[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6163055,"mediaKeyId","5436697-c5236e381039f0f5bdb20dcdaaab731a","parentId",5436697,"title","Homeowner asks Calimesa for accounting of Rosewood Estates landscaping assessments; city staff pledges follow‑up","audioSeconds",6099,"startMs",501000,"endMs",6600000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5436697-c5236e381039f0f5bdb20dcdaaab731a&start=501&end=6600","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5436697-c5236e381039f0f5bdb20dcdaaab731a/thumbnail_501000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6163055/Calimesa-City/Riverside-County/California/Homeowner-asks-Calimesa-for-accounting-of-Rosewood-Estates-landscaping-assessments-city-staff-pledges-followup","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6163055-7197a65ab6de2db537f12254c38822e5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770982688&Signature=gkoeX8GbBPFrkOsdZt-lFxVRgCelmIBgGrap0ShHWJ8V71NfQmT1HdMj3G1~4OB4ATZahFKoIGUO3u91hR-zPdqBeacvd9TEc7G0StsOCJ5ymk1wbbMFWYA0ZmUJTabFP5l8me1xBGINwJMZ0og9F~I783ivGI1D8CgDYpma086ZeRlK1c6NqxYjmXF2LfbJySUoyQflw1DCj3LnceM~NEe1BdXHUyWbHqF1raJtsauX-ECX4LKiCbevYTZWPUGf-jlzWmJKSepy8EyDXUeGt58qU039FqGTLOeKs21BqoXKvoyzEEla7DEn0PzKH4dbHQ7eObWO4DlWfofAJWfUJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Calimesa CA","date","2025-07-22T00:52:44Z","article","At the start of the Calimesa City Council meeting on July 21, Dr. John Usher of 983 Cottonwood Drive spoke during public comment to request an accounting and repairs for a landscaped frontage along Bryant Street in the Rosewood Estates subdivision.

Usher said he and 56 other homeowners (57 total) pay an annual special‑assessment amount of $286.24 per parcel, and he said the landscaped easement had been removed years earlier, leaving “an unsightly long strip of dirt and weeds.” He asked the city for an accounting of the assessment funds and for a plan to restore the landscaping; he said messages to the current public‑works director had not been returned.

City Manager (on the record at the council meeting) responded later in the meeting with a breakdown of the assessment components: $21.50 is the city’s Landscape and Lighting district assessment, $3.74 is a county flood‑control/stormwater assessment, and $261 is a community facilities district (CFD) fee for the school district. The manager said most of the assessment revenue goes to the school‑district CFD, not to the city’s general landscape fund, and noted Proposition 218 (1996) limits increases to that district assessment absent voter approval.

The city manager also told Usher that staff would address the Rosewood Estates frontage in the new fiscal year, that staff would prepare landscape designs and work with South Mesa Water Company to reconnect water service, and that the city planned to begin planting. The manager said staff were awaiting the start of the fiscal year before beginning design and installation work.

Usher provided his contact information and the council said staff would follow up. The council did not take a formal vote on the matter; staff direction was to pursue design and reconnection and to report back to the resident and the council.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Calimesa City Council","oneSentenceSummary","Resident Dr. John Usher told the Calimesa City Council on July 21 that 57 Rosewood Estates homeowners pay a $286.24 annual special assessment and asked for an accounting and restoration of a planted frontage on Bryant Street removed years earlier.","taxTitle","Calimesa City, Riverside County, California","taxId",72214,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6163064,"Council introduces ordinance to extend Bircher Logistics Center entitlements, secures community benefit payments",730,4860000,5590000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5436697-c5236e381039f0f5bdb20dcdaaab731a&start=4860&end=5590","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5436697-c5236e381039f0f5bdb20dcdaaab731a/thumbnail_4860000.jpg","/articles/6163064/Calimesa-City/Riverside-County/California/Council-introduces-ordinance-to-extend-Bircher-Logistics-Center-entitlements-secures-community-benefit-payments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6163064-e01202ab68abf7e09a378d0702b853e7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770982688&Signature=QEjaaPg~3IDrFgd5LBK6xLr2hNRb1qSwWn2Fmm0R47RqKUifK~3r-TuDqtBH5gZjkSQihGaeeeoyjmoXPaUcLHd3abe-WbTs1LHkGe8bM6mQhOv0pyKukS38z0mOFvamijE2797Am7lU4xihX~W5zJeCFbqdEnSr8aupNC5fy-2tAa8GB3-GOsXz30ue2YCtOnfjDhCMJXpUdI0YDr2TE8Wedl0YkLCQ1QdE19hJojJUNtMv7ueBCaZbOvm5PKFI5R8FPpZXYK9OZtHNjyRy6nzKPmiIiFgnbzzoTtZ7hTjAwamYZ3gJaCu3l326SDitQoh-Kut2Oc1WgUzuPVVAhQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Calimesa City Council on July 21 held a first reading and introduced Ordinance 4‑14 to approve Development Agreement DA 25‑03 between the City and QR Bircher Oak Valley Owner LLC, extending the life of previously granted entitlements for a roughly 115‑acre logistics/industrial site at Oak Valley Town Center.

City staff explained the project was previously entitled (general plan and specific plan amendments and other approvals) in 2022 but those entitlements are set to expire on Sept. 6, 2025. Staff said the development agreement before the council would extend the timeline for construction while securing public benefits and implementation commitments that otherwise would not be guaranteed if the current entitlements lapsed.

Key terms described by staff include: an immediate payment of $200,000 to the city within 30 days of the agreement’s effective date; optional extension fees of $100,000 for each of two available two‑year extensions beyond the initial seven‑year term; and a per‑square‑foot community benefit payment of $0.50 on industrial building area, which could generate up to $1.1 million if the entire project is constructed. Staff also described a graduated sales‑tax offset that allows the developer to offset part of the community benefit payment if a building generates point‑of‑sale sales tax in Calimesa within the first five years; the offset cap declines if extensions are exercised (75% cap for first extension exercised; 50% cap if the second extension is used).

Staff emphasized the agreement does not change the previously approved land uses, building sizes or traffic assumptions and therefore concluded no new CEQA review was required; the Planning Commission recommended approval on June 23. Staff also said certain infrastructure contributions are subject to resolution of the city’s ongoing litigation with Everest Reinsurance over performance bonds posted by the prior master developer.

Russell Pierce, representing the applicant, thanked staff and said the agreement enables the project to move forward after the prior master developer entered liquidation and stalled the town center infrastructure.

A member of the public raised health and air‑quality concerns (diesel particulate emissions near sensitive receptors and trailer storage operations) and asked the council not to approve the extension without additional environmental analysis. Staff and the applicant said the 2022 environmental review examined cumulative impacts and that the proposed agreement does not change project scope.

Councilmember Garcia recused from this item because of the proximity of his residence to the project area; the council then voted 4–0 on the introduction of Ordinance 4‑14 (first reading). Council instructed staff to bring the ordinance back for second reading and adoption at the next meeting. Councilmember comments noted that if entitlements expired the site’s underlying business‑park zoning would remain and similar industrial uses could be proposed absent the negotiated community benefits.","The Calimesa City Council on July 21 introduced Ordinance 4‑14 to approve a development agreement extending entitlements for a 115‑acre logistics project at Oak Valley Town Center, securing up to $1.1 million in per‑square‑foot community payments and immediate and optional extension fees.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6163070,"Calimesa council approves rephased Summerwind Trails plan, development agreement and entitlements",2620,2122000,4742000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5436697-c5236e381039f0f5bdb20dcdaaab731a&start=2122&end=4742","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5436697-c5236e381039f0f5bdb20dcdaaab731a/thumbnail_2122000.jpg","/articles/6163070/Calimesa-City/Riverside-County/California/Calimesa-council-approves-rephased-Summerwind-Trails-plan-development-agreement-and-entitlements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6163070-ccbbd37a7c390cc3c405b8300924375a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770982688&Signature=cr2-rs0G-5p9AU7kl5j9Z31lNdIy0PHlyhHaUc37zWkkUuZ2lGhkbW52MTaQIv-A7gDoNmrcBZygX3wZWEFy95X~AdCsHWIxv6RbPQRCNh-lb31OdPVQy1c1xlmJqARzS7534f5iftUyR55xUaOvQyFryCsuOp5MmkYnlAuw6lm~FreYXhiZ8OZwIEClvV1mkjlHJjfjA9hms6qssrYq1twXdnGk2uSuY4~Ys59BBL9lROJuh2a11~IRwkbffaZhm0pZi08p~EJJXcRYPY3Ys22xmfLAyFJ-dJ0G-V4sC~bvNyxK~O1cd09B4YInFuaIe5ivXutjicJUULYNnUxVwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Calimesa City Council on July 21 voted 5–0 to approve a package of entitlements and a development agreement amendment for Summerwind Trails phases 2 through 5, a residential portion of the Summerwind Ranch at Oak Valley specific plan. The approvals included a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, environmental assessment, an amended tentative tract map and a restated development agreement.

City senior planner Celine Seville told the council the project area covers roughly 853 gross acres in the northwest part of the city and that the amendment primarily reconfigures phasing, shifts about 70 acres of land use, removes a previously proposed water‑reclamation facility, and adjusts circulation and multiuse trail alignments. Seville said the household unit total would be 3,129 if no school sites are built, and 3,050 if planned school sites are constructed.

Applicant Paul Onaker said the rephasing was driven by infrastructure logic: it reduces the initial requirement for multiple lift stations and large reservoirs by aligning early phases with the town‑center infrastructure already under way. He also said the developer met the school district’s request to relocate a school site so it fronts two roads and meets a minimum 12‑acre site requirement.

The authorized tract map and phasing in staff materials list per‑phase acreages and unit counts the council reviewed: phase 2 (about 240 acres, 1,818 units), phase 3 (about 210 acres, 584 units plus 28 acres of parks/open space), phase 4 (about 217 acres, 374 units and roughly 108 acres of parks/open space), and phase 5 (about 185 acres, 431 units and 82 acres of parks/open space). The developer will also file a finance/conveyance parcel map for phase 2.

Under the approved development agreement, the term is 10 years with one optional extension; the developer will pay a development‑agreement fee (listed in the staff report as $250,000 with an optional extension fee of $125,000) and is responsible for public improvements including Roberts Road bridge work and completion of the Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange. The agreement requires construction of a fire station in the town center area and a community recreation facility to be built by the developer for the project (the council and staff explained the facility will be owned and operated by the homeowners association, with option access for adjacent phases). The project must also meet an affordable‑housing obligation (120 units) either by constructing units or by paying an in‑lieu fee; the developer said the affordable units are planned as rental housing.

During council questions, developers and staff described the proposed recreation center as similar in program to recent regional HOA rec centers (indoor meeting space, restrooms, pools, courts) and confirmed it would be built by the developer and operated/maintained by the HOA. Councilmembers asked for additional details on affordable‑housing management and potential communitywide facilities; staff said those fiscal and operating questions could be studied separately at council direction.

Neighboring developer Russell Pierce (RDP Development) spoke in support, saying coordinated infrastructure benefits multiple nearby projects. Two public speakers urged the council to consider sensitive‑receptor impacts and long‑range community needs such as medical facilities and civic recreation beyond project‑level HOA amenities.

Mayor Pro Tem Cervantes moved to approve staff recommendations (items 1–6) and the council seconded and voted 5–0 to adopt the resolutions and entitlements recorded in the staff packet. The council’s action amends the specific plan and approves the map and development agreement as presented.

The approvals incorporate an addendum to the previously certified EIR (2005) and supplemental technical studies prepared by the applicant; staff concluded no new environmental review was required for the changes proposed in the amendments.

Councilmembers and staff emphasized that the approvals reconfigure timing and responsibilities to reduce early infrastructure burdens on the project while preserving developer obligations for a fire station, community amenities and affordable housing.","Council approved six entitlements for Summerwind Trails phases 2–5, accepting a rephasing that reduces upfront infrastructure burdens, preserves a 10‑year development agreement option, and requires a fire station and planned recreational amenities; vote was 5–0.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6163060,"Calimesa council confirms delinquent refuse and weed‑abatement assessments, approves annual landscaping and lighting engineer's report",434,1566000,2000000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5436697-c5236e381039f0f5bdb20dcdaaab731a&start=1566&end=2000","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5436697-c5236e381039f0f5bdb20dcdaaab731a/thumbnail_1566000.jpg","/articles/6163060/Calimesa-City/Riverside-County/California/Calimesa-council-confirms-delinquent-refuse-and-weedabatement-assessments-approves-annual-landscaping-and-lighting-engineers-report","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6163060-f7be95b0d16d6b317a7188910fbe0184/orig.mp4?Expires=1770982688&Signature=feHkjzQC0KrxAs6yHBfiFp6ATKpcwesFOCmOfynAIt4gCSbHUmZARW2w9wO2ajJMub3jDxJDG3uxMXD-t2yjgdD0MvQRDiASBOK0hUbUyjPzao9YUY9DAJFr3tXf2DZB-ameVfo02~n6ZKSIihlpDmethzeXmSaCMLjym0dJ~UEul4cruhRaj0xK5Lv3rABELlOxw-zY-9o894~ysTfz3tDHB4z3iLsP8ZlUP6tKxmr85hU0lqFToPvToWhq9XZqI2TtqEqUvzq93x9cSE7CGwolDl4uGVwCciFfJrvyHkBPrlT8DP91I5GaqLi6izT8rM7uFue50-tdrCOpobtZUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Calimesa City Council on July 21 held the annual public hearings for delinquent refuse fees and weed‑abatement charges and approved the final engineer’s report for the city’s Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District No. 91‑1.

Darlene Gurney, city staff, said CR&R provided a list of delinquent refuse accounts; the list contained 177 accounts and the total proposed assessment to be placed on the 2025–26 tax roll would be $82,136.71. Staff noted the city charges a $25 administration fee and CR&R adds an administrative fee of $78.02 per parcel; payments received before the county submittal will be removed from the roll. The council adopted Resolution 2025‑38 confirming the reported charges (motion, second; vote Aye 5‑0).

Fire department staff presented the annual weed‑abatement hearing. Inspections identified 74 properties initially as fire hazard; after notices and reinspection nine properties required contractor abatement and remain delinquent as of July 15, 2025. The total proposed assessment for the nine parcels is $20,981.90; the council adopted the resolution confirming those charges and directed staff to forward the list to the county tax roll (motion, second; vote Aye 5‑0).

City engineer Mike Thornton presented the final annual engineer’s report for Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District No. 91‑1, which will assess 4,466 parcels at the district’s established rate of $21.50 per parcel (the same rate set in 1991). Thornton said the engineer’s report documents the uses of funds for street lighting, landscaping, traffic signals, parks and open‑space maintenance. The council adopted the report and related resolution (motion, second; vote Aye 5‑0).

In each case staff noted payments received prior to the county deadline will remove parcels from assessments and answered questions about notices and the administrative fees.

The actions will send the confirmed assessment lists to the county for placement on next year’s property tax rolls.","Council held public hearings and voted to confirm special assessments for delinquent refuse accounts and weed abatement charges and adopted the final engineer's report for Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 91‑1; total proposed refuse assessments: $82,136.71; weed abatement: $20,981.90; the district assessment remains $21.50 per parcel.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6163050,"Calimesa council gives initial nod to Lions Club veterans plaque proposal, asks to agendize site discussion",435,1095000,1530000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5436697-c5236e381039f0f5bdb20dcdaaab731a&start=1095&end=1530","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5436697-c5236e381039f0f5bdb20dcdaaab731a/thumbnail_1095000.jpg","/articles/6163050/Calimesa-City/Riverside-County/California/Calimesa-council-gives-initial-nod-to-Lions-Club-veterans-plaque-proposal-asks-to-agendize-site-discussion","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6163050-ab78171f45e35b079e65bbc76727bdab/orig.mp4?Expires=1770982689&Signature=H2N5BQp2JpP05O7cPMeZxkkI-1Vb2w~y~hQ7BuzOMls761~exGu6gPcosYVMpZ3TXjn-uJfh23-XzGKt-y49HKDSWPflKLuArbAQ9VtIpTvSyQDdA78ZwxausKk9MvICh2SUE3otvf-oMPsy-K9E7IgXQScbVFbkbI8EymK4hvL6onA~4BekRP0mPjKpxGAqW3h2kVR~LvMGk7nDippKSFftMvVfUWSuh-hdr5GeIrIXPzqrGLahOzZgNWx2QW1GIph54x2picwy8pxV7tHOUYRXgKvhKiVWOuNS0F4-S-pe0vdVk~8CBb4E~7Dfrogz5JSINtbzaxCZ0p9B2coBgg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tony Phillips, president of the Calimesa Breakfast Lions Club, presented a proposed veterans plaque and pedestal project and asked council approval to proceed with fundraising and city collaboration. Phillips showed examples of 10‑inch branch plaques and a 42‑inch decorative pedestal concept and said the club would donate the plaques and provide labor for installation.

He said the club would prefer to place the plaques next to the library if the city proceeds with a potential Veterans Park and redevelopment of the nearby pink brick building for museum/docent use; alternately the club suggested Myrtlewood as a location. Phillips asked for council blessing so the club could begin fundraising and outreach, including a presentation at a local Veterans Expo.

Mayor Pro Tem Cervantes requested the item be agendized for location discussion. Councilmember support followed: one councilmember moved to continue working with the Lions Club on the project; the motion passed unanimously. Staff said they would work with the club to bring the item back to a future agenda so the council could consider a final location and any related approvals.

No formal donation acceptance or site approval occurred at the meeting; the council’s action authorized continued coordination between the city and the Lions Club.","The council voted to continue working with the Kalamasa (Calimesa) Breakfast Lions Club on a veterans plaque/monument project and agreed to agendize a location discussion; motion passed with council support.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Homeowner asks Calimesa for accounting of Rosewood Estates landscaping assessments; city staff pledges follow‑up

Council introduces ordinance to extend Bircher Logistics Center entitlements, secures community benefit payments

Calimesa council approves rephased Summerwind Trails plan, development agreement and entitlements

Calimesa council confirms delinquent refuse and weed‑abatement assessments, approves annual landscaping and lighting engineer's report

Calimesa council gives initial nod to Lions Club veterans plaque proposal, asks to agendize site discussion