GT fast-food plan draws lawsuit
Point by Point Comments by Grand Pa Terrace in Blue
Judge scheduled to conduct hearing on Wednesday
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
Article Launched:01/01/2007 08:12:52 AM PST
GRAND TERRACE - For the fifth time in the last two years, anti-growth residents have sued the city to stop construction of a project. The most recent lawsuit seeks to block Miguel's Jr. fast-food restaurant from opening until changes are made to the design of the project.
The Citizens bringing suit against the city’s practices in approving projects are not anti-growth. The issue is not growth, but the fair application of laws, civil rights and proper process being enforced upon all who do business in Grand Terrace.
Miguel's Jr. opened in the Stater Bros. shopping center in 1984, but the company's owners want to build a larger restaurant with a drive-through on Barton Road. The placement of where Miguel’s is going to be and what it will “Look Like” has been moved and moved, and moved again. Each time the Public was told it would come back to Council for Final Hearings and Approval. This final public meeting and location has not been before the Planning Commision or the City Council.
Land is being graded in preparation for construction. The Mexican restaurant is expected to open in March or April, city officials said.
The land being graded exceeds the property lines of the restaurant being prepaired for. The entire property where the Jacobsen’s Plan B Town Center is to be located is being graded. There has been no presentation or approval for Jacobsen’s Plan B befor the City Planning Commision, and or the City Council and the Public.
A group calling itself Citizens for Responsible and Open Government filed the lawsuit in late November, claiming the project doesn't comply with the city's development code and the Barton Road Specific Plan.
Other Property Onwers and Businesses, Past and Current, have been held to the standard or requirements of the Specific Plan in their enjoyment or use of their property and businesses and allowing others not to comply with the same conditions fosters unfair business advantage by this apparent favoritism.
"The specific plan requires that before anything is built, they have to develop a master plan for the specific plan so they make sure everything fits the way it's supposed to," said Raymond Johnson, the group's Temecula-based attorney.
A hearing is scheduled Wednesday in San Bernardino Superior Court for a judge to determine whether to issue a temporary restraining order stopping the project from going forward.
City officials say the lawsuit is without merit.
Each lawsuit this is their response, each they have lost. So I would think the Reporter would want to name the “Official” making the statement. Perhaps the Reporter could read the Court Document so that the Reporter would be aware of all the issues being brought to the court. Of course the City Official could have shared their copy of the Court Documents with the Reporter IF they wanted to inform the public of the issues being raised. BUT, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN DID IT?
"We feel we fully complied with the specific plan," City Manager Tom Schwab said. "We've issued building and grading permits. They have full authority to build the building. We think they have zero grounds for any type of judgment."
IF Permits exist now why were they not available for public inspection prior to the law suit being filed? Permits are Public Information, and should be available for public inspection. Is Grand Terrace Exempt from the Open Records Act? Let’s review, how can there be permits for a Jacobsen Plan B when there has not been a plan submitted? The grading includes Jacobsen’s Plan B Town Center Area?
Johnson said the project has inadequate parking and is inconsistent with the design guidelines in the specific plan that call for minimal use of stucco.
"This entire building is stucco," Johnson said.
The Barton Road Specific Plan require wood frontage which has prohibited the prior owners from selling to others interested in the property, or developing their property into a business themselves. Until Miguel’s request for a Drive Thru none were to be allowed in the entire city. Prior applications were refused. As a result of tentatively approving the Drive Thru for Miguel’s the City Planning Department and City Council finally approved a Drive Thru for Demetri’s Resturant which is right next to the freeway. Demetri’s was denied a Drive Thru in the past. At this writing I can’t tell you how many times the request was denied or how far it went through the process.
Schwab said those issues weren't raised when the Planning Commission approved the project in June 2005.
June 2005, I went back and checked the record of the allegedly Approved Miguel’s. In June 2005 Miguel’s was to be located in front of The Terrace with traffic feeding into the intersection of Canal and Barton Road and this traffic conflict was a concern raised. Trash was a Concerned Raised, Noise was a Concern Raised, and the Drive Thru being counter to the then city code was raised. I recall that the Drive Thru was an issue for the residents of the Terrace and the Management of the Terrace.
I do not have specific recollection on the specifications of wall treatment being offered at that meeting and the discussion would have been moot as the Council Decision at the request of the City Manger was to put the location of Miguel’s somewhere else in the Development and to bring it back to the Council and Public. The Plan not being in Conformity with the Special Plan was said, and that statement would include stucco, parking, and all design requirements in the Specific Plan. SO Mr. Schwab the issue was raised.
"All this was permitted," Schwab said. "There was never a challenge brought by these people. It's a little too late to come out now and say there's some things about this we don't like."
Johnson is well known in Grand Terrace for filing environmental lawsuits.
He has represented community groups in lawsuits against an outdoor-themed retail center, a senior apartment project, an electrical wholesale distributor and a trucking business. All the suits involve alleged violations of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Alleged is an interesting adjective, when a Court has decided there were violations of the California Environmental Quality Act in the process and plan of the senior apartment project, and the outdoor-themed retail center. The other cases are pending and similar issues are raised because similar process and procedures have been used by the City.
"They appear to be against absolutely everything regardless of its merits," Schwab said. "You name it, they'll sue."
Mr. Schwab should do his job correctly, and then there would be no cause of action. The Judge has decided against the city in 2 of 5 cases, and has allowed the cases to proceed as they pass the merit for trial burden. Mr. Schwab and the City needs better council so the same errors are not repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated. One must suspect there is a cause for this repeated failure to proceed appropriately. What that reason is has yet to be determined. Mr. Schwab again is incorrectly suggesting the suit is because some one doesn't want a Miguel's. The issue is the compliance and application of a Barton Road Specific Plan on some and not on others. The issue is the lack of public disclosure and availability of Documents. The issue is a Drive Thru and the traffic, air quality, trash, and parking issues, that were all put on "hold" untill Plan B was resolved... or Miguel's went a head independent of Jacobsen's Development which by the Plan is not allowed.
It is a Catch 22 situation, and it is by the design of Mr. Schwab and the City Council that this happens and continues to happen.
Patricia Farley, a member of Citizens for Responsible and Open Government who signed the lawsuit, did not return calls seeking comment.Johnson said the groups are not trying to stop development in Grand Terrace.
"They simply want the city to comply with the law, whether it's state law or their own rules," Johnson said.
Mayor Maryetta Ferre said the restaurant should be allowed to move forward despite the lawsuit.
"I think Miguel's deserves to be built," Ferre said. "If there's something that hasn't been done and it's proven we haven't done it correctly, then we'll correct it."
Mayor Ferre’s allowing the City Manager and his designated or desired projects to have a policy of Do Overs, puts some property owners, businesses at an advantage or disadvantage over others. This is thus an interference with free enterprise, free competition, or use of a persons full civil rights to full enjoyment of their property.
Perhaps when I run a stop light and kill a pedestrian, I’ll ask for a do over.
People were threatened with eminent domain, could not meet the Cost of the Design Requirement Contained and Enforced upon their property or use of the property, by themselves or a prospective buyer. The City’s actions resulted in effectively limiting the prior owner’s potential use and enjoyment of their property even the choice of seller, and a truly competitive market for their property only to see that others are not held to the same requirements. If this is not illegal, it is despicable and should not be allowed to continue.
Perhaps, the City of Grand Terrace should be stripped of all rights to create zoning, planning, and other restrictions on property rights. Federal, State, and County regulations should be sufficient, no more and no less.
The Oath the Mayor just said at the last meeting requires that she hold the city to uphold the laws of the Federal, State, County and Local Government. It does not say oh go forward and well do over anything we miss, or got wrong. There is no reason for these laws, plans or process, then get rid of the regulations for all citizens and the city. However, the issues here are state regulation and in some cases even federal law. The Mayor's attitude should not be a comfort to the lawyers representing the city, nor to the citizens of the city.
ALSO IN THE NEWS:
Wanted: New Metrolink station
Here is a Development Project Grand Pa Terrace Supports. Add the use of LEV’s in Grand Terrace by reduction of Speeds on Mt. Vernon and Barton Road and you have a winning alternative to a car, and a long drive. I am a Metrolink Fan... LOVE THIS ONE... HOPE IT CAN GET DONE... DONE THE RIGHT WAY....
Highgrove man sees need to ease likely rise in traffic
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
Article Launched:01/01/2007 08:12:32 AM PST
R.A. "Barney" Barnett thinks he has a solution to clear up some of the traffic mess on local freeways.
The 68-year-old is leading an effort to build a Metrolink station just south of Grand Terrace.
Barnett is pushing transportation officials in San Bernardino and Riverside counties to make the project a priority.
The biggest obstacle, he says, is finding someone to buy about 35 acres of vacant land to build the station.
More than 2,000 homes are slated to be built starting next spring in Highgrove, an unincorporated Riverside County area bordering Grand Terrace that Barnett has called home since 1947.
"All this development is going to bring a lot of traffic to Highgrove," said Barnett, who publishes the Highgrove Happenings monthly newspaper with his wife, Ardie. "If we don't do something, the whole area is going to be jammed."
But Riverside County transportation authorities question if there would be enough riders to warrant a station.
"We're doing a thorough analysis to determine if it's feasible," said John Standiford, spokesman for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. "If only a few people are going to ride it, it's not worth the investment."
The commission on Jan. 10 is scheduled to hear a report on the feasibility of a station.
In addition, San Bernardino Associated Governments' Commuter Rail Committee is expected to discuss the project on Jan. 18.
Barnett said there are now 48 Metrolink trains a week that pass through Highgrove between Riverside and San Bernardino on the Inland Empire-Orange County line.
The proposed stop is seven miles from the Metrolink station in San Bernardino and 3.5 miles from the Riverside station, he said.
Standiford said he doesn't know if the land proposed by Barnett is for sale. The pie-shaped parcel, which is owned by a land trust, is bordered on two sides by different sets of railroad tracks.
Barnett said the site is large enough for shops and restaurants to serve rail commuters getting on and off trains. Bus riders would have close access to the station from a route that goes through Highgrove between Riverside and Loma Linda, he said.
Barnett has received support from elected officials in Grand Terrace and Loma Linda. Both cities have passed resolutions in favor of the station.
"If it does anything to alleviate traffic on the freeways, I think that's a good thing," said Grand Terrace Mayor Maryetta Ferre.
San Bernardino County Supervisor Dennis Hansberger believes there is enough demand for a Metrolink station in the Highgrove area.
"It's a very worthwhile objective," Hansberger said. "Unfortunately, the people in Riverside County who have jurisdiction have not shown a lot of interest. But we're willing to try to get that discussion going."
ALSO IN THE NEWS:
In Brief
Staff Reports
San Bernardino County Sun
Article Launched:01/01/2007 08:14:19 AM PST
GRAND TERRACE
Council OKs storm drain at future school's site
The Grand Terrace City Council has approved an agreement with the Colton Joint Unified School District for the construction of a 48-inch storm drain that will run through the property of a future high school.
The plan for the new high school includes the construction of a cul-de-sac at the new terminus of Pico Street at Pico Park.
A storm drain from the new cul-de-sac through the school property is needed to accommodate normal storm water flows, officials said.
Grand Terrace and the school district will share the cost. The city of Colton will contribute $130,000, which will come from the sale of 23 acres of Redevelopment Agency property for the high school.
The Grand Terrace council approved the agreement on Dec. 14. The school board approved it on Dec. 7.
Grand Pa Terrace points out that the entire agreement was not read to the public, or posted on the Web Site. Of course this is a concern, and the forum for this topic is with the School Board as their WILL trumps that of the Grand Terrace City Council. The Park Use was the title of the approved agenda item. The amount of funds needed for a drain pipe may have been included in the agreement it was not so stated on the agenda or during comments by the public or the council members. Clearly, Drainage improvement is needed regardless of the use of the property. However, this natural drain would flow
Well Friends: A reminder…..
Remember this Weeks Meetings: Scope Meeting to determine the “Scope of Citizens Concerns” about the Senior Apartments. The City has filed an appeal of the Court Decision, and the Corporation for Better Housing has hired a new attorney, so it looks like there is not a revision to comply with the Judge Wade Decision, but to go around it. It is important to show up to this meeting, so the City and Corporation For Better Housing can not represent that there is no public concern about the issues or the development.
Mind you, this meeting is not in anyway binding on the City or the Corporation for Better Housing. It is a public advisory meeting. They will not be held responsible to conform to any statements made at this meeting. Continued caution and oversight is needed as there seems to be no indication that the City or the Corporation for Better Housing is determined to comply with Judge Wades Decision regarding the needed EIR which includes a mitigation plan for traffic and so forth.
