Pawww... (From the Email InBox)
Your mention of the meeting I am sure attracted the First-timers to it.
Planning Commision Meeting Feb 11th 2008 Report:
The meeting of the 11th ended rather quickly. Once the matter of the contents noted at the top of page 28 where brought to the attention. (see below) Especially that of the last sentence.
Your mention of the meeting I am sure attracted the First-timers to it.
Planning Commision Meeting Feb 11th 2008 Report:
The meeting of the 11th ended rather quickly. Once the matter of the contents noted at the top of page 28 where brought to the attention. (see below) Especially that of the last sentence.
For the ideas expressed there in different significantly than that as reported by the Colton Unified school district. For in that school district report(s) it was mentioned how they intend to construct a stadium of seating 2000 persons, then next report said 2500 and then the open meeting of two years ago mentioned this to be about 3500 seats. Now that quantity of autos or half that quantity of autos pouring down Michigan "IS" a significant violation, and needs to be addressed in the EIR. I heard couple folks mention that they did not notice the paragraph, nor the final sentence, and by bringing this up it hit a "Home Run" for the residents of G.T. Not that the C.C. could not force the construction and lay out an impassioned need for H.S. #3 upon the residents, however, when things go wrong, we all know who to point a finger at then.
It was requested that either the situation be addressed properly (get rid of the NO IMpact), or the whole paragraph bleeped out of the report all together.
It should also be noted that Patrica found out, and I verified here too, that the Colton Unified School district in NO Way will permit the general public to use their facilities (I got no complaint with that).
Especially those facilities with a structure located already. However, this "Acreage" quantity as being included as City Recreational flatland areas. As she pointed out, unless they are open to the public, then cannot be used to justify being used for quantity.
Much as that little park at the S.C.E. facility on Main street behind the iron gate had been once included in the quantity. Nor can we enjoy the open grass area when occupied by a locked up building.
In a scheme of many years ago, the City of Chicago used to rent out a park for one day to privates, presumaby to earn some dollars off of them. When it was pointed out that the park was not available to the general public at that time, then that small percentage of matching funds issued by the Illinois legislature was omitted. For if the City of Chicago was going to enter the park rental market, they did not need any matching funds for maintenance. If the tax dollars received for maintaining and general use of some open land or parcels, then it ought to be Open to those same persons. And thus, the City of G.T. residents ought to think along the same lines, for they should only be paying in to what they receive. My thought is that it is highly doubtful any resident would use the Petta park, as it is to sit behind a steel fence, and thus ought not to be considered to be maintained by city forces. Nor should it be included into the grand total. Let us not make out the city to be bigger is status that it truly is.
Pawww... More on the Planning Commission Meeting Feb 11, 2008
The evening meeting of the 11th, held for "Scoping" out errors or omissions to the Environmental report to be filed along with the new City of G.T. General plan had a few new faces and a few familiar ones in the audience. It was intially advertised to be in concert with members ot the City Council, but was not. Three of the sitting Planning Commissioners were in the audience.
The meeting was organized by Gary Kuntz and introduced Robert Ruan of Redlands (who actually prepared the report) and one city staffer. It was originally trying to be centered upon the contents of the paper report, but soon got off onto a general rant about city management, and other related situations. About 75 percent of the hour long meeting was so spent. It became a difficult chore for Gary and Robert to direct those in the audience to center their thoughts as to what was written.
The report had 14 main topics, but then just as well omitted references to three other topics. Those being the Aesthetics, the Mining Industry and the Agricultural Industry. After some fluffing and redirecting the audience to the points of the paper, in general the Mining or minerals was agreed to be not a part of discussion, but the other two omitted ones became a hot topic.
Ever since the formation of the city, the agricultural and ranching businesses have been asked to leave. That land which had been used for decades for the purpose instead had been allowed to Grandfather in existence. Waiting for the day it was to be eliminated. It has survived though. Of grave error in the report, was mention that the only existing agricultural business was centered on less than ten acres in center of the town. This was pointed out most expressly to be in error. For the city reclassified other areas into a new Industrial area. And any further (or continuing) use in those areas was to be considered in violation. Essentially, if someone wants to do farming within the city limits they could only do so on a ten acre parcel now owned by the City of G.T. and no where else. Just because a property owner had been inconsistently using 20 acres of land for the same use for decades, the use of that same land was now in violation, and the property owners subject to the new law. It must be noted that the current OK 10 acres are slated for some apartments.
Whereas the current (decades old use of) twenty acres was NOT-OK because of paperwork. Should code enforcement get a hold of this, it will eliminate farming or ranchland within the city limits, and instead aim all the residents into a smoky industrial based community.
What perhaps flew over the heads of those in attendance at older Workshop meetings, was the implementation of the new agricultural overlay zone. Instead of having dual used lands in the city, this alternative was suggested. Much was discussed about this region or that within the city limits based upon current properties bearing horses. Should the city also get rid of old fashioned horse owners and their property? I am not a horse owner, but know it takes a sort of special breed of person to become one, for to become one is assigning yourself to the drudgery and their every expensive whims. Although the City of Colton has accommodated them with two horse related arenas placed just outside the city limits of G.T. They benefit of all owners within two counties, but it still takes a sort of special person to handle a horse 365 days per year.
In so discussing the elimination of the agricultural areas within the city limits, they somehow also eliminated the need for basic poor quality water often used for irrigation purposes. Although the "Overlay" removed nor implemented, this mere discussion affected the billing rates of those few persons with the influence of the Riverside Highland Water Company. Several shareholder/customers saw their bi-monthy bills tripple in cost. If you were paying $100 before you now had to pay $300 for same service. In effect this was one of the topics of the report that Monday night, for for implementing the new General Plan and the code books. In one simple way it altered the agricultural industry before anything was voted upon by the current city council. Not to be left out, the Water District increased the bills for certain customers, In Advance of the need.
Further nit-picking was done via the Commissioner Wilson in that the report had a few extra check marks over a couple of boxes, making it an either/or situation. Either the changes in the new General Plan were Good and had no impact on the community, or they were bad, and needed some mitigation. They can't be both he mentioned. There was also a request at a couple of times by persons in the audience to outline or emphasize revisions to the current codes and General Plan for G.T. but until Commissioner Wilson made the request, nothing was written down. The revisions may be evident by those who breathe the goings-on 100% or the time, but for those not in the business even 10% of the time, it goes over their head.
Traffic on Michigan Avenue was discussed passionately several times, and at different levels and impacts. Yet another item noted in this environmental report as having no effect on this was the future inclusion of a new high school in the southern part of the city. In such a way the report stated that future recreational facilities, like the stadium proposed by the new high school, would have No Impact, and "the issue was not to be addressed further in the EIR (for why then mention, and simply bleep it out?). This is quite contrary to the report prepared by the Colton Unified School District, for initially they indicated the new stadium to be 2000 seat, then 2500 seat, then near to 3500 seats, and yes they stated it would have a significant impact upon traffic on Michigan.
It was mentioned that this environmental report meeting was a one time only affair. The singular meeting met all the requirements of the State of California as to preparation. The next step was to incorporate any revisions (if any are actually done other than the one typo) discussed that evening, and forward the revised report (including fixing the typo) on to the City council. The C.C then gets copies of the report with a suggestion to approve and send on to Sacramento. Thus topic ended. No further discussion. We got a deadline to meet, it has to be in the mail on....
Question being, is that there were a number of Workshop meeting delayed or omitted in 2007. As the portion of those meeting consume so much time, could not they have been scheduled and a compromise been reached, instead of going in to this now "Hurry Up" mode? The folks along Brentwood flat don't like what they hear.
