residential it's based on a sliding scale based on density uh
[04:44:28] less density um the higher the fee higher density the lower the fee and
[04:44:33] then you see commercial and industrial um that's the fee per acre. The local
[04:44:40] development mitigation fee is not subject to SQA and is not a project for
[04:44:45] the purposes of SQA. And staff's recommendation is to approve a resolution to reconfirm
[04:44:53] the automatic annual fee adjustment in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
[04:44:58] Plan Local Development Mitigation fee. That concludes my presentation. >> All righty. Thank you
[04:45:05] very much, Mr. Matt Peters. Uh, do we have any questions for staff from
[04:45:09] the council? None to my right. None to my left. All right, let's open
[04:45:16] the public hearing. Do we have any public comments? Let's close the public hearing.
[04:45:21] Discussion of motion. >> Oh, we got a question. >> Quick question comment. Um,
[04:45:28] so this MSHCP has been around 20 years roughly now. >> Yes. How how
[04:45:35] close are we to, you know, tying a ribbon around the plan and calling
[04:45:40] it good? >> So, the target acreage for the MSHCP was 153,000 acres. Um,
[04:45:47] it's been a while since we've checked in with the RCA on our progress.
[04:45:51] Um, I'm not sure I have the answer to that. >> Can we just
[04:45:55] get a little thumbnail back from them? It doesn't We don't have to bring
[04:45:58] it back to council. Just an email or something back would be helpful just
[04:46:01] to kind of know what the status is. >> We'll do that. >> Thanks.
[04:46:04] >> All righty. Great question. All right. Uh, discussion a motion. >> Approval. Second.
[04:46:11] >> All right. First and second. Let's vote. All right. Motion passes 5-0. We're
[04:46:25] going to move on to number 15. Uh, Conduct Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility
[04:46:30] Act. TERA. I'll call it TERA. hearing and adopt a resolution approving the issuance
[04:46:36] of California Enterprise Development Authority revenue obligations for the V benefit of Vine Creek
[04:46:43] Apartments affordable housing project. Uh with that, let's start out again with Matt Peters
[04:46:48] with a staff report, please. Sir, >> I'd like to introduce Heidi Ureas, our
[04:46:52] housing and real estate analyst in community development to present on this item. >> Mayor,
[04:46:58] city council. >> Quick. All right. So tonight we'll be conducting or I'll be
[04:47:04] presenting on the tax equity and fiscal responsibility act hearing also known as the
[04:47:07] TERA hearing. You were correct. Um before the council tonight is a resolution approving
[04:47:11] the California Municipal Finance Authority CMFA to issue revenue obligations for the benefit of
[04:47:16] Vine Creek affordable housing. Uh I do want to make a note the city
[04:47:20] is not issuing debt. The city is not responsible for any obligations. The city
[04:47:25] simply simply facilitates the public hearing. So, CMFA, California Municipal Finance Authority, was created
[04:47:31] in 2004 to help finance community projects such as affordable housing. Um, the city
[04:47:36] has been a member of CMFA since 2021. The purpose of a TER hearing
[04:47:43] is uh to go ahead and it's it's a public hearing required by the
[04:47:47] IRS before CMFA can issue revenue obligations. The hearing must be conducted by a
[04:47:52] public body such as our city council and the purpose is to allow interested
[04:47:56] persons to comment on this project and the funding. So, Vine Creek affordable housing,
[04:48:02] you have all seen it. Um, it has already been developed and this is
[04:48:06] uh this solely is because the uh developer will be going from a construction
[04:48:11] loan into a permanent financing loan and so they have to issue these these
[04:48:15] bonds. Uh so the revenue obligations are not to exceed $25 million and these
[04:48:20] funds are being used for the financing of affordable housing. The city's role is
[04:48:25] to hold this TERA hearing per the IRS code. It's to allow and to
[04:48:29] allow CMFA to issue the revenue obligations to Vine Creek and um which is
[04:48:33] within the city's jurisdictional boundary and approve resolution allowing CMFA and Vine Creek Affordable
[04:48:39] Development to issue revenue obligations. Again, the city is not issuing any debt of
[04:48:44] its own. um it's an associate member of CMFA and the city does not
[04:48:49] have any responsibility here. So staff staff's recommendation is to adopt the resolution approving
[04:48:55] the issuance of CMF by CMFA of revenue obligations for the benefit of Vine
[04:49:00] Creek Affordable Development. Jared Zuki from CMFA team is here present if you have
[04:49:05] any questions tonight. >> Excellent. All right. Well, thank you so much for that
[04:49:08] staff report. Do my colleagues have any questions of staff or of the individual
[04:49:13] that is here? Seeing none, let's move into open public hearing. Any comments? Close
[04:49:21] it. Next, uh close public hearing discussion. A motion for my colleagues. >> Second.
[04:49:27] >> All right, let's vote. Motion passes 5-0. Excellent. All right. Next, we're going
[04:49:42] to move into item 16. However, that one, I believe, is continued for another
[04:49:47] meeting. Is that correct? Excellent. So, we're going to move that one. Next, we're
[04:49:52] going to move into our business items. Number 17, we're going to move into
[04:49:56] approval preferred traffic striping configuration for the PABA road pavement rehabilitation project PW25-05. And
[04:50:05] I believe Mr. Ron Mareno, you are going to be issuing a staff report.
[04:50:10] >> Yes. Good evening, Madame Mayor and City Council. >> So, this is a
[04:50:13] continuation of an item that was brought to you back in March. It wasn't
[04:50:16] continued, but I should say the recommendation was to go back and look at
[04:50:20] different alternatives. So, we have done that and now Nick Minichi is going to
[04:50:24] present he's our senior traffic engineers some various options that the council can then
[04:50:29] examine and look at. I will say that at [clears throat] the next council
[04:50:33] meeting, we will be bringing forward to the council the request to award the
[04:50:37] pavement rehab contract to Vance Construction. They are the ones doing the oxlane projects,
[04:50:43] doing all the paving out on the 15 right now. Very reputable firm. We're
[04:50:47] excited to have them on board. Probably we got a better price because they
[04:50:51] are local in town right now. So, uh that's going to be going to
[04:50:54] the council next meeting. We'll get going on construction of the rehab project. We'd
[04:50:59] be looking at striping sometime in July, I would think, by the time the
[04:51:03] rehab's done. So, just for context of where we're at. So, right now, I'll
[04:51:07] give it over to Nick and he'll do the quick presentation and a quick
[04:51:10] overview of where we were at and where we're at right now. >> Thank
[04:51:14] you, Nick. >> Thank you, Ron. Uh, good evening, Madame Mayor and members of
[04:51:18] the council. This presentation is in regards to proposed driving modifications for Paba Road.
[04:51:25] As Ron mentioned, um the PABA road pavement rehab rehabilitation plan is going to
[04:51:32] rehabilitate 1.4 miles of roadway uh on PA road from Enz to Margarita. This
[04:51:37] was brought to the council on March 24th um of 2026. At that meeting,
[04:51:42] city council approved the contract documents and also the solid solicitation of contract bids
[04:51:47] or construction bids. The city council did not approve the stack recommendation for road
[04:51:52] diet striping on Paba Road. Um instead, uh council directed staff to develop additional
[04:51:57] striping alternatives. So the meeting objective for tonight is we're going to review and
[04:52:04] select hopefully select a preferred striping alternative. Um a total of four alternatives were
[04:52:09] developed. The first three are in the agenda report. A fourth one was added
[04:52:13] um today. So we can go over that quick overview. Don't want to spend
[04:52:20] too much time on this. A lot of this information was from the last
[04:52:22] meeting, but um Papa Road Little Road Diet background um this this was previously
[04:52:27] brought to the traffic safety commission in May of 22 as a receive and
[04:52:30] file presentation. Um it was brought to city council in March 2026 and it
[04:52:35] was not approved. Um Papa Road has numerous complaints in the past regarding speeding,
[04:52:40] roadway access on the residential from the residential roads and a good amount of
[04:52:46] collisions near the library driveway from what we have heard. Um there's just different
[04:52:50] there's difficult line of sight um due to road the roadway horizontal and vertical
[04:52:55] curves along the corridor. This map shows the different speed limits on Papa Road.
[04:53:01] Um at Prima Vera from Enz to Primma Vera it's 40 and from Prima
[04:53:06] Vera to Margarita Road it's 45 miles per hour. General PA road characteristics it's
[04:53:13] generally a four-lane road with the two-way left turn lane and bike lanes. um
[04:53:17] existing um daily traffic is around 12,500. The posted speed I mentioned previously and
[04:53:24] the 85th percentile speed along the highest points on the corridors is 52 miles
[04:53:28] per hour um in multiple locations and in the past there past three years
[04:53:33] there's been 11 collisions. A little recap from the last meeting as well. Road
[04:53:43] diets, it's not the city has done several road diets in the past. There's
[04:53:46] three of them up on the screen. Um, Los Arena, Redhawk, and then Oldtown
[04:53:50] Front Street. I won't sit here and go over all the the data that
[04:53:53] we've gone through, but this is just a little refresher for those that may
[04:53:56] have um not seen it. Um, these are very similar roadways in terms of
[04:54:00] ADT. Um, and going from four lanes down to two lanes with the two-way
[04:54:06] left turn lane. Um, and these were successful projects for the city in terms
[04:54:11] of collision rates dropping and speeds generally reducing. wanted to present. Um after the
[04:54:20] meeting, the last council meeting, there was a request to get more information on
[04:54:24] um data in terms of peak hour data um for road diet specifically. Um
[04:54:32] when we look at roadads, this is another factor we look at is peak
[04:54:35] hours. I didn't present it, but we do have that information. And what all
[04:54:39] these numbers are trying to show is um the peak hour for a road
[04:54:46] diet for if we went from four lanes down to two lanes and a
[04:54:49] two-way left turn lane. It's very similar to the other roadways in the city
[04:54:52] that actually have more traffic. Um you can see going westbound 700 is the
[04:54:57] max um one hour volume and then going eastbound it's 757. Several other roadways
[04:55:03] in the city have more. Um, and for peak hour, you can generally handle
[04:55:10] up to 1,200 to,6,6,600 vehicles in one direction before there's some type of congestion
[04:55:15] degradation. Um, so we're pretty confident if road diet was selected that there would
[04:55:20] be no congestion issues um on the roadway except, you know, at the signals
[04:55:26] where we are matching the existing striping. We're not changing it. Whatever happens today
[04:55:31] is still going to be the same thing if we were to implement um
[04:55:34] road diet striping. So the first alternative, this is what was brought to at
[04:55:43] the last council meeting. This is the proposed road diet striping. We go from
[04:55:46] four lanes down to two lanes with um a two-way left turn lane. Um
[04:55:50] there's wider bike lanes. Um there's buffer lanes that eat up the cross-section of
[04:55:54] the roadway um at the intersections of ENZ and also at Margarita. We're going
[04:55:59] to match existing lane configuration for optimal operations. Here is the general striping um
[04:56:08] of it. There is a complete restriping of the roadway um as part of
[04:56:13] it and I will kind of zoom through it unless people have very specific
[04:56:17] questions on it. Alternative two, this is essentially maintaining the existing roadway geometry of
[04:56:27] the current configuration of Papa Road. Um, we're going to keep the general four-lane
[04:56:32] road with a two-way left turn lane and maintain the existing bike lanes. There
[04:56:36] are some proposed striping improvements that is just kind of bringing up the basic
[04:56:41] safety necessities we would want to do on the roadway with any type of
[04:56:45] striping project. So this would be crosswalk enhancements, green bike lane symbols or markings
[04:56:50] on the roadway and some small striping improvements near Inz Road to clear up
[04:56:54] some confusion. Um at the bottom you can see bottom of the screen is
[04:56:59] the existing configuration with lane widths for PA road. Currently this is more on
[04:57:06] from Prima Vera to the east. Um this is so this is like in
[04:57:10] front of the library. We have existing 11 foot through lanes, 10-ft turn lane,
[04:57:16] and 5-ft bike lanes. Those are the minimum roadways width we do in the
[04:57:21] city. We really can't decrease those. You technically go to 10 feet, but it's
[04:57:26] a really small lane and we generally don't do that in the city. So,
[04:57:32] here is the striping. Um the red is all the proposed striping that's um
[04:57:37] proposed. Anything that's not red, the existing white and the existing aerial is staying
[04:57:43] the same. So, what we're showing is just kind of some intersection improvements at
[04:57:49] UNES um bringing the bike lane um not against the right turn pocket. We
[04:57:53] put it usually to the left of the turnpocket. So, we wanted to make
[04:57:56] some improvements that way. We also do some green conflict striping in front of
[04:58:00] the driveway at via um I can't read that from here via Alurus. Um,
[04:58:07] and then also we add a bike lane in front of where the city
[04:58:11] is just wrapping up has wrapped up the PA sidewalk project. There's a new
[04:58:14] curb line there. So, we would add a bike lane there to complete the
[04:58:18] the missing bike lane. You can see as we go through the corridor, there's
[04:58:24] just some green bike lane striping the the markings. Um, near the fire station,
[04:58:30] we would add some crosswalk enhanced crosswalk striping. And then at Margarita Road, enhanced
[04:58:36] crosswalk striping and then also some green conflict striping for the bikes and pulling
[04:58:40] that bike lane to the left of the right turn uh pocket. Alternative three,
[04:58:48] very similar to alternative two. Um we add a little bit more biking enhancement
[04:58:55] um near Enz Road as well. Um we maintain existing geometry through the rest
[04:59:00] of the corridor similar to alternative 2. Um and I can show you what
[04:59:05] is proposed. So we as mentioned from ENZ to the east we add a
[04:59:11] little bit more enhanced bicycle striping. We do a buffer as far as we
[04:59:15] can do it um up to via Alurus and you know it's just a
[04:59:21] little bit more striping to make it a little bit safer for the bikers
[04:59:24] in this corridor. We have room to we don't have room to add two
[04:59:27] lanes going eastbound. So, we wanted to eat up that extra width with some
[04:59:32] enhanced bike striping for this area here. The rest of the corridor matches the
[04:59:38] alternative to striping. Very limited striping improvements for the rest of it. Alternative 4,
[04:59:46] which was added today, is no striping changes. We just keep the existing configuration
[04:59:51] of the road. Um, generally it stays a four-lane road with two-way left turn
[04:59:57] lanes and bike lanes. Um, and that's the cross-section for it. There's some photos
[05:00:02] up there of what the existing striping looks like. Next steps, we're seeking approval
[05:00:09] of a proposed striping alternative. And as Ron mentioned, striping implementation, it's it's probably
[05:00:15] going to fall around fall of 2026, depending how the that project goes. And
[05:00:21] with that, we can open up to questions and discussions. >> Outstanding. Thank you
[05:00:25] so much for that great report. All right, let's open it up just to
[05:00:28] questions right now for staff if we have any. >> Ste's got one. >> Ste,
[05:00:37] >> what does striping normally cost? So like just to do the striping of
[05:00:43] Pa Road because we've always said it's just it's just paint. But what does
[05:00:48] that paint cost us? I'm curious. >> So it depends. Um, generally I use
[05:00:54] around, let's just say it's like a dollar linear foot for striping. Um, putting
[05:00:58] it down on a project like this at the beginning, that's just the cost
[05:01:02] of the project. It's not a big deal. It's already included as part of
[05:01:04] it. But if we were to put it in and then let's say remove
[05:01:08] it, that's where it can get a little bit expensive because you got to
[05:01:10] grind it all out. There's a little bit more than just removing. Um, so
[05:01:15] to answer your question, it's a dollar a foot. So, however many linear feet
[05:01:19] of striping we have, and I don't know. I mean, we have 1.4 four
[05:01:22] miles. If you multiply that out by like eight or nine lines across that
[05:01:27] whole road, it it can be pretty expensive. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I I
[05:01:30] will add to that question. No matter what, because we're doing a pavement rehab,
[05:01:34] we have to restripe the whole corridor. So, we're looking at the difference between
[05:01:38] the options is pretty negligible, right? Because even if you >> go back to
[05:01:43] the two lanes, you have to stripe all that. If you go to the
[05:01:46] road diet, you have to stripe all of that. So, therefore, it's already built
[05:01:49] into the project cost. So, we're not seeing any variable difference between the the
[05:01:54] four plans that we're asking for council direction on. >> Yeah. My my concern
[05:01:58] or my thought was if we did it and then wanted to change it
[05:02:03] to another striping configuration, what would that additional cost us? >> Yeah, that's going
[05:02:09] to be the dollar a foot per the 1.4 miles and then depending on
[05:02:13] how many stripes. So, it's 52420. Yeah, it's gonna be about, you know, a
[05:02:20] good 200,000, you know. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That's that's what I
[05:02:24] wanted to know. Thanks. >> All right. Thank you, Stu. Anybody else? All right.
[05:02:30] With that, I don't see any Oh, we got one to the left. >> Sorry,
[05:02:33] just a couple questions here. Uh the 10-ft lanes in the city, you said
[05:02:36] we have a few. Is there a particular area uh that we have 10
[05:02:39] foot lanes? >> Um, actually, I >> What do we have any? >> I'm
[05:02:43] not con sure of any actually 10 foot through lanes. We do 10 foot
[05:02:48] pockets like left turn pockets which is pretty standard design but as far as
[05:02:52] a through lane I don't think there are any. I do know other cities
[05:02:55] tend to do that. If you go to Carl'sbad they got a lot of
[05:02:57] 10 foot lanes um and it's pretty tight. >> Thank you very much. And
[05:03:02] just one more question here. Uh just to reiterate the last meeting um staff
[05:03:06] brought forward the recommendation of the road diet and that was they stud you
[05:03:10] know staff you guys studied that because it was a recommendation at that time
[05:03:13] in 2022 from the traffic safety um committee at the time to to study
[05:03:18] that and that was why there wasn't multiple solutions presented um so first I
[05:03:22] want to thank you for bringing back multiple solutions after being study and my
[05:03:26] question is is would it be fair to say that after restudying this corridor
[05:03:29] and bringing back these new three solutions A B and that all three um
[05:03:34] that all three solutions provide comparable outcomes in terms of safety, speed reduction, and
[05:03:41] overall traffic calming and effectiveness. That could be a question for Ron or >> Yeah.
[05:03:46] Well, and when we were directed to come back with alternatives, we wanted to
[05:03:50] make sure that we were doing something that was going to be safe, cost
[05:03:53] effective. Nick and Eric are the best traffic engineers in our area. So, whatever's
[05:03:58] of those four, and you're correct, we only brought the road diet last time
[05:04:02] because that's what was directed by the traffic safety commission. This time around, we
[05:04:06] have four good designs and either one of them could be picked and that's
[05:04:10] all we're looking for direction from tonight. >> Thank you very much. Thank you,
[05:04:14] mayor. >> All right. No, thank you very much, uh, Councilman Calfus. Anybody else?
[05:04:19] Going once. Oh, there we go. >> Um, one more question. So in the
[05:04:24] areas where the traffic diet has been implemented um like Lasserina and Redhawk um
[05:04:33] it did in one of the slides it did say that there was a
[05:04:37] reduction in um accidents. What kind of accidents are we talking? Is this with
[05:04:44] pedestrians? Is this with bicycles? Or is this car to car? >> It varies.
[05:04:50] It varies, but it's probably most likely vehicle to vehicle. I didn't study all
[05:04:54] those accidents, but I just did a general query of three years before that
[05:04:58] striping, three years after, what are the total accidents and if they've been reduced
[05:05:03] or increased? >> Okay, because because that's that's a consideration of mine. If they
[05:05:09] were biking accidents, did it inc uh uh decrease the possibility of a bicycle
[05:05:20] in a car or if it's two cars? You know, for me, it would
[05:05:25] have made a little bit more clarity on, you know, what kind of safety
[05:05:30] are we um trying to achieve? Because by making bigger bike lanes, buffered bike
[05:05:38] lanes, obviously it would seem like mentally you would feel safer for sure because
[05:05:43] you got such such a big buffer between and there would be a huge
[05:05:47] buffer on uh PABA, but um yeah, that something I would have liked to
[05:05:55] known, but anyways, >> we have that data. I just don't have it on
[05:05:58] me. >> Got it. All right. Thanks, >> Mayor. One more question after I
[05:06:02] heard Steve. Uh and in this data after analyzing it and correct me if
[05:06:07] I'm wrong out of the uncontrolled intersections right so the the non-stoplighted intersections on
[05:06:13] both the east and west end of the street there were zero pedestrian and
[05:06:17] zero bicycle versus vehicle accidents. Is that fair to say? >> I believe so.
[05:06:23] I >> that is how I I read the data that zero bike accidents
[05:06:27] and zero pedestrian happen accidents happened between this corridor >> and a majority six
[05:06:32] out of 11 happened at the controlled intersections which won't be changing. >> Yeah.
[05:06:36] Correct. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? Okay. Thank you so much for your
[05:06:44] staff report, sir. All right. We did public comments and we had none. Is
[05:06:51] that correct? Sorry. It's been a little of a long day. All right. Going
[05:06:55] from there, let's move into discussion. Who'd like to kick off today's business item
[05:07:00] number 17? >> I don't mind starting. >> Absolutely, sir. Go for it. >> Thank
[05:07:05] you. [laughter] Okay. So, I appreciate you all bringing this back and um and
[05:07:10] and I think so I have some some thoughts on some things and like
[05:07:15] try to sort of navigate this. Um the the idea that um a road
[05:07:22] diet is the safest alternative is in that's a fact. Like the road diet
[05:07:26] is like the safest alternative, right? um any improvement on speed reduction is going
[05:07:32] to eliminate, you know, any sort of conflict between pedestrians and bicyclists and and
[05:07:37] vehicles. And I think we might be focusing a little too much on the
[05:07:42] bike and pedestrian side of things on on this project specifically because the bulk
[05:07:47] of the collisions in our city are vehicle-to- vehicle, right? They're people driving that
[05:07:51] are crashing into other people um that are driving. Jeep Crater had a report
[05:07:57] tonight there were 73 traffic collisions in the city that they responded to, right?
[05:08:02] Like so this these are resources responding to those. Um you know last meeting
[05:08:07] I focused a lot on the connectivity which you know through the bike master
[05:08:11] plan we've been working on and it's it's made a huge uh we've made
[05:08:15] huge strides to say the least. But I think, you know, for this conversation,
[05:08:21] I want to focus a little bit more on the vehicle side of things
[05:08:24] and traffic collisions and what those actually mean. So, the National Highway Transportation Safety
[05:08:30] Administration, they report out on like the economic impact of traffic collisions in the
[05:08:37] United States. And so, it's a $340 billion in uh external, you know, sort
[05:08:42] of damages, right? Um that indol involve people dying, right? Um, it involves injuries,
[05:08:49] property damage. Um, this is like a significant amount of people. In 2019, there
[05:08:54] was 36,000 people that were killed in the United States, right? And and that's
[05:08:59] important. Like people losing their life is is is important. It's a huge drag
[05:09:04] on um their family um but also like from an economic perspective. um each
[05:09:11] person in the United States based on the the uh NHTSA, every individual pays
[05:09:17] about $1,000 in like these external um damages with respect to traffic collisions, right?
[05:09:24] And most of those costs are insurance premiums and congestion, fuel use, environmental impacts,
[05:09:29] and taxes, things like that, right? So, we're all sort of bearing the brunt
[05:09:33] of of traffic collisions. speed related traffic collisions were associated with and this is
[05:09:38] back in 2019 just over 10,000 deaths and they estimated 46 billion dollars in
[05:09:44] in uh in damages right in cost right so that's something that I think
[05:09:48] we should focus on when we talk about these projects and we've seen the
[05:09:52] three that we've done we've seen them create a safer environment and while the
[05:09:58] intersections aren't changing and that's just due to you know sort of size restrictions
[05:10:03] and through lanes on the side and right dedicated turn lanes and ENZ dies
[05:10:08] into or sorry PABA dies into ENZ you can only go right or left
[05:10:12] you know so there's all these these um these situations that are they're constricted
[05:10:18] right and just because that isn't changing doesn't mean that reductions elsewhere don't make
[05:10:24] those improvements better right because people slow down they're not as rushed they're not
[05:10:29] passing people on the right they're not racing to get to the intersection um
[05:10:33] and so those things, those matter, right? Um, and I was really encouraged by
[05:10:40] the conversation I heard tonight about the the power lines, about this like we
[05:10:44] have this outdated sort of vision of like the world, right? Like with traffic
[05:10:49] with these transmission lines and you know things are changing and I think of
[05:10:53] transportation in the same way like that we've built our community in in sort
[05:10:58] of like this reactive way to the past, right? traffic engineers of of old,
[05:11:03] they it was like all about building roads and and you know coming out
[05:11:08] of World War II and and and building highways and cars and suburbs and
[05:11:14] that's like what we did right for 50 plus years. That's just what we
[05:11:18] did. Um but I think like if you look at the system that we
[05:11:22] have, how do you make it function a little bit better? And we've seen
[05:11:27] that these projects work in that way. They slow people down. Um I heard
[05:11:31] some comments last meeting about um you know kids riding the wrong way and
[05:11:36] that's a valid concern like people riding you know against traffic. So we're talking
[05:11:40] about bikes and the reason they're doing that is because the infrastructure isn't built
[05:11:46] for them. It's built for people driving. And so in order to change those
[05:11:51] behaviors you need to build infrastructure that is intuitive that makes sense that feels
[05:11:56] safe. And th all these little tweaks over time, they really matter. Um, and
[05:12:02] so I think like we can think about this project from, you know, safety,
[05:12:06] from a crash reduction. We can talk about giving kids opportunities to ride their
[05:12:10] bikes to school in a much safer way. Um, I've been out there, you've
[05:12:16] all seen my videos, like there's not a ton of congestion out there. the
[05:12:19] the data that you presented with the sort of similar segments proves that um
[05:12:24] even at the peak times which was a which was a huge sort of
[05:12:28] like point of contention at the last meeting um and and I think everything
[05:12:33] we've seen from physically being out there or the actual roadway data is sort
[05:12:38] of backs up what what we know um I traveled from this during peak
[05:12:44] time when TVHS when um when Lynfield and and Tmacale Middle School were all
[05:12:50] in session. It took me from ENZ to to TVHS. It took me four
[05:12:54] minutes. It took me 10 minutes to drive all the way to Butterfield State
[05:12:58] Road during, you know, this time. Now, if I was dropping my child off
[05:13:01] at Lynfield, it would take a little bit longer, obviously. Um, but but I
[05:13:05] ask, is that like too much, right? Like it's 10 minutes to go that
[05:13:09] distance, you know? It's that's probably not um too much. I have um an
[05:13:16] image that maybe Jonathan could throw up because I I think when we talk
[05:13:20] about the roads in our system and this is pulled from the city's website.
[05:13:25] Temecula has 352 centerline miles of roadways encompassing 8.8 million square yards of concrete
[05:13:31] and asphalt surfacing. So these are all the roads that we maintain. It's kind
[05:13:35] of hard to visualize that in like um what does that look like? So
[05:13:39] this is a visual of what that would look like. These are all the
[05:13:42] roads that we have in our city. Um, and if you think about, you
[05:13:46] know, equating it to a football field or something like that, it's a significant
[05:13:49] amount of space. And thinking of that as a public good, not just for
[05:13:55] people driving, but for people walking, for people biking, and and using that space
[05:14:00] as a way to make the town that we live in as safe as
[05:14:04] possible. Um and we have the ability to do that um tonight through some
[05:14:09] striping enhancements to make this little tiny section, this 1.4 mile section um a
[05:14:14] little bit safer. Um so I'd ask that we would um stick with you
[05:14:19] so the original recommendation from the traffic safety committee uh commission rather and and
[05:14:25] you know support this road diet because we know it works. Um it's proven
[05:14:29] that it's worked. Um and the the congestion that's on this segment um is
[05:14:36] significantly less than what we have out on Front Street or even you know
[05:14:40] through Los Ranchitos and through through that section of of the city um along
[05:14:45] you know in de Portola. Um, one thing with the existing striping or some
[05:14:50] of the other modifications, the reason I didn't support sort of like going back
[05:14:55] and and looking at um other alternatives is we've done this in the past.
[05:15:00] Uh, I'm very confident in our traffic team and our public works director that
[05:15:04] the that the uh project that they present is the best project and, you
[05:15:10] know, sort of asking and putting them on the spot to pick pick a
[05:15:14] project as the best project. um that's our job and they're going to present
[05:15:18] um what is the safest through uh research through roadway statistics and data. They're
[05:15:24] going to present this uh in alignment with you know the things that um
[05:15:29] as a council that we're asking for. Um and I'll sort of leave with
[05:15:34] this. This isn't, you know, this isn't like Zach likes to bike, you know,
[05:15:39] kind of thing. I do love to bike. Um but m many of you
[05:15:44] know I'm at UCR uh working on my PhD. I was selected um next
[05:15:51] year to receive an NSF um fellowship to study uh sustainable transportation. So essentially
[05:15:58] like science research to policy um I'm really excited to take part in it
[05:16:03] and part of the reason that I was selected is because of my time
[05:16:06] here. Um, I serve on serve on the transportation committee at Skagg and the
[05:16:11] time that I put in there as well as the time that I put
[05:16:14] in at RTA. Not to mention the fact that um the advocacy that I've
[05:16:18] done over the last 15 years in this space as seen as as is
[05:16:22] very valuable to UCR and to that speaks program. Um, so this isn't just
[05:16:26] like um, hey, I like to ride my bike. You know, I I like
[05:16:31] people to arrive where they're going safely, whether they're driving, whether they're biking or
[05:16:36] walking. and safety in our community is the number one core value and doing
[05:16:41] a project like this and continuing with the improvements that we've made over the
[05:16:46] course of the last five six years um will bear out in the long
[05:16:50] run with health outcomes with um you know families giving getting an option I
[05:16:56] filled up my car this morning it it's not very not very uh friendly
[05:17:00] on the pocketbook right so giving people choices like if they can leave their
[05:17:03] car home for trips under a mile the impact sort of compound. Um, so
[05:17:08] just thinking about it more broadly, um, in this little section is part of
[05:17:13] the system, right? And so like what does the system look like in 20
[05:17:16] years? It's probably not going to look like what it did 20 years ago.
[05:17:20] And the system that we built is meant to change um and and meant
[05:17:24] to evolve with the needs. We're seeing a huge um sort of bike renaissance
[05:17:29] with kids. Let's give them a safe place so they're not riding against, you
[05:17:33] know, the flow of traffic. So they're following, they understand. If we continue to
[05:17:37] build um projects like this, it'll help in the long run. >> Thank you
[05:17:44] very much for that information and that presentation. Who'd like to go next? I
[05:17:51] guess everybody's pointing at you. >> All right. Uh let's see where to start
[05:17:57] here. First off, congratulations on uh doing that study and on receiving that. That
[05:18:02] was pretty cool. Uh as far as road diets, I wouldn't say that I'm
[05:18:05] against road diets in totality. Uh but I would also say that road diets
[05:18:10] don't work on every road. Um and we shouldn't do road diets on every
[05:18:14] road. And um I understand the you throw out some statistics about um you
[05:18:19] know the millions or billions of dollars that traffic accidents cost in California. Um,
[05:18:25] but traffic collisions are inevitable with the automobile. Um, and I think that the
[05:18:32] only way to get rid of traffic collisions in totality is to get rid
[05:18:34] of the automobile. Um, and I think that's something that we have to live
[05:18:37] with, right? I I go on traffic collisions every day at work and there's
[05:18:40] a a variety of reasons. Um, and the configuration of the road is one
[05:18:44] of the variety of reasons of why people get in accidents. There is a
[05:18:48] whole list of assortment. Um, and most of it will probably um, the sheriffs
[05:18:52] would tell you that they're usually doing something wrong in the vehicle that they
[05:18:54] weren't supposed to be doing, which includes speeding. Uh but I want to focus
[05:18:58] on this particular uh road here and this particular section and staff already answered
[05:19:04] a couple of my questions and I just want to reiterate um those questions
[05:19:09] that were answered and that there have been no bike or pedestrian accidents via
[05:19:15] uh a vehicle in this corridor um in the uncontrolled intersections. So this is
[05:19:20] already arguably a safe road. What we're doing here is already a safe road.
[05:19:24] what it is. Um, and with, you know, the hybrid, the compromise option of
[05:19:28] number three, uh, it would make that even safer and a bigger buffer for
[05:19:31] those, uh, bike lanes, but also for, uh, the vehicles. Uh, I would just
[05:19:36] disagree on one part where you talked about the infrastructure. If it was built
[05:19:39] for them, they wouldn't go against the grain. I think there's already bike lanes
[05:19:43] that the infrastructure is built for them, and they are 14 and 15y old
[05:19:46] kids, and they like to go against the grain, both literally and figuratively. Um,
[05:19:50] and I think increasing the buffer lane won't necessarily persuade these teenagers to go
[05:19:56] with traffic. Um, it's and I I like the euphoric thought that um with
[05:20:02] an increase in buffer lane and bike lanes that more people will ride bikes,
[05:20:06] but I think it's also important that um we look into how many people
[05:20:10] use bikes in the city. How many people are actually using this corridor on
[05:20:13] a bike, right? We have all the the traffic data for automobiles. We don't
[05:20:18] have the data on how many people use bikes. What do they use bikes
[05:20:21] for? Are most of the people on bikes doing it as a hobby or
[05:20:24] are they actually going to the grocery store? Are they riding their bike to
[05:20:27] work? Um it'd be an interesting statistic to see um on who is riding
[05:20:31] bikes, why they're riding bikes, and go from there to see if a double
[05:20:36] uh you know, a bigger bike lane is necessary. But again, in this particular
[05:20:41] instance, with there being no bike collisions, no pedestrian collisions, I would argue it
[05:20:46] is already a safe street. Um, and I I'll reiterate, you know, last meeting
[05:20:51] on my reasoning on keeping it two lanes across. There are three major things
[05:20:55] that are happening uh in the city and around the city. One of them
[05:20:58] being the development of Altter, a thousand new homes, more people using the street.
[05:21:02] Uh the other one being the hopeful widening of Yianz right at this corridor
[05:21:07] uh between Rancho California and Rancho Vista and the hope would be is that
[05:21:11] more people will use Paba right I don't go on Rancho Vista now so
[05:21:15] my vehicle isn't allowed in or on this uh statistics because I know how
[05:21:19] much traffic backs up at UNES um and the hope would be that more
[05:21:22] people use Paba to get to Yanz now that that um that would be
[05:21:26] widened and lastly county is improving or they already have completed their improving improvement
[05:21:32] of Paba Road at the county where we border and more people will utilize
[05:21:35] that to get to the wine country and get to Oldtown and and in
[05:21:39] my mind there will be more cars using this not less and ultimately I
[05:21:44] would say that this road works right this we're not talking about widening this
[05:21:48] road this road does not have congestion you are right this road works and
[05:21:53] and in reality I would like to give a clap to city staff and
[05:21:57] previous city councils that approved this road because we are not talking about that
[05:22:00] is too congested and we need to widen it more. We did and we
[05:22:04] planned appropriately and to change that to limit and have possible congestion in this
[05:22:09] corridor without the hopeful for a mass improvement of safety because it is already
[05:22:14] a safe road with very few accidents outside of the intersections um would just
[05:22:19] not be the biggest benefit for the totality of the community. >> Thank you,
[05:22:25] mayor. >> All right. Thank you very much for your comments. Anybody to my
[05:22:29] right? Yes, sir. do. >> All right. So, I've got a little slightly different
[05:22:34] bent on this. Um, when I look at Paul Road, I I see a
[05:22:39] lot of what uh Brendan is saying that that new development of Alterara is
[05:22:44] really a big question mark. And my experience after walking through the models, they
[05:22:51] are not going to be a bunch of senior citizens living in those two
[05:22:56] and threetory uh units. It's going to be families 100%. And so I see
[05:23:02] that PABA road is going to take a higher volume of cars getting their
[05:23:09] kids to and from school and they're not going to want to go across
[05:23:13] Ranch or California Road because that's that's a traffic jam going, you know, coming
[05:23:17] on and off the freeway. So, they're going to look for an alternative route
[05:23:21] and Santiago to Paba is the alternate route to crossing Rancho California Road. So,
[05:23:29] I see that as being more of a a driver for myself >> that
[05:23:35] um uh I agree with Brendan. It's the road is working and and the
[05:23:41] other road diets that exist around the city, if you really look at them,
[05:23:45] they're in residential zones. They're in just nothing but homes. Redhawk. Nothing but homes,
[05:23:51] you know. Uh the only the only one that might be Laserina, you know,
[05:23:57] that is a through or a collector road that'll get you over to Butterfield.
[05:24:03] And so that one you can make an argument. Plus, there's a school. Um,
[05:24:07] which I know that gets a little congested, especially during pickup and drop off
[05:24:12] because of the road diet there, but it seems to have worked there. But
[05:24:18] again, this road has just a little bit different dynamics going for it than,
[05:24:26] you know, these other road diet uh areas. So, I'm kind of leaning I'd
[05:24:33] be okay with just keeping it striped the way it is. But if if
[05:24:37] there's another alternative and I don't know which one it was, alternative three that
[05:24:43] does that make something wider. >> So, oh, there you go. Ron, do you
[05:24:46] want to answer that? I was going to jump in. Sorry. >> Yeah, that's
[05:24:51] where the Nick was able to take a foot or two and move it
[05:24:54] over. Give a bigger buffer. You're talking about from UNES. >> Yeah. And that
[05:24:58] Yeah. That opens up that bike lane going further to the two streets. >> Yeah.
[05:25:02] And and I totally agree. Making a bigger bike lane will not change a
[05:25:09] kid's opinion on going against the grain because they don't care. They're they're not
[05:25:14] thinking with this. Um so they're they're constantly pushing against the grain wherever they
[05:25:21] can. So and I see it all the time. It's not even it's not
[05:25:25] a one-off. I've watched it. So, um, yeah, I I don't know. That's where
[05:25:33] I stand. I I I am I'm leerary of changing what we have based
[05:25:39] on several unknowns. And at the cost of 200,000 plus to change the striping,
[05:25:46] if we go, oops, we made a mistake. Maybe we should have, could have,
[05:25:51] would have, I don't know. So, I'm in favor of keeping it the way
[05:25:55] it is or increasing the bike lane a little wider just give a little
[05:26:00] bit more uh distance between the traffic and but that's my opinion. >> Okay.
[05:26:06] Thank you very much. Mayor Prom, would you like to chime in? >> So,
[05:26:10] I I'm going to agree [clears throat] and disagree with a whole lot that
[05:26:14] was said here. Um I I I don't think the the road right now
[05:26:17] as is inherently safe just because we don't have a lot of documented accidents,
[05:26:22] right? Right. I mean, it's it's like saying, you know, the nuclear energy is
[05:26:25] inherently safe because we haven't had a massive explosion in the United States. I
[05:26:29] mean, you know, we worry about these things because they are actual issues. The
[05:26:34] number of collisions, whether or not they have to do with children or pedestrians
[05:26:38] or bicycles, you know, that doesn't move me one way or the other, that
[05:26:42] argument, because we still have collisions, right? So a 35% reduction in Red Hawk
[05:26:49] as an example, that's a measurable outcome and I think it's a positive outcome
[05:26:54] for those 35% of, you know, individuals who didn't have to experience a traffic
[05:27:00] collision. Um, it's also not safe because the 85th percentile right now is telling
[05:27:05] me that folks are speeding on that road on a regular basis and that
[05:27:08] 85th percentile is underestimating significantly those folks. So, you know, since our last meeting,
[05:27:13] I've driven down that road on multiple occasions and made a point of doing
[05:27:17] so just to kind of and I'll pull over occasionally just to kind of
[05:27:20] see what's been going on. And I saw folks easily exceeding 60 m hour
[05:27:25] on a regular basis during both peak travel times and non- peak travel times.
[05:27:31] Now when we talk about safety um you know your response time in navigating
[05:27:36] a collision or having you know a response to uh an incident dramatically decreases
[05:27:43] the faster you go. This is something we learned in driver's ed in high
[05:27:46] school, right? There's nothing new there. Um the faster you drive, your peripheral vision
[05:27:51] is also obscured, you know, quite a bit uh by every 10 mile increment.
[05:27:56] Um but the more interesting statistics on you know traffic collisions and and they
[05:28:01] mirror a lot of what you see on the pedestrian injuries and fatalities. So
[05:28:06] at 40 m an hour a pedestrian or a cyclist experiences an on average
[05:28:11] about a 46% chance of fatality. Going up to 60 m hour it's near
[05:28:17] certainty. I mean just for those reasons alone I'm thinking why wouldn't we want
[05:28:24] to you know the whole point of this project the whole point of this
[05:28:28] conversation was that several years ago that community in particular had reached out and
[05:28:32] there was some concern about the rate of speed and the use of that
[05:28:36] road coming to the council asking for a road diet that could substantially help
[05:28:41] improve that situation road diets and I can't remember the acronym national highway something
[05:28:47] something organiz organization that unequivocally has stated that road diets significantly improve uh safety
[05:28:56] on the roads. So I don't think all of these alternatives are equal by
[05:29:00] any means. One of them is a superior safety alternative and you know arguing
[05:29:06] otherwise it's like why are we even having the conversation? I mean I I
[05:29:09] you know staff would not have come forward with this recommendation nor would we
[05:29:13] have seen decreases across every one of these miles of road where we've done
[05:29:18] road diets and you know some are larger than others obviously and yeah I
[05:29:22] agree some of the roads are different than others but the whole point was
[05:29:25] to you know improve um you know outcomes and and decrease risk and I
[05:29:30] think that's what the the original proposal was was accomplishing um so you know
[05:29:38] and the interesting thing was obviously nobody's here this evening to speak on this
[05:29:42] publicly but you know of the folks who came last time the prepundonderance of
[05:29:47] speakers were those who were cyclists or or other users as pedestrians on that
[05:29:51] road um and I can say just from my own experience in Red Hawk
[05:29:56] uh the traffic is is slower it's safer people are out bicycling more and
[05:30:00] using the sidewalks and walking around the neighborhood more because it's also quieter right
[05:30:05] I mean there's all these residual benefits that occurred with what I thought originally
[05:30:09] and initially when this was being done. I was like, "This is kind of
[05:30:12] a dumb idea." I won't be, you know, I won't lie, Ron. I thought
[05:30:14] it was kind of weird putting on these stripes, but the outcomes have been
[05:30:19] substantial for our community. Um, and and that particular neighborhood and seeing it operate
[05:30:24] in other parts of the city, I I got to say it's done its
[05:30:28] job. So, I'm not here to secondguess, you know, what what's been done on
[05:30:35] the research side or second guess what I think it's a great idea. Um,
[05:30:38] and you know, I think if we have anything that measurably improves public safety,
[05:30:44] the safety of our pedestrians, and the safety of those driving on our roads,
[05:30:48] then then I'm all for it. Um, I'll I'll end by saying that the
[05:30:53] numbers don't bear out either. You know, there was lots of discussion about Altter
[05:30:56] and and you know, all of this other stuff. I mean, come on, let's
[05:30:59] be honest. How many high school students are going to be living up in
[05:31:02] the hill that get driven down Paba Road? You know, it's 1100,200 units total.
[05:31:07] Not every household is going to have a high schooler. You know, in fact,
[05:31:11] a very insignificant portion of that community is going to have a high schooler
[05:31:15] living in there if you go by the statistics of the rest of this
[05:31:17] city. And so, you know, even if you increase the number of vehicles on
[05:31:22] that road by 50 per day, which I think would be considerably high for
[05:31:26] what Altar actually is producing, even if you cons even if you increase Papa
[05:31:31] Road by 50 driving out to the high school, it still doesn't, you know,
[05:31:35] reach some of the other standards on roads that we have that are, you
[05:31:38] know, benefiting from from road diets. So, I'm, you know, I I'm I'm just
[05:31:42] baffled that we're still arguing about uh stripes on a road and and debating
[05:31:48] anything that can increase public safety on our streets. So, you know, for those
[05:31:53] reasons, I'm I'm just back where I was before saying do the run diet.
[05:31:56] It's it's a good idea. It works. We know it works. You know, let's
[05:32:00] go ahead and implement this thing. >> All right. Can I jump in? We
[05:32:06] good? All right. So, couple questions that I've just been jotting down, listening to
[05:32:11] our council members, just trying to get an idea of how to move forward
[05:32:14] with this. So, couple questions kind of statements all in one. First thing I
[05:32:18] kind of thought about is thinking if there's not a ton of traffic on
[05:32:22] the road. I would think that the cyclists and others using the bike lane
[05:32:27] should feel safer along the reduced speed, right? Like where it's at right now.
[05:32:31] So, let me reword that. So right now if we don't have a ton
[05:32:34] of traffic going down the road, do these cyclists really feel unsafe down that
[05:32:39] road? You know, having again cycled myself before, um there's plenty of room. So
[05:32:44] if we have two lanes currently right now, they should feel pretty comfortable knowing
[05:32:48] that they're supposed to keep a certain distance away from cyclists. So just kind
[05:32:51] of my thought, there's not a lot of traffic going down there. So why
[05:32:55] change it? That was kind of my one thought. Hope that made sense. Um,
[05:33:00] you know, the other thing I'm just thinking about is I know we I'm
[05:33:03] not going to ask the staff to go re-evaluate this or anything, but we
[05:33:07] looked at the traffic and we looked at how much is going by, but
[05:33:11] how much of pedestrians do we have going through? Like, how many cyclists do
[05:33:15] we have? How many walkers do we have? How many are we going to
[05:33:18] have? You know, again, these are just those questions that we're posing that again,
[05:33:22] we haven't looked into, but let's think about it. I mean, I I go
[05:33:25] down PA all the time. I don't see a lot of cyclists. I and
[05:33:29] I'm sure they're there. I'm not saying they're not, but I don't see a
[05:33:32] lot of pedestrians because it's not a lot of homes in that area. You
[05:33:35] have a couple homes, you have churches, you have um a couple areas that
[05:33:40] are smaller, if I'm correct, Ron, that are just smaller housing areas if I'm
[05:33:44] correct. So, there's not a lot of pedestrians that are moving through that area,
[05:33:47] through that corridor. Is that correct? >> Correct. There's smaller subdivisions over there. >> Thank
[05:33:51] you for that wording. Yeah. So, that was just kind of another thought. Uh
[05:33:55] the the one area that I can say kind of listening to staff and
[05:33:59] listening to the council members here that I get concerned about is going downhill.
[05:34:05] So I know going downhill we are able to pick up speed very quickly
[05:34:09] and I think we all know that. So you have to be very very
[05:34:11] careful um making sure that those accidents at that intersection do not happen because
[05:34:16] you got to slow your speed down. So with one of these and if
[05:34:20] you can remind me with one of these proposed striping is any of those
[05:34:23] reducing at all to 10 ft is we're bringing that into 10 ft so
[05:34:27] we can have a road diet to slow those cars down a little bit.
[05:34:30] >> Uh the alternative three it's not really changing anything as far as widths.
[05:34:35] It's giving more buffer that because there's extra ride ofway in there because it's
[05:34:39] only the one lane and that's over towards Yianz. But Nick was able to
[05:34:43] add a couple of feet to the buffer and that gave some area in
[05:34:47] there because if you notice that portion of Yianz is not as wide as
[05:34:51] the rest of it. Right. >> So therefore it doesn't have a typical configuration.
[05:34:55] >> Gotcha. >> That that's why it is that way but you can steal
[05:34:58] a couple feet just because we have a little extra room. >> Excellent. Okay.
[05:35:02] Couple more things. Um, you know, I I heard opening up the biker biker
[05:35:08] lane can increase uh, you know, would just be safer for the ebikes. I'll
[05:35:12] tell you, I was just riding with my family the other day and I
[05:35:15] had like a mob of kids coming down the bike bike bike lane, one
[05:35:19] wheelie, flipping me off because I was I was being that mom of like,
[05:35:22] get down off that one wheel. And I'm just going to tell you, I
[05:35:26] believe that again, this is my perception. If if we open up that buffer
[05:35:31] and bike lane, I believe there's going to be more individuals as these ebikers
[05:35:36] possibly riding side by side through the buffer and possibly through the bike lane.
[05:35:39] That's just my opinion. I don't know if that's true, but I think the
[05:35:42] more room that they have, the more greater time or they're just going to
[05:35:46] expand throughout that those lanes. Just food for thought. Um, let me see. spoke
[05:35:53] to a couple individuals with fire and officers here in our um in our
[05:35:58] community. They would both like to see the double lane stay for that configuration.
[05:36:04] And I think that's it. So, just again thoughts. Just want to throw those
[05:36:07] out there of what I've thought and heard and throw it out to somebody
[05:36:11] else. Anybody's got anything or a motion? >> I have a few comments. >> Yes,
[05:36:17] sir. Um but I will make a motion uh prior to making those comments
[05:36:20] to approve option number C or three the hybrid compromise um for the restriping.
[05:36:27] And that is my motion. But a few comments uh just to reiterate uh
[05:36:31] I don't like how this is being positioned as um one is safer than
[05:36:35] the other. You know when you say that hey road diets statistically are safer
[05:36:40] and and cause 35% less accidents on streets. And that's been um you know
[05:36:46] studied by the the agencies that you guys uh mentioned. But there's a reason
[05:36:51] that we're not road dieting every single road in Temecula, right? And I'm not
[05:36:56] sure that we all agree that we shouldn't do that or we wouldn't do
[05:36:59] that. Um I am of the prerogative that road diets absolutely can work in
[05:37:03] certain streets um and may not work in other streets. And I've mentioned that
[05:37:07] multiple times on why I don't believe uh this corridor is one of those.
[05:37:11] Um, and it was mentioned that, you know, you're not secondguessing staff and and
[05:37:14] neither are we. Uh, you know, in this position, I don't want to be
[05:37:17] seen that, hey, since we're looking at option number three, we are uh second-guessing
[05:37:20] staff's original recommendation. But as it was said, staff only studied that single solution
[05:37:27] because that is what they were asked to do. They were asked to study
[05:37:30] the road diet in this corridor. They weren't asked to study multiple options. And
[05:37:34] with the multiple options being presented here today, there is no staff recommendation um
[05:37:38] as there was last time. And I think there is no staff recommendation because
[05:37:41] as my first question um alluded to is all three of these new options
[05:37:46] are similar in safety measurements and we have to have a measurement of safety
[05:37:51] uh which in this case is uh safety collisions. Um and I'm not secondguessing
[05:37:55] staff's data and staff's recommendation. It's been stated multiple times that we're secondguessing the
[05:37:59] 52 miles per hour data that they uh keep showing us that people are
[05:38:03] going 60 miles an hour. Um but that is second guessing the data that
[05:38:06] we are presenting with. People are going to go faster. people are going to
[05:38:08] go slower. Um, and ultimately to lower the speed limit, we can lower the
[05:38:12] speed limit. Right? There's a a huge portion of this corridor that is 45
[05:38:16] miles an hour. If we want to lower it from the 52 miles per
[05:38:19] hour that most cars are traveling at, let's lower it from 45 miles an
[05:38:22] hour to 40 m hour. That effectively lowers people's speed limit. And the way
[05:38:27] that we make sure that they lower their speed limit is that we enforce
[05:38:30] the current laws and ordinances that we have in place. And lower speed limit,
[05:38:34] lower collisions. Ultimately, I don't think there is a superior alternative. I think all
[05:38:41] three of these options are good options. Um, and again, uh, my motion will
[05:38:47] be for the third hybrid option. >> Thank you, mayor. >> I'll second that
[05:38:52] motion. >> Okay. I got a couple of comments and then sort of answer
[05:38:56] your questions, but we can certainly vote on that. Um, so with respect to
[05:39:00] your question of like um, you know, there's plenty of room and there's there's
[05:39:05] not a lot of uh, traffic so you feel safe. Um, what a road
[05:39:09] diet does is it forces people to drive in a lane, right? So just
[05:39:13] because there's a ton of space doesn't mean that people move over. It doesn't
[05:39:16] mean that people um, drive in the lane adjacent. They'll they'll ride right past
[05:39:21] you. The reason why you don't see a ton of people um walking and
[05:39:26] biking on that street is because people are speeding and they're like, "It's not
[05:39:30] safe." So, I'm not going to let my kids go um out there by
[05:39:34] themselves. Certainly not let them bike. Um but that's one of the reasons why
[05:39:38] we don't see um a lot of people out there. And I've seen uh
[05:39:44] heat maps where we've made connections on roadways where you can see a lot
[05:39:48] of more people are using it from an active transportation perspective. But again, we're
[05:39:54] focusing way too much on this as a bike thing. This is a safety
[05:39:58] thing. This is like stop making it about biking and walking. Yeah, that's important.
[05:40:04] But the the the the the goal of a city council is to create
[05:40:09] a city that is safe. And to say that traffic collisions are inevitable and
[05:40:13] throwing up your hands isn't what we should be doing. There are tons of
[05:40:17] municipalities that adopt uh vision zero policies that seek to eliminate traffic violence. This
[05:40:24] is a fact. This happens. Um infrastructure matters. So we can feel like, you
[05:40:29] know, kids are going to do what kids do. And that might be true,
[05:40:32] but that isn't borne out in the data. When you build infrastructure that works,
[05:40:37] this is across the United States in in states that are um in the
[05:40:43] Midwest that build out things. Bentonville, Arkansas is a perfect example of this. Um
[05:40:48] there are other countries that that do this really really well. Um so infrastructure
[05:40:53] does in fact matter with respect to people following the laws, right? we can't
[05:40:59] just arbitrarily lower the speed limit to 40 if the if the 85th percentile
[05:41:04] is 52. Um so people are still going to be speeding especially on the
[05:41:08] downhill portion, right? And so um thinking about again the economic impact every traffic
[05:41:16] collision in our city, we need to send police and fire. We send our
[05:41:20] sheriff's department and our fire department out there. That's a resource that does not
[05:41:24] need to be going. If we can eliminate a handful of these, it makes
[05:41:27] a difference over the course of our city, like over the long haul. Um,
[05:41:32] I'd like to know, you know, like we can say, oh, I talked to
[05:41:35] someone and they want to keep it four lanes and or someone believes in
[05:41:38] two, but the the data on our road diets is like definitive in our
[05:41:42] city, but if you only look at the road diets, that's one thing, but
[05:41:46] if you look at the other road [cough] segments that matter as well. So,
[05:41:50] Rainbow Canyon functions at a higher um you know peak volume than than um
[05:41:55] than this section will. So, a lot of our our roads already function at
[05:42:00] this sort of higher level. I think the question was asked was like, well,
[05:42:04] who who bikes? Um well, now it's mostly kids, right? Like if you go
[05:42:08] if you go to any school right now and go look at their bike
[05:42:12] rack or do a walking uh sort of analysis, like it's a lot of
[05:42:17] children, but it's also a ton of seniors that that are home all day
[05:42:21] and they're like, "Hey, I'm going to go for a walk." Right? And if
[05:42:24] you look at where people walk, they're sort of you I remember when I
[05:42:28] was a kid, like I had this this region that I could go and
[05:42:33] explore. that's gotten smaller and smaller as we've built out this infrastructure. You you
[05:42:39] get children that are only allowed to go to the end of your street.
[05:42:43] I see a kid in my neighborhood that can only ride around our street.
[05:42:46] And that's a shame that he can only go around our street because being
[05:42:51] able to explore and and and build some some autonomy and make a little
[05:42:57] mistake in a safe community. And that's that's what we want our kids to
[05:43:01] do. We want them to be able to explore and not be like, "Oh,
[05:43:03] Johnny, you can only go to the end of the street because in is
[05:43:06] too dangerous." And I'm not saying that like this is going to solve our
[05:43:10] problem. This is a small piece that I think is so important because the
[05:43:15] neighbors did in fact come. The neighbors on Paba came. The neighbors on Rancho
[05:43:19] Vista are coming now and complaining. They're saying like, "Hey, people are driving 50
[05:43:23] miles an hour down Rancho Vista. When are you gonna when are you gonna
[05:43:27] change Rancho Vista?" My son went to Veil Elementary and I witnessed multiple times
[05:43:33] people blowing through the crosswalk during school hours at well above 50 miles an
[05:43:37] hour. Right? So, we have an opportunity to make a small little tweak on
[05:43:42] our system that isn't going to overload it. I I really dislike the idea
[05:43:47] that we're only talking about bikes and who bikes. Well, we don't do a
[05:43:50] study on biking. We should we should do we should do biking counts. We
[05:43:56] did a huge uh master plan back in 2016 that packed the house. Every
[05:44:01] place we went to was full of people saying we want this, right? Like
[05:44:04] think about when you travel the places you go, there are places that are
[05:44:09] walkable and bikable, right? You go to places, you travel these places, that is
[05:44:13] an asset. If we talk about tourism, we talk about quality of life, this
[05:44:17] is an asset for our community that we should be investing in and it's
[05:44:22] not a detriment. And sure road diets make sense on some streets but if
[05:44:28] you look at Winchester Rancho Temecula Parkway those are those through those are the
[05:44:33] places we want people to go right businesses line them we don't want papa
[05:44:37] to be a cutthrough for people to get to wine country like I just
[05:44:41] don't think that that's the best use of that space um and so yeah
[05:44:46] it makes sense to take a little here and and and reallocate it to
[05:44:52] slow down speeds so that our first responders don't have to be going to
[05:44:56] collisions, potential collisions, because people are are speeding. It it's it's honestly a no-brainer
[05:45:02] to me. I I I made a video on the the Front Street Road
[05:45:06] diet. Zero negative feedback. Like, it's no different than the video I made for
[05:45:12] Papa Road, but somehow Paba Road is like this contentious issue that's going to
[05:45:16] break the backs of our city. It's just Honestly, it's ridiculous. It's very frustrating
[05:45:22] because we have clear data that says this will make our community safer. Stand
[05:45:27] on that. This will make our community safer 100%. >> All right. Thank you
[05:45:34] very much, Zach. Uh yes, sir. >> Yeah. I I mean, you know, a
[05:45:40] long- winded response to say, "Yeah, it's going to be safer." It is. I
[05:45:44] mean, there's, you know, I don't even know why we're arguing about this or
[05:45:47] debating it at all. it's it's just simply going to make it safer. So,
[05:45:51] where's the hangup, right? And and we could put all sorts of unknowns and
[05:45:56] speculation out about how many high school kids are going to be driven by
[05:45:59] their parents to, you know, a high school several miles away. Um, we can
[05:46:04] make speculation about what Alterara is going to bring as far as traffic is
[05:46:08] concerned. But what we don't have to speculate on is that 85th percentile 52
[05:46:15] mph means that the vast majority of drivers on that road are driving too
[05:46:21] fast, you know, and 15% of them are driving well above, you know, 52
[05:46:27] miles an hour. So, we're not speculating saying, geez, I wonder if somebody's driving
[05:46:30] 60 m hour down the road. No, they are. I've seen them. We've all
[05:46:33] seen them. It's not an uncommon practice. And easily based on those statistics, one
[05:46:38] out of 10 drivers is going 60 miles an hour or greater, you know.
[05:46:44] So, so there's really I mean, so there's no debate or or conversation to
[05:46:48] be had on that. The question is, is the will of the council to
[05:46:52] listen to what the community had asked for, you know, four years ago and
[05:46:57] follow through with a commitment to them saying, "We're going to do something about
[05:47:00] speed and and, you know, safety on on PBA road or are we just
[05:47:04] going to say no b business as usual or we'll give you a couple
[05:47:07] of, you know, inches on your bike lane." You know, just because the house
[05:47:13] isn't packed with folks doesn't mean folks in the community and on that road
[05:47:17] don't still care. Um, it's just, you know, nine o'clock at night on a
[05:47:21] Tuesday and, you know, we had a rough, you know, go of it earlier.
[05:47:25] Um, but, you know, I I I just, you know, a lot of speculation,
[05:47:29] a lot of worry. We know it works. We've put it on roads, both,
[05:47:33] you know, common roads that are more neighborhood driven and those that aren't, and
[05:47:37] we've seen positive results because of it. Do we want to continue that? Um,
[05:47:41] and then, you know, I'm I'm just still scratching my head. So what's the
[05:47:46] negative outcome if we do the road diet? What are we so worried about
[05:47:51] that's going to happen on PBA road where you know are we going to
[05:47:56] see this massive amount of congestion? Well, no. The numbers don't play into that.
[05:48:00] We just don't have that many vehicles on the road and our annual or
[05:48:03] our average daily uh trips don't support that speculation. So, so what's the worst
[05:48:10] thing that's going to happen by us creating a safer or even slightly safer
[05:48:15] road in Temecula? I don't understand what the big issue is or what we're
[05:48:20] trying to prevent doing except that we've had a couple of grumpy people, one
[05:48:25] of which didn't even live in the neighborhood complaining about shrinking down one lane.
[05:48:30] I really could care less what that person thought. You [laughter] know, that wasn't
[05:48:34] your neighborhood. you live down the way, you know, so why are we paying
[05:48:38] attention to that? You know, one grumpy person comes out of all of this
[05:48:42] city and we're cowtowing to to that sort of response. I just don't get
[05:48:47] it. You know, I just I'm baffled by this and you know, I know
[05:48:51] we need motions and everything else. My my motion, bless you, would be just
[05:48:55] to simply adopt what was what was done. It wasn't just staff being directed
[05:49:00] to create a road diet. You know, that was the council's will. That was
[05:49:03] the neighborhood's will. That was a lot of folks weighing in on this and
[05:49:07] they could have come up with any version of measures, not just a road
[05:49:11] diet, any version of measures, whether it was visual friction or any other kind
[05:49:15] of uh uh measure out there to help reduce those speeds. This was the
[05:49:20] one they landed on because they have the evidence. They have the support to
[05:49:23] say that it actually works, you know. So, you know, they they did a
[05:49:27] great job. They did exactly what the community and the council had directed them
[05:49:31] to do. And now now we're you know saying ah never mind I it
[05:49:34] just doesn't make any sense to me. >> All right. Thank you very much
[05:49:38] Mayor Prom Mr. Stew. >> So you know everybody's making the assumption that we
[05:49:44] narrow it to one lane that the speeds are going to reduce. And you
[05:49:50] know I've been on that road many many times too. And I think even
[05:49:54] in one lane, you're still gonna hit 60 miles an hour, you know, because
[05:49:59] like you said, the amount of traffic that's on that road is not as
[05:50:04] if you had a a flow of cars, there's always going to be one
[05:50:08] person that's going to go the speed limit, which is going to block everybody
[05:50:11] up. And that's what will cause the road dial to actually work is when
[05:50:17] someone is in the lead going, it says [clears throat] 40 or 45, whatever
[05:50:24] it is, they're the ones that's going to make everybody behind them. That's what
[05:50:28] happens in Red Hawk. I >> Well, no. When I drive Redhawk Parkway, when
[05:50:35] someone's in front of me and they're they're going slow, it's it slows everybody
[05:50:40] down that's in that's just what I've experienced. But, you know, that that's what
[05:50:47] I that's what I'm hearing. I'm hearing we're making the assumption now. To me,
[05:50:51] it would make more sense because I've had a lot of experience with Pina
[05:50:55] Colada and people speeding down Pina Colada and we put that 25 mph uh
[05:51:03] speed uh sign there and it works miracles because I I guarantee you most
[05:51:11] people aren't paying attention how fast they're going. And the minute you see that
[05:51:16] thing pop at you and says you're going 28 or 30, >> you you
[05:51:21] break. You you slow down because most of us want to be good citizens.
[05:51:25] We're not we're not out there to be dragstrip uh people. We're not going
[05:51:30] as fast as it's just literally you're just not paying attention. And so to
[05:51:36] me, I would rather just see that actually take place where especially on the
[05:51:41] downhill motion, you get this big old red thing that says you're going 50
[05:51:47] miles an hour. Slow down. And and to me, that makes more of a
[05:51:52] mental picture in my mind than you give me one lane and there's no
[05:51:56] one in front of me, I'm still doing 60. I mean, that's that's really
[05:51:59] what what I I would say was would would really would happen. So, I'm
[05:52:07] more in favor of those little radar things that we put out there. Make
[05:52:11] it a permanent one. That >> We already have one though. >> Do we?
[05:52:15] >> We do. And I I I mean, I literally sat at that intersection
[05:52:19] and I felt like it was more of a challenge to see how high,
[05:52:23] you know, drivers could get that thing to cycle. I mean, I, you know,
[05:52:26] I'm telling you guys, you know, spend some time on this road. That little,
[05:52:29] you know, meter down at the end, I would hear people actually gun the
[05:52:33] engine to see, you know, and I'm sitting there, I'm like, "Oh my god,
[05:52:36] this is having the opposite effect of what it was intended to do, you
[05:52:40] know, and it just, you know, yeah, it works in some areas, you know,
[05:52:43] but that clearly wasn't the the solution there. I mean, you know, take the
[05:52:48] time and and sit there because you'd see the exact same thing that I
[05:52:51] saw." Madame Mayor, [laughter] >> I just want Please go ahead. >> Okay. Thank
[05:52:57] you. I just want to answer your question because you you sparked something in
[05:53:00] me where you said like, you know, hey, we really need a vehicle in
[05:53:04] front to sort of slow things down. And that's how this works. Um in
[05:53:08] the city, we platoon vehicles through intersections. So like just because there isn't a
[05:53:13] ton ton of traffic, like if you sit there and you watch like vehicles
[05:53:16] end up getting platooned, right? So, like if you're going to make a left-hand
[05:53:19] turn off of Enz onto Paba, it's not going to be one car that
[05:53:23] makes a turn. It's a bunch of cars. Watch it. It'll queue up, right?
[05:53:26] And it'll be eight, nine, 10 cars. And and that queuing, that platooning of
[05:53:30] vehicles when you get the single lane road diet is what slows people down.
[05:53:35] Because I do believe, you're right, there are a lot of people that are
[05:53:38] are good. And are there still going to be people that speed? Clearly, like
[05:53:41] that's still going to happen. But are we doing everything in our power to
[05:53:47] affect the most amount of people to slow down? So you were just sort
[05:53:50] of making a case for the for the road diet with the platooning of
[05:53:53] vehicles because that's exactly what we do in the city is is that's what
[05:53:57] happens and that's how it functions and it works. It clearly works. >> Okay,
[05:54:03] there's a motion in progress. Are we done? [laughter] >> I have a few
[05:54:06] more comments. Madam Mayor, >> are you serious? >> Yes. I I happen you
[05:54:09] know a lot of there's there's a lot of baffling going on. I'm baffled
[05:54:12] that my colleagues are baffled that we're having this discussion. I think this is
[05:54:15] a great discussion and it needs to have happen and I'm I'm glad it's
[05:54:18] happened the way it's happening even though it's just pain. I think this is
[05:54:20] a great discussion for our colleagues to have. Um and I think you know
[05:54:24] it was mentioned that the speculation of all terror and the speculation of this
[05:54:28] and that and we can't create policy off speculation. The roads as they currently
[05:54:33] are was built off speculation. They were built on how many people the original
[05:54:36] planners of Temecula thought would be driving these roads. That's why they're as wide
[05:54:40] as they are. That's why we took much as much right away as we
[05:54:42] did when we built these roads initially. It was built off speculation. This entire
[05:54:46] city and the infrastructure that we see was built off speculation and and this
[05:54:51] current policy that was built off of thoughtful engineering, not speculation. Big difference. >> And
[05:54:56] I would argue that this and the road the way it is currently configured
[05:55:00] was also built off of engineering that you speak of the way it currently
[05:55:03] sits today. Unless you're saying that when this was created, city staff just said
[05:55:07] four lanes. We need four lanes here for no reason. I guarantee there was
[05:55:10] a staff report at that time that said this is the best configuration for
[05:55:14] the city and this is why and these are all the reasonings all the
[05:55:17] engineering >> at that time >> at that time and just like at that
[05:55:20] time in 2022 when you say the community came and they spoke and they
[05:55:24] said this is what they wanted in 2026 this is not what the community
[05:55:27] wants in my opinion right your opinion was that in 2022 this is what
[05:55:30] the city wanted this is what the traffic safety commission had staff analyze and
[05:55:37] you say that staff if if staff they would have brought back something else.
[05:55:40] When I talked to staff, I don't want to put on the spot. They
[05:55:42] they said this is what we were positioned to study. We studied this specifically
[05:55:47] because the traffic safety commission told us to study this road diet. And now
[05:55:51] that there are multiple recommendations because the city council and city staff works at
[05:55:57] the uh city council's discretion and the the traffic safety commission's discretion at that
[05:56:01] time. We recommended, hey, could you study multiple areas? And they brought back multiple
[05:56:06] areas. And now these multiple different striping options they have said are all similar
[05:56:10] in comparison to safety. And we talked about safety and the speculation of safety.
[05:56:14] I just want to say from my perspective, I would never, and this is
[05:56:17] just my own prerogative, you guys are mentioning your prerogative. I would never allow
[05:56:20] my kids to bike on any lane that is over 40 m hour. You
[05:56:24] mentioned the 40 mph fatality rate is 46%. I don't care how big the
[05:56:28] buffer is. I personally would never allow my kids on a 40 mph street.
[05:56:33] That's my risk, right? We all have our own risk tolerance. You will never
[05:56:36] see my kids, no matter how wide Paba is, no matter how wide Rancho
[05:56:40] Vista is, they will never be on bikes. Why? Because it is inherently unsafe
[05:56:44] to have a vehicle any distance to a bicycle without any sort of physical
[05:56:49] barrier. That's my perspective. I don't care how quote unquote safe or how big
[05:56:53] the buffer is or how big the bike lane is, it is inherently unsafe
[05:56:57] riding a bike next to vehicles regardless of the buffer space. Um, but again,
[05:57:02] that's my opinion on uh bicyclists. And I just want to reiterate, it's not
[05:57:05] just TVHS on this strip, right? And from Altera, we keep talking about high
[05:57:08] school, TVHS. Yeah. But it's also Trinity Preschool. It's also Paloma at the end
[05:57:12] of that street on Paba. It goes past the strip, but there's Lynfield. There's
[05:57:16] Vintage Hills up on the left. There's a bunch of streets or a bunch
[05:57:20] of schools on this street that potentially um like we discussed, it's probably not
[05:57:25] going to be senior citizens living in these two, threetory homes. It's going to
[05:57:27] be families. And they're not going to just have high schoolers. You were absolutely
[05:57:30] right. They're going to have preschoolers. They're going to have elementary kid. They're going to
[05:57:32] have middle school. TMS right there. They're going to have uh high schoolers. They're
[05:57:35] going to have all these uh different age groups and they will all be
[05:57:38] traveling on this road. So, I think with the thoughtful planning and engineering that
[05:57:43] our city staff has done, they have said that four lanes on this road
[05:57:47] uh is safe. And we keep talking about safety, safety, safety, and the perception
[05:57:51] of safety. There's no way to gauge the perception of safety, right? They're going
[05:57:55] to feel safer on the street or they're there, you know, just because there's
[05:57:58] no accidents doesn't mean that it's not safe. Yeah. But there's no way to
[05:58:01] there's no data on the perception of safety. We can't have that. There's no
[05:58:04] data to back that up. And it was mentioned that we can't arbitrarily lower
[05:58:07] the speed limit on this uh street. Absolutely, we cannot arbitrarily lower it. There
[05:58:11] is a section that is already 40 miles an hour, which means that the
[05:58:14] city council already approved for it to be lowered from 45 to 40 because
[05:58:17] of data and analysis. And I could almost guarantee, I won't say 100%, I'll
[05:58:21] say 99%. If we study this corridor and they say that they are going
[05:58:24] too fast for 45 miles hour, we can absolutely lower it to 40 mph.
[05:58:29] It's not arbitrary. There will there can be data and engineering to back up
[05:58:33] that lowering of the speed limit, including the school, including the library, including the
[05:58:37] accidents that happen here, the five that happen outside of the controlled intersection. So,
[05:58:41] no, it won't be arbitrarily lowered. But I believe with research and data and
[05:58:45] analysis, we can absolutely lower it to a portion that's already at 40, the
[05:58:49] whole corridor to 40 mph. You want to lower people's speed limit, lower their
[05:58:53] lower the actual speed limit by law, and then enforce the damn speed limit.
[05:58:57] That's how you lower speed limits. And yes, you could say that when cars
[05:59:00] back up and there's more congestion, it's going to lower the speed limit. Absolutely.
[05:59:03] On other roads like Red Hawk and other ones that differ from this one,
[05:59:07] there's a physical median in between. On this one, there will not be a
[05:59:11] physical median. There will be a center lane that people will zoom by on
[05:59:15] your left. If you're going 25 miles an hour, that is human nature. They
[05:59:19] will zoom by on your left. And we can talk about speculation and all
[05:59:21] that. Um, that is just reality. uh compared to the Red Hawk one which
[05:59:25] has a median in the lefth hand corner so you couldn't speed around in
[05:59:27] certain intersections. So there are things that can be done and again I do
[05:59:30] not disagree with road diets in totality. I disagree with it based on the
[05:59:34] research and data that I have seen on this particular street that it will
[05:59:38] not be beneficial for the totality of the residents and that is why I
[05:59:42] continuously push back against this even though it may baffle you. I feel like
[05:59:45] I've given adequate reasoning um and quote unquote speculation with Altter, the widening of
[05:59:50] UNZ and the widening of Paba at the county side to say I understand
[05:59:54] staff's recommendation initially because that's what they were tasked to recommend and to research
[06:00:00] in 2026. I do not think this is the best move moving forward on
[06:00:04] an already safe street for our constituents. Thank you, mayor. >> All right, we've
[06:00:11] got >> just I'm just [laughter] point of clarification though. staff at no point
[06:00:15] ever said that all of the options are equally safe. Point of clarification there.
[06:00:21] >> And if I mentioned that, I apologize to my uh specific question that
[06:00:26] was asked. >> It was >> Are they safe? Yes, the answer is they
[06:00:31] are safe. >> My question is >> they are not equally safe. >> Would
[06:00:34] it be fair to say that after restudying the corridor and bringing back these
[06:00:38] solutions, they all provide comparable outcomes in terms comparable? Yes. comparable outcomes in terms
[06:00:45] and that is uh perception of comparable outcomes because because we can't predict the
[06:00:48] future comparable outcomes in terms of safety, speed reduction and overall traffic calming and
[06:00:54] effectiveness and the answer was yes. All three provide comparable >> play back the
[06:00:59] film. It did not. Nobody said yes. >> Nobody said yes. We can go
[06:01:03] back and play back the film or look at the video later, but nobody
[06:01:06] said yes to that. And I'm I'm more than happy to let our public
[06:01:10] works director. I just can't lay on that issue because it's just not true.
[06:01:13] >> Sure. So >> we brought the road diet back in March. We were
[06:01:18] directed at that time to bring back other viable options. So we put together
[06:01:23] different plans that could uh be comparable that had some enhancements to bike safety
[06:01:31] and pedestrians and just trying to look at it. And I will say no
[06:01:35] matter what the council's direction tonight, we will have to after this rehab and
[06:01:39] restriping, we will need to do a speed survey. So that that is coming
[06:01:42] out of this no matter the option that's chosen. And then what I concluded
[06:01:46] with was Eric and Nick, best traffic engineers in the area. They're not going
[06:01:51] to present something that's unsafe, but [snorts] they all can work. >> Can I
[06:01:57] ask a quick question actually as I'm listening to some of my council members
[06:02:00] here? Ron, if you can help me out as I'm looking. I I understand
[06:02:04] we are moving into that we want to move or it's proposed to move
[06:02:07] into a road diet. Road diet typically is considered to shrink the road down.
[06:02:12] But each one of these I'm seeing as 11 ft across from what is
[06:02:16] today >> what the road diet does and this was kind of yours and
[06:02:21] I's discussion before. >> Yeah. >> Is you're taking one lane and you're creating
[06:02:25] a striped buffer with that lane. So your your bike lane moves a little
[06:02:30] bit wider. You have a much wider buffer and then you have the one
[06:02:35] lane you had before. So that's why it's not changing width. >> And that's
[06:02:39] and that's kind of my question. I'm just proposing this. I understand that there
[06:02:42] is information out there, but if I'm going down a a lane then driving
[06:02:47] that's 11 feet wide, whether it's one or two, why would that slow me
[06:02:50] down? Like I just don't understand how that would slow me down. If I'm
[06:02:55] driving down PABA and it's one lane, whether it's two lanes in 11 ft
[06:02:58] or one lane in 11 ft, how is that going to slow me down
[06:03:01] if I have nobody in front of me? >> Well, just to rebuttal, I
[06:03:05] think on their behalf is that they're saying that if there's the the person
[06:03:08] in front of the lead >> other than in front, but but we have
[06:03:11] less dense traffic there. It's not as >> I think they're saying their argument
[06:03:14] is that people will back up and that ultimately slows down the majority of
[06:03:18] the traffic. Is what I is that fair to say that the road diet
[06:03:21] that's the purpose is to have one car and it's going slow. The purpose
[06:03:24] isn't just to do that. It's to provide and we had this great conversation
[06:03:27] years ago with the term visual friction. So the more opportunity you have to
[06:03:32] place things in the peripheral space of drivers, it's a just just simple psychology
[06:03:37] of what's going on with the driver that as there's more infrastructure, more things
[06:03:41] on the sides of the roads, more feeling of that, you know, sort of
[06:03:44] it closing in on you that it artificially drops speed limits. Um, >> and
[06:03:50] and that's that's all it does, right? And whether there's a driver in front
[06:03:54] or not, it doesn't really matter. You know, that's just what it does. Look,
[06:03:57] I clearly we don't have the votes to do a road diet on here.
[06:04:01] So, let's just let's just move this item. >> Okay. We have moved by
[06:04:06] Calus, myself second. Let's vote. Oh, wait. Hold on. Prove striping. We have to
[06:04:19] figure out. So, we're looking at configured. So, we're looking at >> my motion
[06:04:22] was for option number three, >> alternative. Okay. >> Alternative >> hybrid option. >> All right.
[06:04:28] And that motion passes three to two. All righty. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you,
[06:04:32] staff, for digging into those for different alternatives. All right. Uh, let me see.
[06:04:38] Our last one, I believe, yes, is going to be number 18. It's going
[06:04:41] to be our next big one. It's going to be re Oh, just a
[06:04:43] receive and file for a general plan update draft land use report concept. And
[06:04:50] we should be receiving a staff report from Matt Peters and his team. Is
[06:04:54] that correct? >> That's correct. One more introduction. I'd like to introduce Amanda Tropiano
[06:05:00] from Denovo. She's our general plan consultant. And I think I mentioned this last
[06:05:04] time. If she looks familiar, it's because she helped us with our housing element
[06:05:08] just a few years ago. >> How are you, ma'am? Good to see you.
[06:05:11] I'm doing well. Thank you so much for having me. So, I have a
[06:05:15] presentation and then hoping to facilitate a dialogue with you about some next steps
[06:05:19] for the city's general plan update. So, with that, I wanted to go through
[06:05:23] just a brief overview of what has brought us here to the discussion for
[06:05:27] tonight's uh tonight's conversation. The project kicked off in earnest in June of 2025.
[06:05:34] and we spent the fall of 2025 really connecting with your community both in
[06:05:38] person and online to understand some key issues and themes that your community really
[06:05:42] wanted us to focus on as part of this general plan update. Moving into
[06:05:46] the beginning of this year, we worked on developing existing conditions, uh reconnecting with
[06:05:51] the community on some of the topics we're going to talk about tonight. And
[06:05:54] then looking forward into the summer of this year, we'll be developing some draft
[06:05:57] policy information and guidance and then kicking off the environmental review. Ultimately, our goal
[06:06:03] is to return to you in the summer of next year uh with these
[06:06:07] policy documents and environmental review and allow the planning commission and the city council
[06:06:12] to consider the item. One of the cornerstones of this effort has been deep
[06:06:18] conversations with your community and key stakeholders to again uncover those issues and opportunities
[06:06:22] that Temecula has facing the next 20 years. To that end, I wanted to
[06:06:27] remind both yourselves and the public about different avenues they have to connect with
[06:06:31] us and provide that feedback. From a dedicated project website, we submit regular communications
[06:06:36] on lift serves and social media. We sent a direct mailer to every mailing
[06:06:41] address in the community. It was just over 40,000 addresses. We hosted those in-person
[06:06:45] workshops, have conducted online surveys. We were in front of you as part of
[06:06:49] the city council housing workshop. We have looked at all of the outreach and
[06:06:55] uh expanded on the work completed as part of the quality of life master
[06:06:59] plan. We've had two online surveys and then had a community workshop last month
[06:07:04] on the draft land use vision report. One of the things I wanted to
[06:07:08] reiterate again is that this work is really born out of the city's investment
[06:07:12] in the quality of life master plan and in fact the general plan itself
[06:07:16] will be organized around those those core values. So again, just as a reminder,
[06:07:21] especially for the public, we're approaching this through that lens uh around a safe
[06:07:26] and prepared community, transportation, mobility, and connectivity, healthy and livable city, economic prosperity, a
[06:07:33] sustainable and resilient city, accountable and responsive city government, and equity. And that vision
[06:07:38] statement from the quality of life master plan will also serve as the vision
[06:07:42] statement for the general plan. So transitioning into our topic tonight, we're really going
[06:07:48] to be focused on the idea of land use planning and kind of um
[06:07:51] considering some special strategic growth areas that may uh be suitable to um see
[06:07:57] some changes over the those next 20 years. So one of the things we
[06:08:01] like to set up uh the conversation with is just a recognition of the
[06:08:05] sort of east to west uh evolution of land use patterns that especially are
[06:08:09] prevalent here in Temecula. So looking at your most eastern boundary, a more rural
[06:08:14] equestrian lowdensity uh experience and then the heart of the community being your more
[06:08:19] traditional suburban environment and then really thinking about a more urban or multifamily environment,
[06:08:26] especially west of the freeway. So the the topic of tonight's presentation is really
[06:08:33] reviewing the concepts included in the land use report. And first and foremost, we
[06:08:39] recognize that Temecula is largely built out. The vast majority of the community is
[06:08:43] developed with existing residential or commercial, industrial or job- centered areas. You have wonderful
[06:08:49] open spaces and recreation facilities. These are something these are qualities that we're certainly
[06:08:55] uh prioritizing for preservation enhancement uh through this process. So our goal through thinking
[06:09:01] about these strategic opportunity areas is to think about how the city can invest
[06:09:06] in fueling its economic engine for the next 20 years. So this is really
[06:09:10] about smart and targeted investment in strategic areas, not widesale changes to the community's
[06:09:16] land use pattern. And our goal is to really maintain that excellence that Temecula
[06:09:20] is so well known for and ensuring that your land use plan remains relevant.
[06:09:24] So as markets change and desires change over the next two decades, the city
[06:09:29] can be nimble and responsive to those issues. The concepts are essentially grouped into
[06:09:36] two key categories. The first are the four strategic study areas and we're going
[06:09:40] to spend most of my presentation talking about those and then as well as
[06:09:44] some parcel or sight specific changes, we're referring to those as A through H.
[06:09:48] So the four areas we're going to talk about include Southtown. This is the
[06:09:51] area of south of Oldtown, the innovation corridor sort of on the eastern side,
[06:09:56] what you'd refer to as Overland Drive, Town Center and Tower Plaza, and the
[06:10:01] area of Commerce to College. This is around the Prominade and MSJC. As part
[06:10:06] of this discussion, we're also looking for tools for how we'd implement some of
[06:10:10] these ideas. Right now, the city has a pretty broad mixeduse overlay that's applied
[06:10:14] consistently across different mixeduse vision areas uh throughout the community. It's sort of a
[06:10:20] one-sizefits-all solution. 20 years ago, this was appropriate and probably the right fit. But
[06:10:26] as we think about how places evolve over time, we are looking at different
[06:10:30] levels of mixes of uses. So, it may be appropriate in some places for
[06:10:34] that scale of a mix of uses to be lower density and lower intensity
[06:10:37] than in other areas. So, as part of our uh concepts, we're going to
[06:10:41] be talking about three levels of mixeduse development. The first would be the mixeduse
[06:10:45] edge. This is sort of your lowest scale of development. It's really where these
[06:10:49] strategic study areas interface with existing residential neighborhoods. And then the next level up
[06:10:55] would be the mixeduse neighborhood. This is creating kind of walkable local serving opportunities.
[06:11:00] And then the mixeduse core. This is sort of your highest density or scale
[06:11:03] opportunities really along your major transportation corridors. We've also introduced a new very high
[06:11:09] density residential land use designation. This is simply a tool to help implement your
[06:11:14] upcoming seventh cycle housing element. We're just letting you know we're thinking about it.
[06:11:18] Uh we're thinking about how to leverage your investment in this work to best
[06:11:21] position you for that update when it comes. That use isn't applied anywhere on
[06:11:25] the map, but it's just a tool in your toolkit that may be available
[06:11:28] if you need it. So starting with Southtown, just to help orient yourself, this
[06:11:33] is really south of the Oldtown Arch, north of Temecula Parkway. This area we
[06:11:38] really see as an evolution and expansion of the wonderful investment obviously starting in
[06:11:43] Oldtown, but you've seen happening in Uptown and then of course Southtown. I assume
[06:11:47] you see a theme in the in the naming typology as you go along
[06:11:51] the corridor. This area is primarily designated for service commercial and highway tourist commercial.
[06:11:58] And looking forward, we're thinking that the most appropriate designation for this would be
[06:12:02] a recommended specific plan implementation. Temecula has a wonderful history of preparing, adopting, and
[06:12:08] ultimately implementing specific plans that guide the cohesive redevelopment of these special areas. And
[06:12:13] we've seen that in places like Oldtown and Uptown. And we've identified this as
[06:12:18] being an appropriate location for that mixeduse neighborhood application where that would be sort
[06:12:23] of that local neighborhood serving mix of uses. uh that really is an extension
[06:12:27] but complementaryary to the oldtown area. So we're thinking you know imagine uh boutique
[06:12:32] hotels, arts districts, craft retailers, maker spaces and then one of the unique qualities
[06:12:39] of this area is really a connection to its natural topography. So thinking about
[06:12:43] how you can reorient some of the businesses and buildings to face out onto
[06:12:48] the creeks and use that really as an opportunity as opposed to having that
[06:12:51] be kind of the back of house. And then as you'll see as we
[06:12:54] talk about the different strategic areas, we also recognize that they occur within uh
[06:13:00] the context of their existing environment. So people already live and work in that
[06:13:04] area. How can we create that synergy and opportunity to really revitalize the space
[06:13:09] and leverage that commercial opportunity, create that economic uh development opportunity moving forward. So
[06:13:16] for each of the areas, I'm going to present sort of a an imagination
[06:13:19] of the art of the possible. This should not be taken literally. These are
[06:13:22] ideas to sort of spur ideas and investment um and interest into what is
[06:13:27] possible in each of the areas. So, uh this is probably a familiar uh
[06:13:32] look for you. This is on Front Street just as part of the Southtown
[06:13:35] area. So, as I transition into the slides, thinking about how you can activate
[06:13:39] that space, really bringing together goods and services, I'm creating an environment that's um
[06:13:46] welcoming, a great reflection of the priorities of Temecula where you can provide those
[06:13:50] local goods and services, generate that economic development and opportunity, and bring people living
[06:13:57] and working and shopping closer together. We also have thought about those connections to
[06:14:03] the uh adjacent uses. So really thinking about activating the spaces, using the creeks
[06:14:09] as trails, how people can get safely and securely to use these uh reactivated
[06:14:14] uh strategic study areas. The second location is Innovation Corridor. Again, on the eastern
[06:14:21] side of this, that would be the uh roadway known as Overland Drive. and
[06:14:25] it kind of crosses over uh over to the uh west side as well.
[06:14:30] So this is really focused on an opportunity for economic development. The innovation drive
[06:14:35] corridor is really uh already a jobs and um thriving economic development engine in
[06:14:42] Temecula. This is not focused on land use changes. It's focused on how do
[06:14:46] we position this location to capture a larger proportion of the regional interest in
[06:14:51] high wage and high-scale jobs and ultimately use this as an opportunity to attract
[06:14:56] employers and investment into Temecula to keep this space um strong and to keep
[06:15:01] your jobs uh and local economy strong. So this involves, you know, sort of
[06:15:06] again as we move east to west, thinking about a connection starting first at
[06:15:10] MSJC, being able to move down into that sort of mixeduse uptown environment, uh,
[06:15:16] crossing over the waterways and looking at those more job center locations. So you
[06:15:20] see sort of an evolution of a life cycle from, you know, maybe a
[06:15:23] younger student all the way into a full-time career in these jobs that we
[06:15:27] want to attract and locate here. So again, as we're working through this, thinking
[06:15:33] about the art of what could be possible here, um this is these are
[06:15:38] attractive, nice, well-maintained opportunity buildings here, but how do we find spaces for employers
[06:15:44] to really identify uh this as a location where their employees want to be?
[06:15:49] So, one of the big um factors that we hear from the business community,
[06:15:54] and I'm sure your economic development team backs it up, is that they have
[06:15:57] choices in where they go. And a big part of their choice and where
[06:16:01] they invest and locate is where their employer employees want to be. And so
[06:16:06] creating that space and environment so that employees feel proud to come to work,
[06:16:09] are happy to be there. Um this is a huge asset for employers looking
[06:16:13] to invest in local communities. And again, thinking about that um transition as you
[06:16:19] go up and down the main corridor, creating a window or avenue into a
[06:16:23] space in Temecula that really demonstrates the city's commitment to its business community. Next,
[06:16:30] looking at Town Center and Tower Plaza. This is really the corner of ENZ
[06:16:34] and Rancher California Road uh just off of the freeway. This area is currently
[06:16:39] designated for community commercial, professional office and highway tourist commercial uses. We are not
[06:16:45] proposing any land use changes in this area. the uh the emphasis is still
[06:16:50] on keeping this a primary commercial center, emphasizing the role that it plays in
[06:16:54] your local economy, especially the provision of goods and services that a lot of
[06:16:58] your community members utilize. But it has um some opportunity for strategic targeted infill
[06:17:05] development or investment that helps uh improve the viability of those commercial centers, not
[06:17:11] take away from it. So really strengthening that commercial investment to stay competitive as
[06:17:16] consumer preferences and choices change over time. There are also some really interesting opportunities
[06:17:22] to connect this space to your nearby uh amenities including the Temecula Elementary School,
[06:17:29] Margarita Recreation Center, other open space features and nearby homes. So there's great opportunities
[06:17:34] to create those connections. And then as we're thinking about its proximity both to
[06:17:39] the freeway and then on its eastern end to existing single family homes, we
[06:17:44] really see uh this as a gradient of development opportunity. So next to the
[06:17:48] freeway are the locations where you can probably have the highest tolerance for um
[06:17:53] maybe slightly taller buildings. And then as you move east to that neighborhood edge,
[06:17:57] you're starting to get some lowercale development. So this is a a view a
[06:18:02] pretty iconic view of what town center tower plaza areas could look like. Now
[06:18:06] it's um you know an older architectural style as we're thinking about the future
[06:18:11] of Temecula. And so thinking about again not taking away from the existing commercial
[06:18:17] uses. This is building into and onto them. So you can still see that
[06:18:21] commercial frontage. It still is providing opportunities for commercial and retail space. But what's
[06:18:27] happening just behind that? How can we better utilize that space? And especially in
[06:18:32] these types of older centers where the back of it was really utilized as
[06:18:35] like loading bays or driving aisles, there are opportunities to rethink what that could
[06:18:40] do in order to create a more um positive experience and connections to those
[06:18:45] local communities. And again, really thinking about those nearby amenities, how can they all
[06:18:50] come together and create a positive atmosphere at this location? And then finally, the
[06:18:55] Commerce to College study area. Uh this is always one of my favorite to
[06:18:58] talk about. It's such a unique opportunity that any community gets to have a
[06:19:03] major regional commercial center like the prominade next to a community college. This just
[06:19:07] doesn't happen that much and it's a it's an envy of many communities I
[06:19:11] I have the opportunity to work in. So this is a wonderful place to
[06:19:15] think creatively about what the future could be to create uh partnerships and connections
[06:19:20] not only between the prominade and MSJC but also the uh adjacent commercial uh
[06:19:26] properties as well. So thinking about a connection a physical connection that allows people
[06:19:31] to move seamlessly between the two along a grand boulevard that suits the needs
[06:19:36] of all users people that drive, walk, take transit or might want to ride
[06:19:40] their bike, especially students. and then opportunities to create connections to boost the local
[06:19:45] economy and workforce. And then similar to some of the other study areas, looking
[06:19:49] at those connections along your creeks to nearby residential areas and in commercial centers.
[06:19:56] So thinking strategically about what that connection, that physical roadway connection could look like.
[06:20:01] Again, accommodating all users. So there's people that are certainly going to be driving.
[06:20:06] There are people that are going to be um walking, biking, especially around these
[06:20:10] types of facilities. is what could that experience be so that people really want
[06:20:14] to move from the college to the shopping center uh gra there uh have
[06:20:19] opportunities to live there and then transition back and forth in a really seamless
[06:20:23] way. And then we have uh thought about what the whole kind of um
[06:20:29] envelope of this area could be. While uh the significant emphasis is certainly on
[06:20:33] preserving and protecting the mall, it's not going anywhere. So that's certainly not what
[06:20:37] we're suggesting here. But I'm sure many of you are familiar with the evolution
[06:20:41] of malls and commercial space. People are just certainly um looking for that experience
[06:20:46] when they go out and they spend their money and they want to go
[06:20:48] shopping for a day. They want that experience to be something more than what
[06:20:52] they can get online. So we're really looking at opportunities to create that public
[06:20:56] space and connections uh to those adjacent uses as well. So transitioning into the
[06:21:03] discussion of the eight individual sight specific or parcel specific changes. These are all
[06:21:08] uh uh recommendations that staff supports. They're all uh generally pretty straightforward. I am
[06:21:13] going to go through them one by one, but I do want to recognize
[06:21:16] that staff is supportive uh of these proposals and again they're labeled A through
[06:21:21] G in the draft land use report. So site A is known as the
[06:21:26] DAZ site. This is approximately 30 acres. It's owned by the city of Temecula.
[06:21:30] It was purchased with redevelopment funds. It has a PDIO on it. Uh, one
[06:21:34] proposal would be to change its current public institutional facilities designation to industrial park.
[06:21:41] Uh, thereby increasing the opportunity for the city to um to sell that at
[06:21:45] a at a profit and reinvest those profits in the development of affordable housing
[06:21:49] at an alternative location. Site B is the Salonaway uh split zone lot. This
[06:21:56] is a property that has the same ownership as ABC preschool. The original uh
[06:22:01] request was to better reflect the split designation between professional office and open space
[06:22:08] to match the actual topography of the site. Right now, the site's sort of
[06:22:12] split split half and half. Half of it is professional office on the north
[06:22:16] side and uh open space on the south. If you look at the area
[06:22:19] really closely, you'll see that it doesn't exactly align with the built condition. Since
[06:22:24] then, the property owner has requested that the uh professional office be redesated to
[06:22:29] highdensity residential and maintain the open space designation. This property is surrounded by other
[06:22:35] highdensity residential properties and would be a suitable location to accommodate that type of
[06:22:39] use and staff supports that. Site C is off of Kelly Medusa. This is
[06:22:46] uh an open space uh slope area owned by a homeowners association. There's no
[06:22:50] homes that will be built here. So red designating that space as open space
[06:22:55] just to memorialize that it is not intended for very lowdensity residential development. It
[06:23:00] is preserved as a as a slope and open space facility. Site D is
[06:23:06] approximately 20 acres. This is um currently designated as community commercial. It's just north
[06:23:12] of Target and the proposal is to change it to service commercial. There has
[06:23:16] been some past interest in auto dealerships in this location. Right now under the
[06:23:21] community commercial designation, a CUP would be required for that. Moving to a surface
[06:23:26] uh service commercial designation would just allow auto dealerships without a cup and hopefully
[06:23:30] streamline that opportunity. Site E is the DS triangle. This is another site owned
[06:23:36] by the city of Temecula. It is currently designated as service commercial. The proposal
[06:23:41] is to designate it as highway tourist commercial. There has been some interest in
[06:23:45] a hospitality or hotel development at this location. the highway tourist commercial use just
[06:23:50] allows for greater flexibility of uses. So we haven't really seen any historic you
[06:23:55] know investment or redevelopment of the site. This hopefully will open up some additional
[06:23:59] avenues for development. Site F is the Boys and Girls Club. It's sort of
[06:24:04] a hodgepodge of open space public institutional specific plan implementation facilities. The Boys and
[06:24:10] Girls Club would like to invest in their property and develop some additional amenities
[06:24:14] such as a gym. This really sort of just clears up these inconsistent designations
[06:24:19] we have in the area that would allow the Boys and Girls Club to
[06:24:21] do what they'd like to do there and uh continue to serve your community
[06:24:24] with some new amenities. Site G is the Santiago Enz property. This is in
[06:24:31] Los Ranchos. It's owned by the city of Temecula. It is currently designated very
[06:24:35] low density residential. The proposal is to designate it as open space. through that
[06:24:40] public process, we heard a lot of interest um that uh for an open
[06:24:44] space or recreation facility in this area. Uh so this would provide the opportunity
[06:24:50] for the future development of that type of amenity in this in this location.
[06:24:55] And that brings me to the to the last site here. Uh this is
[06:24:58] the Savala split zone on the north side in the black boundary. It currently
[06:25:04] is divided east and west between low, medium density and medium density residential. This
[06:25:10] is a challenge for any property owner or developer. You're dealing with two different
[06:25:14] development standards, two different densities on different sites of the site. Obviously, it's also
[06:25:19] um resulted in no development on this property. So, the proposal is just to
[06:25:22] designate it all as one single designation as medium density residential to allow for
[06:25:28] um hopefully some new interest in development at one consistent density. So with that,
[06:25:34] that brings me uh to uh Mr. Peters will present the next few slides.
[06:25:38] And these are really some areas of opportunity that have um come to light
[06:25:42] since we released the draft land use report for public review. >> Thanks, Amanda.
[06:25:50] If you could advance the slide for please. So the uh first site is
[06:25:58] the sports park. Um if you're familiar with the um flood basin and the
[06:26:03] proposed soccer fields, Amanda mentioned the city-owned parcel we refer to as the Diaz
[06:26:09] site with the idea of adding industrial as a potential use so that uh
[06:26:13] that property can be sold and then as industrial and the money used to
[06:26:18] reinvest in affordable housing. Um there was a recent field trip by some city
[06:26:22] council members. they went to the Ontario sports complex. And some of the ideas
[06:26:26] we've discussed have been um you know a a baseball stadium, uh additional ball
[06:26:32] fields, perhaps an indoor facility that could be used for volleyball, pickle ball, um
[06:26:40] on the city-owned site. So really creating this largecale um sports complex with perhaps
[06:26:47] a pedestrian bridge connecting the basin and the sports fields to the city own
[06:26:52] site and um indoor facilities. So we'd be looking for your feedback on exploring
[06:26:58] that further. And the next area is the Los Ranchitos parcels. Um there's actually
[06:27:06] three sites that we'd be looking for your feedback on. Site A was already
[06:27:11] mentioned. That is the city-owned site. That's seven acres at the corner of Unes
[06:27:15] and uh Santiago. The second location is identified as B. Um that's actually zoned
[06:27:23] very low density residential that is on Temecula Parkway. It's east of the park
[06:27:30] and ride and then it's west of Jedadia Smith and it's south of Vallejo.
[06:27:35] So if you can imagine the traffic on Temecula Parkway residential backing up to
[06:27:40] that if we're looking out 20 years should we consider that for commercial development?
[06:27:46] And then finally area C that is at the corner of Margarita and deport.
[06:27:52] We actually have a preapp in right now uh in the planning department. The
[06:27:57] preapp is identifying a two-story hotel inline uh medical offices and then retail. So,
[06:28:04] it's definitely a mixeduse site and again, if we're planning out 20 years, it
[06:28:11] is zoned very low density residential. Uh, it's across from the hospital and Kitty
[06:28:16] Corner from that site is uh commercial as well. So, we'd be looking at
[06:28:21] your feedback [clears throat] for your feedback uh as to what to do with
[06:28:24] that site. And then the next area is the equestrian sphere of influence. So
[06:28:33] this area is east of Butterfield Stage Road. It's between Butterfield Stage and Anza
[06:28:39] Road. It's north of Temecula Parkway and south of Dayola. So right now, this
[06:28:45] area is outside the city. And what we'd be looking for your feedback on
[06:28:49] is the potential to add this to the uh city sphere of influence. Our
[06:28:54] sphere of influence um is just to the south of Temecula Parkway. And what
[06:29:00] we'd want to do is perhaps look at uh expanding commercial along Temecula Parkway
[06:29:06] between Butterfield Stage Road and Diaz and then transitioning the land uses at the
[06:29:11] at the back property line with residential to day. And adding that to our
[06:29:17] sphere of influence would allow us to to comment. We do comment on uh
[06:29:22] proposals that are with or adjacent to the city, but adding it to our
[06:29:26] sphere of influence um would carry a little more weight with our comments. And
[06:29:32] then the last area is Nicholas Valley. You heard some comments earlier tonight that
[06:29:38] most the majority of that area is zoned again VL very low density residential.
[06:29:43] There's a minimum 2 and a half acre lot size. Um historically the city
[06:29:47] has met with land owners out there and proposed different densities, different size lots.
[06:29:53] Um one of the limiting factors in this area is it's on septic. So
[06:29:59] and there are dirt roads uh in this area. So any increase in density,
[06:30:05] we'd also have to consider we'd want to consider some sort of assessment district
[06:30:09] to help fund those improvements. Um, so that's uh certainly an area we can
[06:30:15] reach out to the land owners. We could conduct a survey and find out
[06:30:19] more. So we'd be looking for your feedback on that site as well. So
[06:30:24] we have shared the draft land use report with the community both online and
[06:30:28] in person. We also were able to facilitate a dedicated meeting with your general
[06:30:32] plan advisory committee on April 9th just specifically focused on this topic and collecting
[06:30:37] their feedback. We held the in-person workshop here at city hall on April 22nd
[06:30:41] and a survey ran from late April through early May mimicking those same questions.
[06:30:46] Overall, the community feedback was supportive of the vision and concepts presented in the
[06:30:50] draft flanges report. There are of course varying um community member preferences on the
[06:30:56] scale, type and style of development, but overall seeing the opportunities to bring different
[06:31:01] types of uses closer together uh and create those um special strategic areas that
[06:31:06] improve the local economy and are able to respond to changes in market condition
[06:31:10] over time seem to resonate well with with um with your community members. We
[06:31:15] also facilitated a similar conversation with the planning commission on May 20th. As part
[06:31:20] of that work, uh we do want to summarize some of their feedback and
[06:31:23] comments here. So, in general, the planning commission was supportive overall of the plan
[06:31:28] and concepts included in their report and that the areas selected for future um
[06:31:33] investment and strategic transitions really were the appropriate locations for the city to focus
[06:31:39] on um as opportunities arise over the next 20 years. with again the reiterated
[06:31:43] focus of protecting your commercial centers um creating uh successful revitalization of these spaces
[06:31:50] through the introduction of complimentary uses. So more specifically the commissioner comments included considering
[06:31:56] including the city-owned parcel on Temecula Parkway is part of the southtown focus area.
[06:32:01] Right now Southtown stops at the kind of its southern b southern boundary of
[06:32:05] the study area stops at Temecula Parkway. also uh an idea to consider con
[06:32:10] conducting some sort of visioning exercise for Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail. So thinking
[06:32:16] about ways of looking between Temecula Creek Park to Southtown. Could we create sort
[06:32:21] of a unified vision um recognize the historic trail, integrate it with wildlife protection
[06:32:26] and other amenities and draw tourism and uh economic opportunity through that strategy. looking
[06:32:32] at Los Ranchitos, thinking about the reinvisioning of circulation and roadway classifications to preserve
[06:32:37] the equestrian character. These are comments that we've also been receiving at the general
[06:32:41] plan advisory committee meetings where the public has provided comments to that effect. Incorporating
[06:32:46] walkable elements into these focus areas, but also recognizing as I had mentioned earlier
[06:32:50] that people will continue to drive. Um, and this is a fact of life.
[06:32:55] We are not trying to run away from it. we are finding opportunities to
[06:32:58] provide additional choices for people to, you know, get out of their car if
[06:33:01] they want to, but also make sure we're recognizing the role of the automobile.
[06:33:05] And then finally, we also got some specific feedback on the scale and density
[06:33:09] of intensity of development that we'd be appropriate. We received um from the planning
[06:33:13] commission a range of feedback including preferences to maintain a lower scale across all
[06:33:18] of the different district opportunities of two to three stories and some interest at
[06:33:22] um some of the higher scales as well when we were thinking kind of
[06:33:25] five stories or more in some of those strategic locations. So sort of a
[06:33:28] range of views on that. So that brings us to the opportunity for your
[06:33:34] input tonight. I'm sure you all still have a lot to say tonight. We
[06:33:38] are specifically looking for your feedback on some key ideas and this is um
[06:33:43] I do want to emphasize that there really this really is an opportunity a
[06:33:47] milestone moment in that entire timeline that I had presented earlier. I sort of
[06:33:52] described the project in two phases general plans that take about two years to
[06:33:56] do. The first phase, the first year takes us to sort of this moment
[06:34:01] and then the next phase, the second year is sort of evaluating those policy
[06:34:05] decisions, studying the impacts of those land use choices, preparing the technical studies in
[06:34:10] environmental reports so that we can come back to you and demonstrate to you
[06:34:14] what those potential implications could be. So, specifically, we are looking for your feedback
[06:34:19] on whether you support the proposed visions for both the study areas and the
[06:34:22] individual sites. Uh, are the boundaries that we've identified appropriate? Are there any changes
[06:34:28] or expansions or retractions you'd like to see? Are the numbers of stories or
[06:34:33] residential densities envisioned for those different mixeduse district overlays appropriate? Are there some that
[06:34:39] are more appropriate in different study area locations than others? And then do you
[06:34:43] have any other feedback that you'd like to share with us tonight? because we
[06:34:47] are really at a juncture where we need to have that information in order
[06:34:51] to move forward with that next phase of work. So that that concludes our
[06:34:56] presentation. Thank you so much for your patience as we worked through that. We'll
[06:35:00] answer any questions you have now and allow you guys to to weigh in.
[06:35:05] >> All right. Well, that was an excellent presentation and I just want to
[06:35:07] thank the community and staff for doing the community outreach, getting the information out
[06:35:12] to you guys in order to be able to do that analysis and bring
[06:35:15] us what you did. So, thank you for that. I'm gonna open it up
[06:35:18] to let's do my book ends. Go ahead, Stu. >> All right. So, excellent
[06:35:23] presentation. I love everything you've got planned as far as, you know, the way
[06:35:28] you're reimagining. I did have a question about the mall >> and it shows
[06:35:34] a creek. Where's that? Is that creek? Is that the Meadow View? The one
[06:35:39] in Meadow View? >> That's right. And do you envision kind of bringing that
[06:35:42] in and tying into the whole mall college campus? >> Yeah, ideally we'd be
[06:35:49] looking for opportunities to activate those spaces and you know partner with um local
[06:35:54] agencies to really understand how we can use that as an as an amenity
[06:35:59] not simply sort of a a waterway. So to the extent that we can
[06:36:02] look at um policy direction or programming ideas to >> partner and create those
[06:36:08] connections off the street so that people can use that as a walkway. That
[06:36:12] would be fantastic. >> Yeah, that's really cool. I I love the concept. Um
[06:36:17] also the Nicholas Valley. >> So I'm I'm really in favor of the one
[06:36:23] acre like the one speaker said earlier. Um because Meadow View we're on half
[06:36:31] acre uh minimums and we all have s uh septic also. So I don't
[06:36:38] see that being a a limiting factor. The dirt road issue is more of
[06:36:43] the limiting factor. So I think um if that was coupled with like you
[06:36:48] said a service district that would actually if we could because I think it
[06:36:53] needs to be paved if they're if they're going to do any kind of
[06:36:56] development. Um I I don't know how you could develop that without having some
[06:37:02] sort of roads and we would have to have some sort of uh service
[06:37:07] district to facilitate that because we'd have to maintain it in perpetuity too. So,
[06:37:14] um, so it but for them it may be worth it because if they
[06:37:18] can take that two and a half acres or three or whatever they're on
[06:37:22] and convert it into three 1acre lots, you know, that that would be uh
[06:37:29] might be financially beneficial. But, um, and it would kind of literally our last
[06:37:36] dirt roads are right there in Nicholas Valley. So, um, it would be nice
[06:37:40] to somehow bring them into the 21st century. 20. Yeah. 21st. Um, but but
[06:37:47] I'm definitely in favor of looking into that option of letting them go down
[06:37:53] to that one acre. Um, because again, I don't think the density even at
[06:37:59] one acre, it's not going to increase that much in that [snorts] area. So,
[06:38:04] um, and if they're cool with paying more for a service district, it's on
[06:38:09] them, you know. So, that that's my two cents. I love everything you propose
[06:38:15] with all the other properties. As far as the uh Diaz property, I'm more
[06:38:22] in favor of selling it off as uh industrial um just because I think
[06:38:29] we can get a lot more money for it and that money can be
[06:38:32] used for affordable housing, which is the one thing we're lacking right now is
[06:38:36] the cash, you know. So if we had cash to entice on whatever uh
[06:38:43] you know someone maybe wants to redevelop a piece of property in Temecula, you
[06:38:48] know, and turn it in just like is it Vine Creek? Yeah. Um did
[06:38:53] over there. So I would love to have that little carrot out there by
[06:38:59] using that, you know, selling that um as industrial property. So that's my input
[06:39:05] on this. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. If I can just
[06:39:09] ask staff, uh, we had those four questions and if I did it the
[06:39:13] wrong way, do you want us to go question by question or just send
[06:39:16] it out to council members just for evaluation? >> No, I think we were
[06:39:20] we were hopeful tonight, right, that we could go have you think about these
[06:39:25] questions with what you saw on the slides >> as a whole. So, we
[06:39:29] don't need to go through each question. No, unless there was something you saw
[06:39:32] that like Councilman Stewart pointed out, he picked out Nicholas Valley, picked out sort
[06:39:37] of the college area. So, it's I think you could apply this to anything
[06:39:41] that you saw on the slides or none of it if you were good
[06:39:44] with what you saw. >> Just wanted to make sure I was doing it
[06:39:47] right. Thank you. All right, let's go to my other book end. Sir, >> thank
[06:39:51] you, Mayor. A lot to digest here. This is a big item. Uh but
[06:39:54] first, thank you for all the work that you've put in with the GPAC
[06:39:58] with the subcommittee. Uh myself and Mayor Prom have been on it. And I
[06:40:01] mean this is a a huge item. I know no one's in the crowd
[06:40:04] tonight, but working on our general plan, which is the vision for the city
[06:40:07] for the next few decades. Um was something that we did not take lightly.
[06:40:10] And it was an honor to be on the subcommittee, honor to work with
[06:40:12] you guys. Um and believe it or not, Mayor Prom and I actually work
[06:40:16] very well together. Uh despite what you may have seen the last one, it's
[06:40:20] all civil discourse, but um there's a lot to go through here. I I I
[06:40:24] guess it's kind of hard because there's so many different uh areas that we
[06:40:27] went through. I don't know the best way to go about it. Um I
[06:40:31] guess I want to start off with saying the the areas that had opportunity
[06:40:34] zones. It was a big discussion for Mayor Prom and I and the subcommittee
[06:40:38] and I'm sure at the GPAC um that it was important for my colleagues
[06:40:41] to know that the overlay zone of the mixed use with the current commercial
[06:40:45] that we're thinking about putting the opportunity zone that would overlay with potential for
[06:40:49] residential um is an opportunity for the developer to come in, but they would
[06:40:54] still have to get full council approval if they wanted to change that in
[06:40:58] the future uh to a residential zone. Um so that was a big sticking
[06:41:01] point for me uh during that um subcommittee meeting. And I also want to
[06:41:05] touch on uh we had a a city-wide survey that went out um that
[06:41:09] hit directly on future developments uh in regards to how high they should be,
[06:41:13] how many stores they should be. Did we receive that feedback? Um and if
[06:41:17] so, what did it say? >> We did. So, as part of the online
[06:41:20] survey, we did uh show the illustrations of different building heights starting at two
[06:41:25] to three stories, uh a range of sort of five stories and up to
[06:41:28] eight stories. Our results are mixed. So, we received feedback from the community. We
[06:41:33] received almost 250 responses to the online survey and we received a range of
[06:41:38] responses. I think a higher tolerance for the medium to higher densities uh adjacent
[06:41:43] to the freeway or in areas uh in those more uh concentrated commercial centers
[06:41:47] at Town Center, Tower Plaza, and at the mall specifically. And then looking at
[06:41:52] the more, you know, uh lowercale development at Southtown, seeing that more as a
[06:41:56] local serving kind of extension of of Oldtown. Um opportunities for a range of
[06:42:01] uses there. So both appropriate uh lower scale and higher scale as well. So
[06:42:05] I'd say we we received a range of of interest um mimicking the the
[06:42:10] feedback we received at planning commission as well. Honestly, >> thank you very much.
[06:42:14] Yeah, after that having that meeting and and you know listen to the community
[06:42:17] and with that survey, I would be more inclined to look at a max
[06:42:22] of five stories just so my colleagues know where I I stand on that.
[06:42:25] Uh, I know the approval could go up to eight like an uptown sports
[06:42:28] or uptown uh specific plan. It can go up to eight. I think for
[06:42:32] these areas uh five would be uh beneficial, but that's just my prerogative for
[06:42:36] my council to sit on. Um, as far as the Diaz lot, like council
[06:42:39] member Stewart mentioned, I think this is a one that I really want to
[06:42:44] uh dive more into with staff and my colleagues and look at the potential
[06:42:48] that we could do there with the regional sports park. And I really want
[06:42:52] us to to dream big on this one, if you will. have a huge
[06:42:55] vision and let the state or let some other entity tell us that we
[06:42:58] can't do it. But this is one like Mr. Peters mentioned. Um a couple
[06:43:02] of my colleagues went down to Ontario and looked at their minor league sports
[06:43:06] field that was surrounded by other uh different sports fields, soccer fields, baseball fields
[06:43:10] uh and and indoor facilities. And I think uh and Mr. Pety asked for
[06:43:15] direction on that. My personal um viewpoint would be to to dream big on
[06:43:20] that one. Look into the the minor league stadium. look into surrounding sports field
[06:43:24] that look up at the the big baseball stadium with the pedestrian bridge and
[06:43:28] look into that Diaz lot across the way that could potentially be parking uh
[06:43:32] for that facility and for that huge complex. So on that specific one, I
[06:43:35] really want us to to dream big and let other agencies kick our dreams
[06:43:40] down. Uh but hopefully we can fulfill those dreams uh with a a professional
[06:43:44] baseball stadium surrounded by other muchneeded sports fields that we have in this city.
[06:43:49] Uh, another one that was mentioned, and I know Mayor Prom will talk about
[06:43:52] this, is the sphere of influence over the equestrian area. And I'll let him
[06:43:55] hit on that, but I really want to talk about and see what my
[06:43:58] um take is with the colleagues on the sphere of influence over the wine
[06:44:02] country in totality. You know, we mentioned throughout our uh QLMP, the wine country
[06:44:07] and how it's a vital core to the essence of Temecula. And even though
[06:44:11] it's out of the city limits, um it is a huge part of who
[06:44:14] we are as a city and it's also a huge part of our sales
[06:44:17] tax base. Even though we get zero sales tax from the the wine country
[06:44:21] itself, they come overflow into Temecula, shopping at our stores and our oldtown restaurants
[06:44:26] and looking at a sphere of influence with uh in my mind no hope
[06:44:29] to annex it, but more of just as Mr. Peter said to have a
[06:44:32] say at the table when they make decisions because we know that uh development
[06:44:36] is continuously happening in county and whether they have the wine country community plan
[06:44:40] but it would be nice to have a seat at the table and and
[06:44:43] give our input to protect the wine country and to protect the equestrian neighborhoods
[06:44:48] uh in that area. And again, I said this hard, there's there's there's so
[06:44:51] much in there and we can go through each one, mayor, um with with
[06:44:54] the Los Ranchitos lots and them looking to go commercial and also us looking
[06:44:58] at the um circulation element with Yianz and I know that was in there.
[06:45:03] So, there's so much that we could discuss and go through, but I know
[06:45:06] that that city staff needs certain things to hit on, but those were uh
[06:45:09] the main ones I wanted to touch on before we get into very specific.
[06:45:14] >> Okay, wonderful. >> Thank you, mayor. >> All right. Thank you very much.
[06:45:17] Great insight, May. >> Well, yeah, and appreciate working with you on the uh
[06:45:23] subcommittee. Um, also just appreciate that all of the reinvisioning and graphics that we
[06:45:29] saw, all of those roads were on a road diet. So, I'm just messing
[06:45:32] with just messing with you. All right. Um [laughter] but but honestly I think
[06:45:37] the the concepts moving forward really help I think Temecula, the city council, our
[06:45:43] residents and businesses envision a very different future in a lot of these uh
[06:45:48] a lot of these areas. Um and I think it's I agree like five
[06:45:52] stories I I I kind of landed on the same thing in a lot
[06:45:55] of the areas, right? I mean, it just gives this opportunity for something different
[06:45:58] in Temecula and and really fosters the kind of growth that I think we're
[06:46:02] all sort of envisioning. Um, for some of the properties like the sports, you
[06:46:06] know, park concept, uh, I I love the concept, but I also think we
[06:46:10] need to be very careful in our calculation about what we're doing with the
[06:46:13] Diaz property. Uh, selling it makes a lot of sense, but if we're going
[06:46:17] to do that there, having that extra acreage for other infrastructure and needs might
[06:46:21] be really important, right? So, so I think there's a lot that you know
[06:46:25] and again none of this is set in stone and a lot of it
[06:46:28] gives us ultimate flexibility in doing what we need to do to create that
[06:46:32] branding and that vision. Um the uh sphere of influence I I agree. I
[06:46:38] think we need to think a little bit more broadly on the sphere of
[06:46:40] influence. Um and I don't think we should be too shy about talking about
[06:46:44] annexation particularly particularly along that uh south uh 79 corridor out to Anza. Is
[06:46:51] that right? Um because if if that has the opportunity to be more heavy
[06:46:56] on the commercial side, you know, looking and forecasting in the future, talking about
[06:47:00] city budgets and and bringing in new sources of revenue, that is an extremely
[06:47:05] important corridor that could could help do that for us. Um, of course, all
[06:47:09] this needs to pencil out in future analyses and everything else. So, I don't
[06:47:12] want to get people too amped up on the concept just yet, but you
[06:47:16] know, it's opening that conversation and right now with the, you know, work we're
[06:47:20] doing on the general plan, now is the time to have those conversations. Um,
[06:47:25] the, uh, you know, I I I love the concept areas from, you know,
[06:47:30] South Temecula to the innovation zone to the college and, you know, prominade area
[06:47:34] and all of that. I think the the real incentive for any business to
[06:47:40] to invest in those properties is to know that they're that the city has
[06:47:43] a potential plan. I I I appreciate the conversation we had earlier when we
[06:47:47] talked about, you know, it's not a foregone conclusion to have housing or have
[06:47:50] these other elements. This will have to be something the future councils will have
[06:47:53] to decide, but at least putting it out there saying, hey, here's the potential
[06:47:57] of what these properties could do. And you're absolutely right. you know, the the
[06:48:01] retail sector and the the malls and everything else have gone through, you know,
[06:48:05] quite a transition over the last 10 years or so. Um, and so just
[06:48:08] having that opportunity for us to, you know, kind of put it out there
[06:48:12] in a general plan, uh, to get people thinking about how to invest, you
[06:48:16] know, in these properties or reimagine these properties. It's a it's a good opportunity
[06:48:20] for us to do that. So, just really appreciate all the work that was
[06:48:23] done on this and the the concepts and the trying to, you know, consolidate
[06:48:27] all of the variety of stuff that's been coming at you guys from every
[06:48:30] different direction. Um, I know it's not easy. Um, but you really did capture
[06:48:34] a lot of uh the community sentiment and the the, you know, hopes for
[06:48:38] the subcommittee. So, thank you. >> All right. Thank you to all my council
[06:48:44] members. Agree with everything I've heard so far. Uh, obviously the one area that's
[06:48:49] going to affect Oh, goodness gracious. >> I'm gonna keep going. >> You just
[06:48:55] keep You just keep talking. >> I'm done. >> It's I mean, it's not
[06:48:58] like we've been here for eight hours or anything. So, >> I'm [laughter] sorry.
[06:49:02] >> Don't don't be sorry. >> Go for it. >> Um, thank you for
[06:49:05] the presentation, uh, and all the hard work into the subcommittee as well. like
[06:49:09] the I I I really there wasn't anything on the sort of like the
[06:49:14] vision of that that like jumped out at me that that was just like
[06:49:16] a hard no is very um forward thinking and and I think the the
[06:49:22] rub will be like vision versus reality like that first project that comes in
[06:49:28] that sort of meets the vision um where all you hear in the community
[06:49:31] is like we don't need any more people the roads are full so is
[06:49:36] the the will of the council regardless of who's on the council at the
[06:49:39] time willing to sort of stick to that, right? So, I think that'll be
[06:49:43] we can have these grand divisions and we can have these plans and we
[06:49:46] can do specific plans and and create these like opportunities. Um, but at the
[06:49:50] end of the day, we'll sort of like see how that plays out like
[06:49:53] in the long run. But, I mean, I love the connectivity. Um, you know,
[06:49:58] I I I too noticed, you know, there's like sort of the road diet
[06:50:02] world and I was like, "Wow, that kind of Paba could have looked like
[06:50:05] that too, you know." Um, but but I understand like we're we're kind of
[06:50:10] like visioning, right? And and I I think that's the thing I appreciate most
[06:50:13] about this job is like thinking about the future and thinking about 20 30
[06:50:17] years ahead. And um, you know, you think of the mall and MSJC and
[06:50:23] potential higher, you know, like different higher ed and like that that corridor right
[06:50:27] there has so much potential, so much untapped potential, much like all the other
[06:50:32] sites that that are on that as well. um you know, specifically with like
[06:50:37] the Diaz Dindy property. Um yeah, so I went to uh the Ontario Stadium
[06:50:43] and and toured that and and I could just think in the back of
[06:50:47] my head like this is possible in our city. Like it is legitimately possible.
[06:50:51] Um, so sort of for me it it isn't like do you do you
[06:50:55] list the property now and and use that funds to develop the the the
[06:51:00] sports park, you know, ballpark possibility with housing. It's sort of like we can
[06:51:05] pump the brakes and kind of see what, you know, how that how that
[06:51:08] all plays out knowing that any sale those RDA funds will have to go
[06:51:12] back into affordable housing. So we're not not losing anything there. Um I I
[06:51:17] hear a lot about uh folks who say like oh I wish you know
[06:51:21] and they have these sort of visions about Temecula and one of them is
[06:51:24] like you know I wish there was like UTC so University Town Center like
[06:51:29] the mall right like they they sort of want that sort of feel. Well
[06:51:32] that feel includes like housing and that feel includes a lot of different things
[06:51:37] than what the prominade in that area exists. But I think planning forward for
[06:51:41] for adding housing and and I'm okay with like the five stories is fine,
[06:51:46] you know, like I'm I'm sort of okay with that. I think um I
[06:51:49] remember back in the Uptown specific plan, there was a there was one person
[06:51:52] that wanted like I forget how many stories, but it was like an obscene
[06:51:55] amount of stories and it sort of in the back of my head was
[06:51:57] like, well, it's not even feasible for a 30s story in our city. Like
[06:52:01] the the the money is just not there for that. We're not at that
[06:52:04] level. Um but overall, like generally supportive of everything. The one thing I want
[06:52:09] us to be very mindful of is a lot of these what we'll call
[06:52:13] them opportunity zones house small businesses where the rents are um affordable and as
[06:52:19] you redevelop you're sort of like are you pushing out existing uh businesses um
[06:52:26] and and replacing them with something else. And so I can think of Southtown
[06:52:30] as a perfect example of like if that gets redeveloped, you know, what happens
[06:52:34] to some of those businesses that um that section of town is a little
[06:52:38] bit older. The the rents I'm assuming I I haven't certainly looked, but I'm
[06:52:42] assuming the rents are a little bit cheaper than had um had there be
[06:52:45] a you know a four-story mixeduse, you know, kind of space. I don't know,
[06:52:48] but I just want us to be mindful of the impacts to some of
[06:52:52] the businesses that we currently have. um as we reinvision and we'd redevelop these,
[06:52:57] you know, you see businesses here in Oldtown frustrated with some of the pri
[06:53:00] you know the the per square foot pricing and things like that and and
[06:53:04] you know those smaller businesses are really the backbone of our community and we
[06:53:08] like I want to do as much as we can to protect that and
[06:53:11] I know and I know we will. Um, but overall like totally supportive of
[06:53:16] of this vision and and and reimagining some of the stuff and um if
[06:53:20] we need to go through the individual sites at some point we can but
[06:53:23] overall I was supportive of staff recommendation and the work that you all done
[06:53:27] as well as the subcommittee's work. >> All right, sorry I forgot about you.
[06:53:33] >> [laughter] >> All right. So, again, agreeing with everybody uh on these areas.
[06:53:39] Uh looking at the fact that Los Ranchitos does fall into my district. Uh
[06:53:45] I know you've obviously done reach out to to that area. Is there are
[06:53:49] we looking to do more outreach to them as far as for Los Ranchos
[06:53:54] and >> Yeah, I definitely think we'll be reaching out. >> Okay. And then
[06:54:00] I believe one of those you said uh we're looking at was it lot
[06:54:04] C or some C something. What was it within that? >> We identified it
[06:54:09] as a lot C. It's at the corner of Margarita and Dayport. Okay. We
[06:54:12] do have a preapp at this time. >> And do we have any push
[06:54:15] back? I I think it's it may be a very good idea knowing that
[06:54:18] we have I believe the hospital within that area. You know family needs to
[06:54:22] stay there or people or even doctors who might be coming in maybe that
[06:54:26] might be a great opportunity to kind of build that up. I know Maretta
[06:54:28] has that. Um, so just another good area for revenue, but I just questioning
[06:54:33] any push back that we've heard from Los Ranchitos on that um on that
[06:54:38] project. So the preapp came in um the city provided comments and then I
[06:54:46] talked to uh a representative from Los Franches. They actually received it after the
[06:54:51] city got it and they had comments themselves. Okay. >> So it's going to
[06:54:55] go through some different iterations. um they have different concerns than the city does,
[06:54:59] but I think eventually, you know, that will get to a point where I
[06:55:06] think both sides are supportive potentially. >> And then can you just put that
[06:55:09] map up of Los Ranchitos of that section of the three lots, please? That
[06:55:14] is open. So, just to make sure, so C we have is the preapp
[06:55:19] right now currently. And then B is that long strip. We have one house,
[06:55:22] I believe, that's in there. Is that correct? >> That's correct. And then obviously
[06:55:26] Santiago Inune. So just out of curiosity with B, I know there's been a
[06:55:30] lot of conversations uh coming back from ICSC. There were uh there are businesses
[06:55:36] interested in kind of doing something in that area as well, but we're possibly
[06:55:40] wanting to move that to low density or commercial just to make sure >> to
[06:55:45] commercial. So the thought is um >> mostly city staff just looking at that
[06:55:50] site and thinking about the future. It's not necessarily a request from Los Ranchitos.
[06:55:55] It's just wanting to get it on everyone's radar. Uh looking 20 years into
[06:56:00] the future is it's it's zoned very low density. I think if we were
[06:56:04] starting from scratch, we wouldn't necessarily identify that for residential. Um so we take
[06:56:09] a look at it for commercial and the viability in the future. >> Excellent.
[06:56:13] Excellent. I love that. And I'd also like to be able to I know
[06:56:15] we're going to have more discussions, but with um parcel a just digging in
[06:56:19] and just finding out getting more information obviously from Los Ranchos and what their
[06:56:24] vision is. I I've we've been hearing things things have come out of this
[06:56:27] council, but I'd like to be able to I know we're having a meeting
[06:56:29] I think myself and Ron, so we'll be able to get a little bit
[06:56:32] more information from them. So >> yeah, just just to add to that, um,
[06:56:36] Los Ranchito's representatives have been at a lot of the GPAC meetings and some
[06:56:41] of the things we heard about that site uh was an equestrian center in
[06:56:45] addition to uh identified in the CIP is a community garden at that site.
[06:56:50] So um I think what we've identified is open space, but uh again we'll
[06:56:55] we'll be going um listening to the city council as to what the vision
[06:57:01] is for that site. Sounds good. Okay. Uh then moving on to the sports
[06:57:06] park area. Uh I'm in definite agreeance, but I'd love to be able to
[06:57:09] take a look on that uh that one lot across from the basin that
[06:57:14] there might be a possibility for maybe an indoor facility. Again, going to ICS,
[06:57:18] we had great conversations about multi-ports uh fields within one area, which was pretty
[06:57:24] neat. So, you know, being able to have baseball, so uh you know, baseball,
[06:57:28] soccer, different different sports within that area. So, just again another opportunity I'm definitely
[06:57:33] in for diving in with council to see what that would look like. Um,
[06:57:39] let me see. Innovation corridor. I love the idea. Uh, definitely love seeing the
[06:57:43] fact that you guys are bringing in food and just restaurants in there as
[06:57:47] well. So, that way the these businesses have a place to eat. They're not
[06:57:50] going somewhere kind of off the not off the grid, but for their area.
[06:57:53] So, that's very appreciative. I understand that completely. And also just having it in
[06:57:58] the perspective of going back to the possibilities of having a military business community
[06:58:03] in there as well could definitely bring some good revenue. So I don't know if
[06:58:06] that's a possibility or could fall into that depending upon the type of contractors
[06:58:10] or the type of um uh business in itself. But other than that I'm
[06:58:15] very appreciative of all you guys put put through the city um the staff
[06:58:20] everybody. So at this time anybody have anything else that they'd like to add?
[06:58:25] Are we sure we don't do another round? Okay, sounds good. All right, so
[06:58:29] uh staff, to my understanding, I think everything is remaining the same. So, we're
[06:58:33] just going to have it as a receive and file. Okay, sounds good. All
[06:58:37] right, so with that, uh thank you again for your time. And uh so
[06:58:41] we don't need a motion. We'll just do a oops a receive and file
[06:58:45] on that one. All right, the last one is going to be department uh
[06:58:49] reports are going to be receive and file only. And do we have any
[06:58:55] more public comments at this hour? No. Seeing no. Uh items for future city
[06:59:00] council agendas. Anybody? >> Nope. Okay. Seeing none. >> Are you Do you? >> I'll
[06:59:09] hold it. >> Are you sure? >> Floor is yours. >> Okay. All right.
[06:59:15] That's gone. All right. City manager, any reports? >> Nothing further. >> All right.
[06:59:20] To their wonderful city attorney. >> Oh. Um, we had a close session tonight,
[06:59:24] but no reportable actions. >> No report. Okay, that being said, adjourned.