From the Email Inbox... More on Manhole Builders

Dear Sitting around:


We appreciate your added information and insight. Please note that the Blog is by citizens and for citizens. Your information and opinions are welcome and will continue to be posted. Are we professionals, and lawyers, no just simple citizens trying to keep track of city hall. Please don’t confuse us with The Blue Mt. Outlook, or The Grand Terrace City News. The GrandTerraceNewsBlog is not associated with them or any other publication, or political party. GrandpaTerrace is the Blog’s Administrator and founder. However, many are the contributors.

Sitting around
wrote: Grand Pa.....

I am not sure if this would be of interest to the readers of Grand Terrace News Blog. However, I have attended all of the public meetings on the Manhole project, and not everything gets reported, nor in the context it had been expressed.

Although your enthusiasm is commendable, some of the reporting which has been placed into newspapers like the Grand Terrace News concerning the Manhole Builders application and such as on-line may not be totally in error, but certainly misleading. In the application for appeal back in July, there had been slots for signatures and reasons for the appeal. In simple terms, there were more persons willing to sign the appeal than there were slots, and there were more reasons against the project than there were slots shown. I think there were five of each on the application. Persons from all over the city were willing to sign the appeal, plus there were a good 15-16 reasons against the venture. Initially, most of the five items cited in the July appeal concerned some deficiency in the city making timely filings or statute notifications. Should there have been a debate and this item placed on the November 8th ballot, most of the city would have voted against it. A weak, but certainly truthful statement to begin with.

The most blatant expression in the five reasons was the quelling of testimony before the Planning Commission. For at the May or initial hearing, the pro-tem planning commissioner mentioned that testimony could be heard, but no vote would be forthcoming. It was obvious at this initial meeting that the application and general conditions filed before the Planning Commission was near totally incorrect and of different character. An error had been made. Most everyone was confused as to facilities noted and many other things, so several persons came up to the podium and expressed their views quickly as it meant little.

At the follow-up meeting a good month later, the application papers and the negative declaration had all been corrected. Before the item was to be brought to public testimony, the same planning commissioner mentioned they had heard it all once before, no need to repeat anything. If persons stepping up to the podium were going to say anything they had to only express something new. This was a direct cause of action for the appeal, for only the pro-tem was in attendance at both Planning Commission meetings, and thus when the second meeting (and approving vote) happened, citizens were summarily asked to step away from the podium if their complaint had been heard once before. Thus only one person on the Planning Commission was able to hear all of the testimony and the other members had to guess at what was in the other portion.

At each of the meetings it was pointed asked by the public at the podium as to if any one of the Planning Commissioners had actually visited the site and then compared what they saw to the application data. Only one member had mentioned a visit, and that member voted against the project. However, the vote was one against and two for, the two voting for having admitted they had never visited the grounds beforehand.

In the main cause of action for the appeal brought forth before the city council it was quickly concluded that in view of public interest, only a full member session of the city planning commission meeting ought to be scheduled. It was a bit of technicality, and certainly grounds for lawsuit should the dirty laundry get aired out where the public could have heard or read about it, but the G.T. council by quelling discussion had taken no action on the advise of the City Attorney. It bumped the application back down to the again to that of the Planning Commission.

During the most of the meetings of the Planning Commission, one by one as the public moved before the podium a constant theme ran over their talking points. Most of which was qualified by a statement that the residents had realized the vacant area to be suitable for development, but only of a different character. Expressedly, the point that they were not against new development, they just did not like the development being proposed, nor how it was being "Micky Mouse" handled. Warner Hodgen had attended the appeal meeting also, outlaying a fresh approach to the area, to which were was little comment 'cept in the audience. Most in attendance felt that his project may be time consuming, but it was not the cheapskate situation being proposed by Manhole Builders.

The complaints during the evening of November 3rd centered upon three items of implied non-consistent use of the land towards the neighborhood. Noise, traffic and dust. The point of mention was that the very city code used for guidance and for which the meetings and City Planning Department was to make a determination was inconsistent with the proposed use dating back to 1988 when adopted by City Council. Per Section 18.40.10 of the City code the area is to operate free of dust, noise, or other nuisances which may be objectionable. This was mentioned numerous times by the public when standing in front of the podium.

Yet another item being brought before the Planning Commission was to point out that the intended use for the local streets was inconsistent with the City Council adopted "Circulation Element" currently in effect. This was yet another strike of inconsistency against the staff and Planning Commission. For this paper guides and outlines the intended and future uses of the currently maintained streets throughout the city. It is not left for random interpretation by staff, but prepared under contract by a team of Planners, civil engineers, traffic engineers, and with public input and then voted upon by the City Council. For those unfamiliar, in rough terms this document indicates that all two lane roads west of the I-215 freeway were intended for residential use, with axle loadings approximating that of a U.P.S. delivery truck. What instead had been shown on the application was the intention to operate eighteen wheeled trucks of 65,000 pounds G.V.W. running over a road that is currently crumbling under daily passenger car use.

Although the company representative assured everyone in attendance that there would only be one truck making one or two trips per day, the City Traffic Engineer had determined otherwise and calculated a more probable number that in eventually two to three years there would be one truck going in or out every fifteen to twenty minutes each day of operation. Also alarming was the redirection of these same trucks through a residential neighborhood with sub-standard width roads for at least one year. Should a medical emergency come up as did last May, and the City fire department respond, and if an eighteen wheeler be coming along in the opposite direction, if would be the fire truck in the wrong. The red truck with flashing lights would have to back up a half mile, for the manhole truck is incapable of such.

This secondary complaint had not been mentioned in the appeal, for it was obvious. During the meeting it was pointed out in graph and via a slide show that the roadways are less than 1/2 residential quality. It was pointed out that streets in the area are about 18 to 22 feet wide, when they should be 36 to 44 feet wide. No other such narrow streets exist within the city, and now the city staff had expressed that large heavy weight trucks could operate over these roads. It was illustrated that on one particular road, due to being so narrow, the trucks would have to drive over or straddle the centerline, and thus force any opposing traffic off into the ditch at the edge. Instead of reconstructing the current roadways wider and for truck loadings, the staff report recommended patching of pot holes in the existing roadway which had been laid in the 1940's. One basic road it was illustrated had pavement only one inch thick, to which was already deteriorated. It would be potholed and useless in perhaps six months of daily average truck traffic.

At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission there were several conditions placed upon the project. Most of which had to deal with dust elimination. Asphalt paving to the entrance drive and asphalt paving to internal driveways. These conditions had been erased during the hearing on the appeal, to which was a wonderment by the audience.

Now this is an important issue to ANY resident of any city as to how things get usually get done.

Yet another complaint was payment and scheduling. It is normal for a development to improve the roadways and utilities of the adjoining area once it gets a go ahead. For anyone now living in a tract home, the developer had agreed to install streets, underground utilities, etc. and give the ownership of the right-of-ways to the agency. In the instance of Manhole Builders, there was no such recommendation within the staff report. Normally, if the developer does not engineer and install "Public Improvements" then it is up to the agency, this instance the City of Grand Terrace, to pay for and install at a later date. That later date is determined by complaints, usage, accident reports, and by available funds within the budget. In other words until a few more vehicles get side swiped, drive off the cliff, a few more kids get bounced off the fender, then it will come to the attention of the City Council to allocate funding. Funds will be robbed from some other intended city project and then spent upon the problem. In this way persons living 1-2 miles away, on the other side of the city, will then get a portion of their tax dollars spent to fix an emergency problem. This is a boon for the developer who got out of paying for this in a big lump sum, as they will now pay but a minor amount. To illustrate again, it is estimated that maybe five years from now for the City of Grand Terrace to improve these same roads will cost the taxpayers about $250,000 to 1/2 million dollars. Of which every property owner will have to contribute a proportion thereto. Now, balance that against the thousands of dollars in which the city may get in property taxes for permitting developing the site. In the short run, they get the dollars which is mentioned in the Grand Terrace news article and making the Council look good for added revenues, but in the long run it may cost an injury, a life, a lawsuit, and then the taxes of property owners from those within the city who have never even driven over the streets. That same city council or staff may be long removed, but the residents will remember. For to think "Development" pays it's fair share, is not realizing the ultimate costs.

Oh. Remember when Grand Terrace Road collapsed due to rains about twelve years ago? The repair and relocation had to be paid by the city. There was to have been some storm drain improvements installed at that time. The San Bernardino County Flood Control and Water Conservation District created booklets that describe what known improvements or facilities are needed for any area. Although just paper now, they give vital information on how to prevent flooding or making such roadways collapse again. To fund these concrete improvements, it is normal for the property owners of each flood zone to either install the pipes, or set aside dollars for the eventual funding of the entire route. In this instance the applicant again escaped contributing to the funding. Additionally annoying is that they also are planning on installing permanent facilities along the proposed route of the storm drain. Not only will the residents of Grand Terrace have to eventually pay for these omitted facilities, they will also have to pay for the relocation of any structures built upon the route.

Now, look into the negative declaration and do you read of any language that cites the applicant must contribute any dollars for storm drain improvements which would protect their property? I have read many of these over the past thirty years and it is normal language for inclusion, it is also difficult to understand as to why any omission would be possible.

Getting back to the original subject, long before the first public hearing, some investigation as to site
suitability was made with the adjoining communities of Rialto, Colton, Loma Linda and the County of San Bernardino. They were contacted as to suitability of the project. Loma Linda had a NO WAY opinion. The others indicated the business would be permitted under a C.U.P. type arrangement only at one year per application. Furthermore the business would have to be located adjacent to yet another similar business, not by itself. It had been suggested that the City of Grand Terrace Planning Commission be consistent with neighboring cities and the Unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County in their zoning and land use policy.

The unanimous reasoning behind these agencies was that outdoor concrete production has been considered to be a "Dirty Industry" and therefore regulated. It is much simpler to group all such industries into one zone. You cannot compare a full scale sawmill that makes 1/16" to 1/8" chips of sawdust to the dust created by driving around a concrete plant. (Should anyone be interested, the mile square lot that the Colton Cement extraction and processing plant is currently operating on is not within any city limits, but moreover within the Unincorporated territory of the County of San Bernardino) The local communities do not have the resources to monitor the air pollution like the county does. It was therefore pounded into the memory of the Planning Commission that the application by Manhole Builders was not in conformance with Section 18.40.10 of the City ordinances. It also could not be implied, for the traits of the proposed facility are specifically excluded from being permitted in that zone and in others throughout the city.

A few other inconsistent things mentioned before the past Planning Commissions.

The proposed developer is actively involved in the mainline sewer business. However, the development is permitted to retain the use of septic tanks. Normal construction procedure is for individual residential expansion to connect to any sewer mainline within 300 feet, and for large scale developments, commercial and industrial developments to connect when within 500 feet. This development is directly adjacent to a mainline public sewer, yet no mention of this normal requirement. Additionally, there are no approved washing systems for vehicles nor for the concrete patterns. Normal procedure is to wash off the concrete patterns after use with water for next pouring. However, there is no mention of waste water handling. It is important for the City of Grand Terrace to eliminate one by one all instances of septic tank usages, as this will affect the ability of meet the 2025 Water Quality act. The monthly street sweeper was purchased just for meeting the water quality act. Looks as though the City will be paying for the installation of a sewer connection some time down in the future.

A third complaint was consistent. Via telephone, information was gathered about some of the equipment intended to be used for production each day. The most interesting piece of information was that hearing or ear protection is required for employees or operators when within 100 feet of the noisy stuff. This for their protection. However, this does not apply to it being used in a residential situation, when a home is only twenty feet away. It is OK to injure the hearing of a youngster, but not an employee.

I overheard one item which slipped in under the radar and perhaps the general public was that the intended site has legal access problems. For now, the best access is via a dirt road. Like mentioned earlier, it is this dirt road to which the city staff determined does not need improvements, nor all weather ingress and egress for the benefit of emergency vehicles. This existing dirt road was quietly mentioned, per deed, is for residential purposes only. Not for commercial or daily truck travels. The only
alternative for the site is via the old and original narrow one lane dirt drives running down the cliff from Vivienda. It is this little technicality that the Planning Commission cited as reason for denial. Sort of weak, but true
none the less.

Certainly, the Planning Commission as a whole knows that the applicant has low-balled the figures and kept quiet about any public improvements. One Planning Commissioner openly mentioned via simple math he could not believe some of the estimates given. Although the quoted $750,000 purchase price may seem a large sum to readers of the Grand terrace News, it is small in relation to the overall public improvement costs which would normally be associated with such a project. For originally someone did not do the math and figure out the total costs involved, including the threat to the locals within the residential areas. I must assume that the Planning Commission had other items to which they could have cited for denial, but it is this one weak item which got to be the official reason. As shown within the blog Grand Pa Terrace, there are yet more papers and reasons to deny any go ahead. For should there be yet another hearing, these other items will be brought up by attorney Tetley, and demands made which will not impact the citizens of G.T.