9/16/10
Circuit Trainer FOR SALE
Call 760-497-2122; located in Rainbow Valley.
9/11/10
A TRUCK WRECK WAITING TO HAPPEN
Californian | Wednesday, September 8, 2010
A truck wreck waiting to happen
On Aug. 24, a headline in the Los Angeles Times read, "At least 3 killed when gravel truck careens off highway in Santa Barbara and into a house."
The runaway aggregate truck with failed brakes and a load of 26 tons of gravel from a quarry sped downhill at 45 to 50 mph on Highway 154 before rear-ending two parked vehicles, plunging over an embankment and falling 15 feet onto a house, destroying the house and killing three people inside.
The mountaintop site southwest of Temecula, chosen by Granite Construction for its proposed Liberty Quarry, would be a perfect setting for a similar accident. According to Granite's draft environmental impact report, the quarry access road would include grades of up to 18 percent and a steep switchback.
The access road is above Interstate 15.
In addition to truck accidents, other problems exist with the site. The quarry activities of blasting, penetrating the underground water table and extracting tons of rock would create geologic instability. This could bring on landslides, earthquakes, or produce boulders of "flyrock" from blasts that go wrong.
The quarry's mandatory usage of 472 gallons of clean water per operating minute in this drought-stricken area is another issue. This will take water from existing businesses, residents and agricultural producers. Granite's own draft environmental impact report states that the quarry may not have a water source to complete its operations and a guaranteed water source must be identified before the project can be approved.
There are other issues. The quarry, its asphalt plants, cement batch plant, and hauling trucks would produce 450 different chemicals (40 proven toxins) that would contaminate the air. The scientific research of the world-renowned Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, adjacent to the site, would be negatively affected. The 1,600 truck trips to and from the quarry daily would create an I-15 traffic nightmare. Pollution of the Santa Margarita River, the last free-flowing coastal river in Southern California and major drinking water source for Camp Pendleton, would occur because of the porous rock at the quarry site. Granite received the largest fine ever imposed by the state of Oregon for water pollution.
Does risking all of this make sense? Rock at the site has been analyzed by at least two teams of geologists and found not to be granite, but rather a mylonitic granodiorite and to be porous (possibly up to 30 percent). "There is a certain probability that the rocks at the proposed site will be damaged (fractured and weak) to considerable depths, and that they may contain significant porosity and permeability." (San Diego State University) The structure and porosity of this rock poses a significant risk to both the hydrology of the area and the regional seismic stability.
Now we have another possibility to think about. Fully loaded gravel trucks losing their brakes on the substantial Liberty Quarry access grades and careening down the mountainside into traffic ---- all for rock not worth mining and not proven to be needed. It's the wrong project in the wrong location.
Laurenn Barker is a De Luz Valley grower in Riverside County.
The runaway aggregate truck with failed brakes and a load of 26 tons of gravel from a quarry sped downhill at 45 to 50 mph on Highway 154 before rear-ending two parked vehicles, plunging over an embankment and falling 15 feet onto a house, destroying the house and killing three people inside.
The mountaintop site southwest of Temecula, chosen by Granite Construction for its proposed Liberty Quarry, would be a perfect setting for a similar accident. According to Granite's draft environmental impact report, the quarry access road would include grades of up to 18 percent and a steep switchback.
The access road is above Interstate 15.
In addition to truck accidents, other problems exist with the site. The quarry activities of blasting, penetrating the underground water table and extracting tons of rock would create geologic instability. This could bring on landslides, earthquakes, or produce boulders of "flyrock" from blasts that go wrong.
The quarry's mandatory usage of 472 gallons of clean water per operating minute in this drought-stricken area is another issue. This will take water from existing businesses, residents and agricultural producers. Granite's own draft environmental impact report states that the quarry may not have a water source to complete its operations and a guaranteed water source must be identified before the project can be approved.
There are other issues. The quarry, its asphalt plants, cement batch plant, and hauling trucks would produce 450 different chemicals (40 proven toxins) that would contaminate the air. The scientific research of the world-renowned Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, adjacent to the site, would be negatively affected. The 1,600 truck trips to and from the quarry daily would create an I-15 traffic nightmare. Pollution of the Santa Margarita River, the last free-flowing coastal river in Southern California and major drinking water source for Camp Pendleton, would occur because of the porous rock at the quarry site. Granite received the largest fine ever imposed by the state of Oregon for water pollution.
Does risking all of this make sense? Rock at the site has been analyzed by at least two teams of geologists and found not to be granite, but rather a mylonitic granodiorite and to be porous (possibly up to 30 percent). "There is a certain probability that the rocks at the proposed site will be damaged (fractured and weak) to considerable depths, and that they may contain significant porosity and permeability." (San Diego State University) The structure and porosity of this rock poses a significant risk to both the hydrology of the area and the regional seismic stability.
Now we have another possibility to think about. Fully loaded gravel trucks losing their brakes on the substantial Liberty Quarry access grades and careening down the mountainside into traffic ---- all for rock not worth mining and not proven to be needed. It's the wrong project in the wrong location.
Laurenn Barker is a De Luz Valley grower in Riverside County.
9/7/10
NO GAIN FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY IF QUARRY GOES IN
Community Forum Californian
"No gain for Riverside County if quarry goes in "
By JERRI ARGANDA North County Times - Californian | Monday, September 6, 2010
There are so many inaccurate assertions floating around from Granite’s letter writers these days.
The "many" jobs claimed to be created by the proposed quarry will be only replacements for competitors' lost jobs in other Riverside County quarries currently providing the aggregate.
Net sales tax will not change; there is no gain to the county by switching from one location to another.
Often, as in the case of Robertson, who happens to be the company doing the work on Highway 76 in San Diego County , they have their own quarries. They would not buy from Granite and this is the case with most companies. In fact, Robertson stated that "98 percent of the time they use their own material."
This is so basic! So clear. It is ludicrous for Granite to promise these jobs.
How, then, can Granite say their quarry will be a "long term stimulus project" when there is no product being sold and volume is less than half of what it was?
A friend and manager of one quarry company insisted, "There will be no economic boom for the next 100 years!"
Google EDGAR (database for corporate financial information) and check out the last quarterly earnings for Hanson, Vulcan, Granite, Mitsubishi, etc. See the reduction in sales. As to any advantage to the County of Riverside , employment is related to volume of work. There would be no minimum royalty to the county.
Rick Kellogg has alluded, several times, to the "superior quality rock" on this particular site? This is simply not true. Sources and quarries in Corona and surrounding areas say otherwise that "their product is high quality aggregate."
Core samples from the proposed site were provided by Granite Construction. These were given to and analyzed by scientists at SDSU. Their results proved that the rock in this area was inferior quality granite. In addition, a hydrology study done by "Hydrofocus," commissioned by Endangered Habitat League, showed this same rock to be extremely porous.
Would this leak pollutants into the Santa Margarita River? What do you think?
This said, let’s examine just why Granite wants to put a quarry at this particular location. It is not the quality of the rock. It is not the necessity for more aggregate; There are plenty of quarries in Riverside County .
Could it be that, because Granite is first and foremost a road building company, it would be to their advantage to have control of another (besides Rosemary’s Mountain quarry, which is only doing approximately 12 percent business) aggregate source close to San Diego County, thus, allowing them to be the "low bidder" on future jobs?
Just wondering.
I am writing this letter as one of the thousands of residents within one to two miles of the proposed quarry site.
Looks like Rick got that one wrong too.
Jerri Arganda is a Rainbow resident.
8/1/10
SAVE OUR SOUTHWEST HILLS UPDATE RE QUARRY & LAFCO
To all our “Save Our Southwest Hills” supporters
It’s time to give you an update on the proposed Liberty quarry project
as well as all of the confusing happenings going on recently around annexation.
It appears that Granite Construction’s consultants have completed and
returned to the Riverside Planning Group all of the (over 12,000) comments)
made on the DEIR (Draft Environmental Impact Report).
Now, the county will review the changes. Once they are through, the Planning
Commission will call a public meeting where comments will be heard from
the public. The time is estimated to be (possibly) October or November.
From there, a recommendation will be made and the EIR sent to the
Riverside County Supervisors. After they review the EIR, the date will be set
for a public meeting to hear comments and a vote will be taken.
The estimate for this meeting is early next year.
THIS will be the time for our “CALL TO ACTION” for everyone of you who
wants to stop this project from being approved.
Now….Temecula’s annexation:
The city of Temecula, beginning in June 2009, attempted through LAFCO
(Local Area Formation Council) to annex over 4500 acres that included the
Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the proposed quarry site. They were
repeatedly turned down. Finally, on the third try on June 24, 2010, they were
successful, with the exception of the proposed quarry site, which remains
under jurisdiction of the county.
LAFCO also required, at the request of Granite Construction, a modification
of the city’s “sphere of influence.” Basically, Granite did not want Temecula to
have any “say” on their land.
On July 13, 2010, at the Temecula City Council meeting, councilman Ron
Roberts called for a Grand Jury investigation of the questionable practices of
LAFCO over these past 2 years in regard to the annexation attempts by the
City of Temecula. There were several strong speakers and comments made
by council people that “stirred up” the wrath of LAFCO member, Phil Williams
who proceeded to ask LAFCO to “reconsider” the last annexation decision. In
his corner, was a landowner of a small piece of land within Granite’s property
who also requested reconsideration.
And so, the saga goes on….and on…..to be continued in September at the next
LAFCO meeting.
7/30/10
LAFCO NEWS ARTICLE
CALIFORNIAN July 25, 2010
By PAUL JACOBS
Looking back at the county Local Agency Formation Commission's manipulation of Temecula's annexation process, it is hard to recall a hearing that did not inappropriately involve Granite Construction's proposed Liberty Quarry.
Looking back at the county Local Agency Formation Commission's manipulation of Temecula's annexation process, it is hard to recall a hearing that did not inappropriately involve Granite Construction's proposed Liberty Quarry.
On the first page about LAFCOs at the state website www.ceres.ca.gov/planning/
"It is the intent of the Legislature that each commission establish policies and exercises its powers ... in a manner that encourages and provides planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open-space lands within those patterns." The next page adds the "orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances."
Note the repeated use of the word "local" and the absence of "regional." Try not to confuse "open space" with "open gravel pit" as the commission tends to do.
Going back to the original annexation hearing of June 2009, LAFCO chairman Russell Kitahara stopped Temecula City Manager Shawn Nelson mid-sentence, concerned the parking structure would close, but then found time for one last speaker in favor of the Liberty Quarry project that has no application before LAFCO.
On July 13, a reluctant Temecula council voted 5-0 to remove an existing sphere of influence from the proposed quarry site to suit the desires of the formation commission in order to annex 4,500 acres into the city boundaries.
Councilman Mike Naggar had the audacity to verbalize dreams of hiking areas, park rangers and Scout troops learning about nature.
That mental planning was more than LAFCO member Phil Williams could tolerate.
"If you're going to master-plan something, that's not open space," he said. In the world of Williams, I suppose a 100-story deep gravel pit is preferable, because moving mountains of material could be bizarrely construed as creating more open space.
Just days before LAFCO's scheduled meeting Thursday, Williams requested a late addition to the agenda to revisit Temecula's third annexation attempt that yields to LAFCO instructions bent on accommodating a gravel quarry application that is much more than just a vocalized thought out of somebody's head.
Concerning Naggar's council comments that LAFCO proceedings have been "bizarre" and Councilman Ron Roberts' call for a grand jury investigation of the commission, Williams called those criticisms "secondary issues," adding, "If they truly feel that there's criminal activity, why not stop everything ..."
Indeed, why not?
Because things are so upside down, let's start with this secondary issue, stop everything ---- including the quarry application ---- and investigate how Granite Construction has been at the forefront of the commission's consideration since Day One.
PAUL JACOBS writes from Temecula. Contact him at TemeculaPaul@aol.com.
Posted in Jacobs on Sunday, July 25, 2010"It is the intent of the Legislature that each commission establish policies and exercises its powers ... in a manner that encourages and provides planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open-space lands within those patterns." The next page adds the "orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances."
Note the repeated use of the word "local" and the absence of "regional." Try not to confuse "open space" with "open gravel pit" as the commission tends to do.
Going back to the original annexation hearing of June 2009, LAFCO chairman Russell Kitahara stopped Temecula City Manager Shawn Nelson mid-sentence, concerned the parking structure would close, but then found time for one last speaker in favor of the Liberty Quarry project that has no application before LAFCO.
On July 13, a reluctant Temecula council voted 5-0 to remove an existing sphere of influence from the proposed quarry site to suit the desires of the formation commission in order to annex 4,500 acres into the city boundaries.
Councilman Mike Naggar had the audacity to verbalize dreams of hiking areas, park rangers and Scout troops learning about nature.
That mental planning was more than LAFCO member Phil Williams could tolerate.
"If you're going to master-plan something, that's not open space," he said. In the world of Williams, I suppose a 100-story deep gravel pit is preferable, because moving mountains of material could be bizarrely construed as creating more open space.
Just days before LAFCO's scheduled meeting Thursday, Williams requested a late addition to the agenda to revisit Temecula's third annexation attempt that yields to LAFCO instructions bent on accommodating a gravel quarry application that is much more than just a vocalized thought out of somebody's head.
Concerning Naggar's council comments that LAFCO proceedings have been "bizarre" and Councilman Ron Roberts' call for a grand jury investigation of the commission, Williams called those criticisms "secondary issues," adding, "If they truly feel that there's criminal activity, why not stop everything ..."
Indeed, why not?
Because things are so upside down, let's start with this secondary issue, stop everything ---- including the quarry application ---- and investigate how Granite Construction has been at the forefront of the commission's consideration since Day One.
PAUL JACOBS writes from Temecula. Contact him at TemeculaPaul@aol.com.
7/23/10
TAKE THAT FORK IN THE ROAD
JACOBS: Take that 'fork in road' now
The Californian | Posted: July 22, 2010
Yogi Berra famously said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
It is doubtful any forks were taken when Gary Johnson of Liberty Quarry's Granite Construction treated Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commissioner Russell Kitahara to breakfast at the Fork in the Road restaurant in Coachella, as reported in a Press-Enterprise article posted July 14.
At their July 13 meeting, three of five Temecula council members seriously questioned the conduct of the county formation commission, which acts more like an advocate for Liberty Quarry rather than an unbiased county agency charged with the basic responsibility of drawing lines on a map.
Other than ensuring land-zoning consistencies, LAFCO is not supposed to be overly concerned with what happens within those lines. That is the function of the local, city or county agency and the reason for having planning commissions, city councils and county supervisors.
Now that the three council members have had their suspicions supported by Kitahara's news article confession of not one but three meetings with Johnson, Temecula leaders are duty-bound to pursue a grand jury investigation of LAFCO.
Of the Fork in the Road breakfast meeting, Kitahara remembered that he had "corned beef hash," the restaurant name and that the amount of his share of the bill covered by Johnson came to about $10, but details and dates of the discussion seem conveniently erased from memory like the 18.5 missing minutes of the Nixon White House recordings.
The article quoted Kitahara, "I guess I didn't really listen to him that much, because I don't remember what he was trying to tell me."
Kitahara is guilty of being a rude breakfast companion, if nothing else ---- and is it routine for Johnson to have things to tell him? Who was taking orders, the waitress or Kitahara?
Agency executive director George Spiliotis reportedly claimed the meetings do not violate the commission's rules, which is shocking because from LAFCO's past conduct toward Temecula, I didn't think the super agency had any rules.
Three of the five tines of the fork that are the Temecula City Council ---- Mike Naggar, Ron Roberts and Chuck Washington ---- have vocalized suspicion of impropriety within LAFCO. The entire council should back Roberts' call for grand jury and district attorney investigations. The city should also seek judicial relief from all past and present decisions going back to and including LAFCO's June 2009 denial of Temecula's annexation request.
Granite Construction plays hardball and Temecula needs to step up to the plate. Now is the time to take that fork in the road.
PAUL JACOBS writes from Temecula. Contact him at TemeculaPaul@aol.com.
At their July 13 meeting, three of five Temecula council members seriously questioned the conduct of the county formation commission, which acts more like an advocate for Liberty Quarry rather than an unbiased county agency charged with the basic responsibility of drawing lines on a map.
Other than ensuring land-zoning consistencies, LAFCO is not supposed to be overly concerned with what happens within those lines. That is the function of the local, city or county agency and the reason for having planning commissions, city councils and county supervisors.
Now that the three council members have had their suspicions supported by Kitahara's news article confession of not one but three meetings with Johnson, Temecula leaders are duty-bound to pursue a grand jury investigation of LAFCO.
Of the Fork in the Road breakfast meeting, Kitahara remembered that he had "corned beef hash," the restaurant name and that the amount of his share of the bill covered by Johnson came to about $10, but details and dates of the discussion seem conveniently erased from memory like the 18.5 missing minutes of the Nixon White House recordings.
The article quoted Kitahara, "I guess I didn't really listen to him that much, because I don't remember what he was trying to tell me."
Kitahara is guilty of being a rude breakfast companion, if nothing else ---- and is it routine for Johnson to have things to tell him? Who was taking orders, the waitress or Kitahara?
Agency executive director George Spiliotis reportedly claimed the meetings do not violate the commission's rules, which is shocking because from LAFCO's past conduct toward Temecula, I didn't think the super agency had any rules.
Three of the five tines of the fork that are the Temecula City Council ---- Mike Naggar, Ron Roberts and Chuck Washington ---- have vocalized suspicion of impropriety within LAFCO. The entire council should back Roberts' call for grand jury and district attorney investigations. The city should also seek judicial relief from all past and present decisions going back to and including LAFCO's June 2009 denial of Temecula's annexation request.
Granite Construction plays hardball and Temecula needs to step up to the plate. Now is the time to take that fork in the road.
PAUL JACOBS writes from Temecula. Contact him at TemeculaPaul@aol.com.
Posted in Jacobs on Thursday, July 22, 2010
7/22/10
LAFCO PROBE
STRICKLAND: Probe but don't be distracted
By PHIL STRICKLAND -- For The Californian July 21, 2010
After Councilman Ron Roberts called for a grand jury investigation of the Local Agency Formation Commission's handling of Temecula's bid to annex about 5,000 acres at its southwest border ---- a portion of which Granite Construction wants to blast to blazes ---- that's the obvious question.
There's been grumbling all along about the handling of Temecula's request by the commission and the first crack may have opened in the rocklike edifice with the revelation of at least one meeting between the commission's then-chairman Russell Kitahara, Coachella Valley Water District director, and Granite point man Gary Johnson.
Such a meeting, if not illegal, is certainly of questionable judgment. Perhaps recognizing that to be the case, Kitahara told three quarry opponents just a couple weeks before the September 2009 hearing that he had "never" met with any Granite officials.
It has been pointed out that Councilwoman Maryann Edwards met with George Spiliotis, LAFCO's executive officer, at the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve which comprises the majority of the land the city was seeking to acquire.
Edwards says she thought it would be helpful for the staff to see the substance of the application.
For petitioners, in this case that's the city, to meet with LAFCO staff is not unusual. In fact the process wouldn't work if they couldn't meet.
But staff doesn't vote. Commissioners do, so a trip to Coachella Valley by Granite's man to have breakfast with the commission's chairman is quite another matter.
It's especially curious when the chairman can't remember what they found to talk about after Johnson drove all the way out there to see him.
And Johnson didn't even invite Kitahara to see the proposed mine site.
In the end, one supposes one hole looks pretty much like another.
So, now what? Aside from whether and when the grand jury would investigate, we need to know what else is behind that wall waiting to seep from the just opened crack or perhaps even to create a new fissure.
Thus we turn our eyes to other members and wonder what's the tab for breakfast?
Remember, the state land-use commission predicted in its 2008 annual report that the quarry would be approved. Those state worker bees are so prescient.
They know.
In the meantime, as imperative as a LAFCO probe is, we must not be distracted from the process as it wends its way to the Board of Supervisors for final action and the subsequent filing of lawsuit(s) by the losers.
When we go to court, we want to go as winners, not losers.
PHIL STRICKLAND writes from Temecula. Contact him at philipestrickland@yahoo.com.
Posted in Strickland on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 There's been grumbling all along about the handling of Temecula's request by the commission and the first crack may have opened in the rocklike edifice with the revelation of at least one meeting between the commission's then-chairman Russell Kitahara, Coachella Valley Water District director, and Granite point man Gary Johnson.
Such a meeting, if not illegal, is certainly of questionable judgment. Perhaps recognizing that to be the case, Kitahara told three quarry opponents just a couple weeks before the September 2009 hearing that he had "never" met with any Granite officials.
It has been pointed out that Councilwoman Maryann Edwards met with George Spiliotis, LAFCO's executive officer, at the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve which comprises the majority of the land the city was seeking to acquire.
Edwards says she thought it would be helpful for the staff to see the substance of the application.
For petitioners, in this case that's the city, to meet with LAFCO staff is not unusual. In fact the process wouldn't work if they couldn't meet.
But staff doesn't vote. Commissioners do, so a trip to Coachella Valley by Granite's man to have breakfast with the commission's chairman is quite another matter.
It's especially curious when the chairman can't remember what they found to talk about after Johnson drove all the way out there to see him.
And Johnson didn't even invite Kitahara to see the proposed mine site.
In the end, one supposes one hole looks pretty much like another.
So, now what? Aside from whether and when the grand jury would investigate, we need to know what else is behind that wall waiting to seep from the just opened crack or perhaps even to create a new fissure.
Thus we turn our eyes to other members and wonder what's the tab for breakfast?
Remember, the state land-use commission predicted in its 2008 annual report that the quarry would be approved. Those state worker bees are so prescient.
They know.
In the meantime, as imperative as a LAFCO probe is, we must not be distracted from the process as it wends its way to the Board of Supervisors for final action and the subsequent filing of lawsuit(s) by the losers.
When we go to court, we want to go as winners, not losers.
PHIL STRICKLAND writes from Temecula. Contact him at philipestrickland@yahoo.com.
7/21/10
COUNCIL AFIRE ON LAFCO
JACOBS: Council afire on LAFCO
By PAUL JACOBS -- For The Californian | Posted: July 18, 2010
Tuesday's Temecula City Council meeting was a grand time to see some fire in the old guard behind the dais. What started as a slow agenda item turned out to be a real firecracker of the public process.
This column has directed considerable criticism toward the county Local Agency Formation Commission's heavy-handedness concerning Temecula's application to annex land southwest of the city's existing boundaries. I have been equally irate over the inexplicable contortions Temecula officials have assumed to genuflect and agree to whatever the agency has requested.
Multiple items on the consent calendar of the Temecula council agenda are usually passed with one vote, but an item is pulled for discussion if one or more citizens submits a request to speak form. Three people requested to use the two minutes allotted for public comment on item 14 concerning a modification of the city's sphere of influence.
The modification is an attempt to comply with the latest formation commission demand that the city remove part of the mapped sphere that has been in place since 1991 in order to be granted an annexation request originally applied for in June 2009. The annexation has been rejected and redacted by LAFCO, which incredibly considers the proposed Liberty Quarry in the far southwest corner of the county a "regional" concern.
To my dismay, Temecula officials removed the proposed quarry site from the annexation application, and on June 24, LAFCO sprang the sphere-ectomy demand on the city.
Item 14 began with a staff report that attempted to explain how the loss of the sphere was a gain for the city. Joe Hudson, an esteemed attorney from Fallbrook, earned the approving roar of the council chamber crowd as he vociferously disagreed with that conclusion.
Hudson's comments apparently had a cathartic effect on some behind the dais.
Councilman Mike Naggar suggested adding language to the resolution making it clear the City Council was engaging in LAFCO-directed sphere-ectomy under protest.
Then the gloves came off.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ron Roberts delivered an uppercut that nobody saw coming by calling for a grand jury investigation of LAFCO over Granite Construction's apparent ability to inappropriately exert its will through members of the formation commission.
Roberts has served longest on the council, but it is especially telling that he works for Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone. Roberts works within the belly of the beast, so his vocalization of suspicion is significant.
It is great to see an old lion roar, showing that his position as mayor pro-tem stands not only for pro tempore, it stands for pro-Temecula.
PAUL JACOBS writes from Temecula. Contact him at temeculapaul@aol.com.
This column has directed considerable criticism toward the county Local Agency Formation Commission's heavy-handedness concerning Temecula's application to annex land southwest of the city's existing boundaries. I have been equally irate over the inexplicable contortions Temecula officials have assumed to genuflect and agree to whatever the agency has requested.
Multiple items on the consent calendar of the Temecula council agenda are usually passed with one vote, but an item is pulled for discussion if one or more citizens submits a request to speak form. Three people requested to use the two minutes allotted for public comment on item 14 concerning a modification of the city's sphere of influence.
The modification is an attempt to comply with the latest formation commission demand that the city remove part of the mapped sphere that has been in place since 1991 in order to be granted an annexation request originally applied for in June 2009. The annexation has been rejected and redacted by LAFCO, which incredibly considers the proposed Liberty Quarry in the far southwest corner of the county a "regional" concern.
To my dismay, Temecula officials removed the proposed quarry site from the annexation application, and on June 24, LAFCO sprang the sphere-ectomy demand on the city.
Item 14 began with a staff report that attempted to explain how the loss of the sphere was a gain for the city. Joe Hudson, an esteemed attorney from Fallbrook, earned the approving roar of the council chamber crowd as he vociferously disagreed with that conclusion.
Hudson's comments apparently had a cathartic effect on some behind the dais.
Councilman Mike Naggar suggested adding language to the resolution making it clear the City Council was engaging in LAFCO-directed sphere-ectomy under protest.
Then the gloves came off.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ron Roberts delivered an uppercut that nobody saw coming by calling for a grand jury investigation of LAFCO over Granite Construction's apparent ability to inappropriately exert its will through members of the formation commission.
Roberts has served longest on the council, but it is especially telling that he works for Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone. Roberts works within the belly of the beast, so his vocalization of suspicion is significant.
It is great to see an old lion roar, showing that his position as mayor pro-tem stands not only for pro tempore, it stands for pro-Temecula.
PAUL JACOBS writes from Temecula. Contact him at temeculapaul@aol.com.
Posted in Jacobs on Sunday, July 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)