Liquor license abundance raises concerns to city
By AARON AUPPERLEE Staff Writer
April 26, 2007 - 6:28AM
BARSTOW - A high concentration of liquor licenses in Barstow has raised concerns that potential bans on licenses could affect future development in Barstow.
At Monday's Planning Commission meeting, Mike Massimini, the associate planner for the city, said the number of liquor licenses in Barstow exceeds limits made by the state legislature. Barstow has 39 stores licensed to sell liquor and 42 restaurants and bars.
However, according to limits contained in the state Business and Professions code, cities may only have one store license for every 2,500 people and one restaurant or bar license for every 2,000 people. Massimini said in order for Barstow's number of licenses to comply with population requirements, the population would have to swell to more than 84,000 people.
John Carr, a spokesman for the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, said the state legislated the ratios in the 1960s as a guide for communities to determine how many licenses to allow. There is no punishment or penalty placed on a city with more licenses than the ratio recommends, Carr said, but the department works with the community to make sure licenses are granted with the best interest of the community in mind.
The recent request of a license brought the issue to the city's attention, according to John Rader, a spokesman for the city. Because Barstow's number of licenses exceeds limits set by the state, the city needs a basis to approve or deny applications for new licenses and looked to the Planning Commission to establish standards and criteria for the process.
According to Rader, the city cannot revoke licenses but can direct the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to deny an application.
Tim Clark, Barstow's district administrator for Alcoholic Beverage Control, said the number of stores selling beer and wine prompted the state legislature to place a moratorium on that type of license in many cities, including Barstow. The moratorium, which went into effect in Barstow on January 1, 2005, and continues for five years, prohibits granting new licenses to sell beer and wine in stores.
"I guess they (the legislature) were concerned," Clark said. "It's giving the city entities a little more control over what's going in their city."
Barstow joins other San Bernardino County cities on the moratorium list. Big Bear Lake, Chino, Colton, Grand Terrace, Montclair, Needles, Ontario, San Ber nardino, Victorville and Yucca Valley also have bans on new beer and wine licenses for stores. Clark said there are no other bans in place on other types of liquor licenses.
The ban of one type of license, however, raised concern at the city level. City officials hope more restaurants, such as the recently announced Chili's, will soon come to Barstow. Massmini asked the commission to consider giving the city direction in the issuing of licenses and whether the commission wants to limit the number of permits.
Bob Clemmer, a planning commissioner, said the city can expect upscale dining to come along with liquor licenses and worried limits on licenses would hamper growth.
"We don't want to handicap ourselves," he said. "I just want to make sure we can bring in the growth."
Rader stated that the city is also concerned the effect licensing guidelines would have on future growth. The city is evaluating guidelines of other cities and will present the Planning Commission with guidelines for review, according to Rader.
Some local businesses do not depend on alcohol sales to stay open or grow. Michael Lewis, owner of Quigley's on Lenwood Road, said the opening of a sports bar area at his restaurant about two years ago has not contributed to significant growth in his business. Lewis, also a planning commissioner, recused himself from Monday's liquor license discussion.
"It has helped some," Lewis said. "It's more of a convenience to our customers."
He said the restaurant customers that come through Lenwood are mainly travelers making a stop, not the clientele that tend to frequent a bar.
"The Lenwood area is essentially eating," he said. "People are not going out to be entertained."
Lewis said that perhaps if Lenwood Road develops a high concentration of restaurants or a casino, a liquor license might become essential to survival.
For owners of small markets along Main Street, selling beer and wine tends not to make or break a business. Sam Hanhan is a manager at Cactus Market on Main Street and said that although beer and wine make up a large portion of his sales, they do not turn a large profit.
"If you sell a 12 pack of beer, you only make a dollar," Hanhan said. Large-profit items include groceries, candy and other merchandise available at the Cactus Market.
Romeo Alhattawi, owner of Shop For Less in Lenwood, only relies on the sale of groceries to stay in business.
"Everyone needs them," he said. "In our area here, people are far from the big grocery stores."
He does not have a liquor license in order to avoid the high overhead cost of stocking alcohol and to keep his shop focused on grocery items.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
From the Email InBox: Why Watch the RDA of GT
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-dougkaplan25apr25,1,1906663.story
From the Los Angeles Times Scamming redevelopment With little oversight, local redevelopment agencies seize private property and spend tax dollars to subsidize developers.
By Doug Kaplan
DOUG KAPLAN is a Northern California developer and former school board trustee. He lives in Aptos.
April 25, 2007
IN CALIFORNIA last year, redevelopment agencies spent more than $5 billion. They consumed almost $3 billion in property taxes. They forced people from their homes and businesses. And what vital service did they provide? They built shopping centers.
The heart of redevelopment is a set of state laws part of the Health and Safety Code that enables cities and counties to create local redevelopment agencies. These laws were passed in the early 1950s when large cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles needed some legal and financial muscle to seize, demolish and rebuild dilapidated buildings in the worst of their urban slums.
Today, the state has more than 400 redevelopment agencies from San Diego to Eureka and within some of the wealthiest suburbs in California.
Only about one-fifth of redevelopment money now goes to build and rehabilitate housing. The bulk of the remainder is handed out a subsidies to private developers who promise to build shopping centers, restaurants, hotels and other tax-generating projects. With few exceptions, these are not located in urban slums but on prime commercial sites.
Each agency is run by directors who are appointed by city councils and county supervisors. These independent government bodies constitute what Orange County Supervisor Chris Norby calls "California's unknown government."
But these unelected governments have three extraordinary powers: the right to use eminent domain to seize private property for the benefit of private developers, the right to issue municipal bonds without voter approval and the right to divert property taxes from schools and other government bodies.
California redevelopment agencies have jurisdiction over more than $325 billion worth of property about 10% of the entire assessed value of all the taxable property in the state. Projects range in scope from the huge Grand Avenue project in downtown Los Angeles to the construction of a single Burger King in rural Watsonville.
Redevelopment has evolved into a statewide program of reverse land reform. What else does one call a government agency that seizes property and consolidates it into large holdings that are later sold to developers? (Proposition 90, which appeared on the ballot last November, would have corrected this injustice; the poorly drafted proposition failed to pass.)
The prolonged misuse of these powers by municipalities desperate for sales tax revenue has perverted local government priorities all over California.
While I was a school board trustee for the Pajaro Valley Unified School District, a large, overcrowded district in Northern California, I experienced this firsthand. We fought three hard campaigns before we finally won public approval to sell bonds to build four new schools.
Meanwhile, our local redevelopment agency was effortlessly issuing bonds to subsidize a Gottschalks department store, a Red Roof Inn and even a Burger King.
Redevelopment also exposes California's cities and counties to an unsettling amount of risk. Unlike schools, courthouses or city halls that usually endure, shopping centers often don't. Strip malls are enclosed to make regional malls, which, a few years later, are torn down to make "off-price" centers, which are later broken up to become "lifestyle centers," and on it goes. Shopping center developers struggle to stay in fashion and often lose a lot of money trying. But when taxpayer-subsidized projects fail, it's the public that is left holding the empty bag.
When I hear redevelopment advocates insist that developers would not build in the Golden State without such subsidies, I respond with a story from my local village of Capitola (population 10,500). A few years ago, the Macerich Co., one of the nation's largest shopping center developers, announced that it would not bring Macy's to the town unless it received a $2.4-million subsidy from the city's redevelopment agency. After prolonged negotiations, agency directors consented to give Macerich "only" $230,000, but subsequently reneged altogether after residents objected to paying any subsidy. Guess what?
Macy's came anyway at no cost to the taxpayers.
Developers don't demand subsidies because they need them; they demand subsidies because they are there for the taking.
What if I'm wrong? Then redevelopment officials should still ask themselves or better yet, they should ask the voters — how the public expects its tax dollars to be spent. Does it want more fabulous shopping centers and ever grander avenues? Or, for example, would it prefer better neighborhood schools?
Redevelopment is unwise, unjust and unnecessary and should be repealed before billions more dollars are wasted on public subsidies for private developers who trust me — don't need the money.
From the Los Angeles Times Scamming redevelopment With little oversight, local redevelopment agencies seize private property and spend tax dollars to subsidize developers.
By Doug Kaplan
DOUG KAPLAN is a Northern California developer and former school board trustee. He lives in Aptos.
April 25, 2007
IN CALIFORNIA last year, redevelopment agencies spent more than $5 billion. They consumed almost $3 billion in property taxes. They forced people from their homes and businesses. And what vital service did they provide? They built shopping centers.
The heart of redevelopment is a set of state laws part of the Health and Safety Code that enables cities and counties to create local redevelopment agencies. These laws were passed in the early 1950s when large cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles needed some legal and financial muscle to seize, demolish and rebuild dilapidated buildings in the worst of their urban slums.
Today, the state has more than 400 redevelopment agencies from San Diego to Eureka and within some of the wealthiest suburbs in California.
Only about one-fifth of redevelopment money now goes to build and rehabilitate housing. The bulk of the remainder is handed out a subsidies to private developers who promise to build shopping centers, restaurants, hotels and other tax-generating projects. With few exceptions, these are not located in urban slums but on prime commercial sites.
Each agency is run by directors who are appointed by city councils and county supervisors. These independent government bodies constitute what Orange County Supervisor Chris Norby calls "California's unknown government."
But these unelected governments have three extraordinary powers: the right to use eminent domain to seize private property for the benefit of private developers, the right to issue municipal bonds without voter approval and the right to divert property taxes from schools and other government bodies.
California redevelopment agencies have jurisdiction over more than $325 billion worth of property about 10% of the entire assessed value of all the taxable property in the state. Projects range in scope from the huge Grand Avenue project in downtown Los Angeles to the construction of a single Burger King in rural Watsonville.
Redevelopment has evolved into a statewide program of reverse land reform. What else does one call a government agency that seizes property and consolidates it into large holdings that are later sold to developers? (Proposition 90, which appeared on the ballot last November, would have corrected this injustice; the poorly drafted proposition failed to pass.)
The prolonged misuse of these powers by municipalities desperate for sales tax revenue has perverted local government priorities all over California.
While I was a school board trustee for the Pajaro Valley Unified School District, a large, overcrowded district in Northern California, I experienced this firsthand. We fought three hard campaigns before we finally won public approval to sell bonds to build four new schools.
Meanwhile, our local redevelopment agency was effortlessly issuing bonds to subsidize a Gottschalks department store, a Red Roof Inn and even a Burger King.
Redevelopment also exposes California's cities and counties to an unsettling amount of risk. Unlike schools, courthouses or city halls that usually endure, shopping centers often don't. Strip malls are enclosed to make regional malls, which, a few years later, are torn down to make "off-price" centers, which are later broken up to become "lifestyle centers," and on it goes. Shopping center developers struggle to stay in fashion and often lose a lot of money trying. But when taxpayer-subsidized projects fail, it's the public that is left holding the empty bag.
When I hear redevelopment advocates insist that developers would not build in the Golden State without such subsidies, I respond with a story from my local village of Capitola (population 10,500). A few years ago, the Macerich Co., one of the nation's largest shopping center developers, announced that it would not bring Macy's to the town unless it received a $2.4-million subsidy from the city's redevelopment agency. After prolonged negotiations, agency directors consented to give Macerich "only" $230,000, but subsequently reneged altogether after residents objected to paying any subsidy. Guess what?
Macy's came anyway at no cost to the taxpayers.
Developers don't demand subsidies because they need them; they demand subsidies because they are there for the taking.
What if I'm wrong? Then redevelopment officials should still ask themselves or better yet, they should ask the voters — how the public expects its tax dollars to be spent. Does it want more fabulous shopping centers and ever grander avenues? Or, for example, would it prefer better neighborhood schools?
Redevelopment is unwise, unjust and unnecessary and should be repealed before billions more dollars are wasted on public subsidies for private developers who trust me — don't need the money.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
From the Email InBox: Review of City Council Meeting
Dear Gramps, I know you were out of town... so please post my review..
Review of City Council Meeting April 24, 2007.
The City Council held its meeting without the participation of Council Member Garcia, or Council Member Cortez.
The RDA Approved the Transfer of the Webber Property to the City for the Purpose of Building a Senior Housing Complex.
Patricia Farley questioned the legality of the land transfer under the provision sighted by the City Manager/RDA Director. The Current EIR of the Senior Housing Revised Plan is still under the Public Review Phase and under Legal Action as well. In addition the General Plan locates the Senior Housing to be on Barton Road not Grand Terrace Road, so the land transfer for the stated purpose does seem not to fit the justification provided by Mr. Schwab City Manager. When Council Member Miller asked about the legal entanglements, Mr. Schwab not the City Attorney offered an opinion, that there was no problem in approving the transfer. Where did Mr. Schwab go to law school?
This ended the RDA Portion of the Meeting.
Proclamations 3
Patricia Farley rose to the podium and asked why on the Check Vouchers there continued payments are being made to Jameson Group, Megna the folks who brought the city the now defunked OAC.
The question was not answered. The answer is. Mr. Koontz works for the City and Jamison Group and is paid for doing work for the city by Jameson… An audit of his time and activity sheet would be informative. The Question should be is Koonts Double Dipping, and is this a conflict of interest?
Patricia Farley also asked about the Water Company building going on Michigan amongst area where there are residents and land owners who will continue to be in residence. She indicated that the land was residential zoned.
City Manager Tom Schwab responded to this in a belittling tone directed at Patricia Farley but also to the entire citizenry if we the Citizens of Grand Terrace truly review the topic. Schwab said the project is in properly zoned land. Well, if the zoning on the County Tax Records have changed to reflect proper zoning that will be news. Schwab refers to the General Plan Map for his Authority on what the zoning is on a piece of property. When if fact the zoning has not been changed to match the Plan. Land Zoning Designations have to be changed and recorded in the County Records.
Then Schwab reviewed that the Water Company Building had already gone through the Planning, and City Council Approval Process. Yes, he is correct; when objections and concerns were raised in these forums they were summarily ignored or waived. Several issues were brought forth including the building of a metal building which is not in conformance with the City Code even on Industrial Property. As I recall, Council Member Hilkey or Miller indicated they were in support of the project except the Metal Buildings.
Patricia Farley reminds us that one or 400 voices have no impact with the City Manager but it does open the door to a Court Action. Failure to bring your concerns to the Public Meeting at City Hall and on the record at Planning Meetings, City Council Meetings and RDA Meetings will result in the Court House Door being closed.
SO… the lesson is, don’t expect the City Council to Hear You, Pay Attention, or be moved by fact and logic. They will do as they are told by Mr. Schwab. However, the Court House Door is open when you speak to their closed ears.
Patricia Farley also mentioned the AES Proclamation Against the AES Power Plant. She reminded the City Council that this is a real issue that will have a real adverse impact on the city, and the High School being planned, and previously supported by the City Council Members. She indicated that this proclamation was more important to the citizens of Grand Terrace than the other 3 proclamations of the evening.
No Council Member or Member of Staff chose to respond regarding the AES Power Plant Issue. No announcement about a Town Meeting. No indication that any of the Council Members have studied up on the issue. Zip.. Nada, Zero so much for taking the leadership role.
Moving on to the Red Light Photo Enforcement a way to make the city safer and not cost the city anything. Do it and Do it in all 10 places if it would not be any cost. Enforcement is needed at the intersection near the Middle School., Mt. Vernon and De Berry.
All funds from the tickets should be put in an escrow account for the term of the contract and not spent or allocated until the expiration of the contract. The surplus could or should be set aside for YOUTH PROGRAMS… as an annuity that the City Manager can’t reassign.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could use camera enforcment for Fireworks, Speeding, and Noise?
Review of City Council Meeting April 24, 2007.
The City Council held its meeting without the participation of Council Member Garcia, or Council Member Cortez.
The RDA Approved the Transfer of the Webber Property to the City for the Purpose of Building a Senior Housing Complex.
Patricia Farley questioned the legality of the land transfer under the provision sighted by the City Manager/RDA Director. The Current EIR of the Senior Housing Revised Plan is still under the Public Review Phase and under Legal Action as well. In addition the General Plan locates the Senior Housing to be on Barton Road not Grand Terrace Road, so the land transfer for the stated purpose does seem not to fit the justification provided by Mr. Schwab City Manager. When Council Member Miller asked about the legal entanglements, Mr. Schwab not the City Attorney offered an opinion, that there was no problem in approving the transfer. Where did Mr. Schwab go to law school?
This ended the RDA Portion of the Meeting.
Proclamations 3
Patricia Farley rose to the podium and asked why on the Check Vouchers there continued payments are being made to Jameson Group, Megna the folks who brought the city the now defunked OAC.
The question was not answered. The answer is. Mr. Koontz works for the City and Jamison Group and is paid for doing work for the city by Jameson… An audit of his time and activity sheet would be informative. The Question should be is Koonts Double Dipping, and is this a conflict of interest?
Patricia Farley also asked about the Water Company building going on Michigan amongst area where there are residents and land owners who will continue to be in residence. She indicated that the land was residential zoned.
City Manager Tom Schwab responded to this in a belittling tone directed at Patricia Farley but also to the entire citizenry if we the Citizens of Grand Terrace truly review the topic. Schwab said the project is in properly zoned land. Well, if the zoning on the County Tax Records have changed to reflect proper zoning that will be news. Schwab refers to the General Plan Map for his Authority on what the zoning is on a piece of property. When if fact the zoning has not been changed to match the Plan. Land Zoning Designations have to be changed and recorded in the County Records.
Then Schwab reviewed that the Water Company Building had already gone through the Planning, and City Council Approval Process. Yes, he is correct; when objections and concerns were raised in these forums they were summarily ignored or waived. Several issues were brought forth including the building of a metal building which is not in conformance with the City Code even on Industrial Property. As I recall, Council Member Hilkey or Miller indicated they were in support of the project except the Metal Buildings.
Patricia Farley reminds us that one or 400 voices have no impact with the City Manager but it does open the door to a Court Action. Failure to bring your concerns to the Public Meeting at City Hall and on the record at Planning Meetings, City Council Meetings and RDA Meetings will result in the Court House Door being closed.
SO… the lesson is, don’t expect the City Council to Hear You, Pay Attention, or be moved by fact and logic. They will do as they are told by Mr. Schwab. However, the Court House Door is open when you speak to their closed ears.
Patricia Farley also mentioned the AES Proclamation Against the AES Power Plant. She reminded the City Council that this is a real issue that will have a real adverse impact on the city, and the High School being planned, and previously supported by the City Council Members. She indicated that this proclamation was more important to the citizens of Grand Terrace than the other 3 proclamations of the evening.
No Council Member or Member of Staff chose to respond regarding the AES Power Plant Issue. No announcement about a Town Meeting. No indication that any of the Council Members have studied up on the issue. Zip.. Nada, Zero so much for taking the leadership role.
Moving on to the Red Light Photo Enforcement a way to make the city safer and not cost the city anything. Do it and Do it in all 10 places if it would not be any cost. Enforcement is needed at the intersection near the Middle School., Mt. Vernon and De Berry.
All funds from the tickets should be put in an escrow account for the term of the contract and not spent or allocated until the expiration of the contract. The surplus could or should be set aside for YOUTH PROGRAMS… as an annuity that the City Manager can’t reassign.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could use camera enforcment for Fireworks, Speeding, and Noise?
Monday, April 23, 2007
From the Email Inbox: What's Not on the Agenda?
NOT on the AGENDA:
AES: The Council can Review Online Documents, and the Documents Provided by Citizens Raising Concern and even Pass or Not Pass the Proclamation as Presented at the Prior Meeting without a Public Town Hall Meeting. Are they unable to educate themselves on the material, in order to make an informed decision or form an informed opinion? If this is true they should resign. AES and HS#3 are not activities that should be companions. Both have RDA and City Deals and Land Swaps as entanglements, perhaps this is why the City Manager will not put it on the agenda and the Council will not act on such an important issue. Citizens please write the California Energy Commision, and the South Coast Air Quality Management Department, and tell them Please No more Pollution in our already over polluted air.
Fireworks Revision Ord: Revisions to the Ord were stipulated by the Motion Passed in the City Council's approval of Fireworks for another year. These changes have not been codified and no revised Ord. has been passed by the City Council.
Youth Programs for 13 to 18 year Olds continue to be nearly non existent and those available are limited to that specific age group.
Status of Court Cases. We never are updated during the Meetings. Is it possible the Council Members are also not advised?
Blue Mt. Senior Villa's Environmental Impact Preliminary Report is done and Public Comment is Due, Dead Line approaches. The term reverse engineering comes to mind when reviewing the Specific Plan which is a companion document for the Blue Mt. Senior Villa's EIR. If you build a house then draw the plans you reverse engineer. It appears that the Plan for Grand Terrace is being made to fit the BMSV, rather than have the BMSV fit the Plan. This process is unfair to the people of Grand Terrace who are unable to influence the City Manager to support a Change in a Plan to the same degree his selected developers are. This is the case for BMSV and the Jacobsen Town Center / Square Relationship. Note even the BMSV EIR states the better space for the BMSV would be on Barton Road where the GENERAL PLAN had it placed prior the the SCWHAB/CFBH Plan. Have we had enough of this "Management Style" YET?
No Plan B has been presented by Mr. Jacobsen for the now named "Town Square". His Exclusive Development Agreement has lapsed. Land Transfers from RDA to other city agencies and developers continue to happen without proper public notice and opportunity for participation. Example RDA Land (Weber Property) to be transferred to City, then to BMSV. Example Land transferred from RDA to Jacobsen last June or July without proper Public Notice and process prior to even a Plan B being done and presented. No Housing Replacement Plan for the Mobile Homes and other Homes has been provided.
Also not provided to the Public that nagging issue, Did Steve Berry actually pay for the Crown Victoria, City Manager, Sold from the City's Assets with out proper process or procedure, again no public notice or opportunity to purchase the surplus. No evidence of payment received has been provided, nor what fund the money was deposited to IF it was received. The car's owner ship was transfered, but no money trail has been documented. What else has been "sold" or disposed of, computers, digital cameras, who knows? If you can't trace a car sale how can the citizens trust the other purchases?
The Mayor is now in Month 4 of the Safe Period where Recall Supporters by law Can't Recall the Mayor. Has the Mayor's Oversight of the City Manager and Staff been sufficient to quell their disappointment in her tactics, and methods? It will not be known until the slow months of summer politics. However, the list of what is not done, what is not on the agenda may be foreshadowing the undercurrent just beneath the surface.
AES: The Council can Review Online Documents, and the Documents Provided by Citizens Raising Concern and even Pass or Not Pass the Proclamation as Presented at the Prior Meeting without a Public Town Hall Meeting. Are they unable to educate themselves on the material, in order to make an informed decision or form an informed opinion? If this is true they should resign. AES and HS#3 are not activities that should be companions. Both have RDA and City Deals and Land Swaps as entanglements, perhaps this is why the City Manager will not put it on the agenda and the Council will not act on such an important issue. Citizens please write the California Energy Commision, and the South Coast Air Quality Management Department, and tell them Please No more Pollution in our already over polluted air.
Fireworks Revision Ord: Revisions to the Ord were stipulated by the Motion Passed in the City Council's approval of Fireworks for another year. These changes have not been codified and no revised Ord. has been passed by the City Council.
Youth Programs for 13 to 18 year Olds continue to be nearly non existent and those available are limited to that specific age group.
Status of Court Cases. We never are updated during the Meetings. Is it possible the Council Members are also not advised?
Blue Mt. Senior Villa's Environmental Impact Preliminary Report is done and Public Comment is Due, Dead Line approaches. The term reverse engineering comes to mind when reviewing the Specific Plan which is a companion document for the Blue Mt. Senior Villa's EIR. If you build a house then draw the plans you reverse engineer. It appears that the Plan for Grand Terrace is being made to fit the BMSV, rather than have the BMSV fit the Plan. This process is unfair to the people of Grand Terrace who are unable to influence the City Manager to support a Change in a Plan to the same degree his selected developers are. This is the case for BMSV and the Jacobsen Town Center / Square Relationship. Note even the BMSV EIR states the better space for the BMSV would be on Barton Road where the GENERAL PLAN had it placed prior the the SCWHAB/CFBH Plan. Have we had enough of this "Management Style" YET?
No Plan B has been presented by Mr. Jacobsen for the now named "Town Square". His Exclusive Development Agreement has lapsed. Land Transfers from RDA to other city agencies and developers continue to happen without proper public notice and opportunity for participation. Example RDA Land (Weber Property) to be transferred to City, then to BMSV. Example Land transferred from RDA to Jacobsen last June or July without proper Public Notice and process prior to even a Plan B being done and presented. No Housing Replacement Plan for the Mobile Homes and other Homes has been provided.
Also not provided to the Public that nagging issue, Did Steve Berry actually pay for the Crown Victoria, City Manager, Sold from the City's Assets with out proper process or procedure, again no public notice or opportunity to purchase the surplus. No evidence of payment received has been provided, nor what fund the money was deposited to IF it was received. The car's owner ship was transfered, but no money trail has been documented. What else has been "sold" or disposed of, computers, digital cameras, who knows? If you can't trace a car sale how can the citizens trust the other purchases?
The Mayor is now in Month 4 of the Safe Period where Recall Supporters by law Can't Recall the Mayor. Has the Mayor's Oversight of the City Manager and Staff been sufficient to quell their disappointment in her tactics, and methods? It will not be known until the slow months of summer politics. However, the list of what is not done, what is not on the agenda may be foreshadowing the undercurrent just beneath the surface.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
City Council Agenda April 24 2007
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 24, 2007
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PM
22795 Barton Road
* Call to Order -
* Invocation -
* Pledge of Allegiance -
* Roll Call -
AGENDA ITEMS
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 6 PM
1. Approval of 03-27-2007 Minutes
2. Transfer Webster Property from CRA to City (22645 Grand Terrace Road)
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Blue Ribbon Week - Week of May 13, 2007
B. Women of Distinction
C. Proclamation - Earthquake Preparedness Month, April 2007
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
A. Approve Check Register Dated April 10, 2007 and April 24, 2007
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 03-27-2007 Minutes
D. Approval of NO OVERNIGHT PARKING ZONE on the North Side of De Berry Street, 861 Feet Westward from Mt. Vernon
E. Public Improvement Deferral Agreement (22195 McClarren Street)
THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT (909) 824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING, PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON BY THE MAYOR AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
F. Request to Purchase Two Motorola XTS-5000 Portable Radios Using California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) Funding
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the City Council may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Mayor may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request a matter be agendized for a future meeting.
5. REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
1. Emergency Operations Committee
a. Minutes of March 6, 2007
A. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Adding Chapter 9.28 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code to Regulate Medical Marijuana Dispensaries within the City of Grand Terrace
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Red Light Photo Enforcement (Redflex Traffic Systems)
B. 2007 Contract with the City of San Bernardino for Animal Housing Services
C. Joint Community Facilities Agreement (JCFA) and Reimbursement Agreement for the Springbrook Project
D. Award Contract for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funded Project - Newport Avenue Street Improvement #32325
9. CLOSED SESSION - None
ADJOURN
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007 AT 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE NO LATER THAN 14 CALENDAR DAYS PRECEDING THE MEETING.
MINUTES TO BE APPROVED
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 27, 2007
A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace, was held in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on March 27, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Maryetta Ferré, Chairman
Lee Ann Garcia, Vice-Chairman
Bea Cortes, Agency Member
Jim Miller, Agency Member
Tom Schwab, City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager
Larry Ronnow, Finance Director
Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director
Lt. Hector Guerra, Sheriff=s Department
Rick McClintock, San Bernardino County Fire Department
Colin Burns, City Attorney
ABSENT: Dan Buchanan, Agency Member
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
John Harper, City Attorney
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
APPROVAL OF 03-13-2007 MINUTES
CRA-2007-09 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER CORTES, SECOND AGENCY MEMBER MILLER, CARRIED 3-0-1-1 (VICE-CHAIRMAN GARCIA ABSTAINED AND AGENCY MEMBER BUCHANAN WAS ABSENT), to approve the March 13, 2007 Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes.
Chairman Ferré adjourned the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 6:15 p.m., until the next CRA/City Council Meeting that is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
SECRETARY of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
CHAIRMAN of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 27, 2007
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on March 27, 2007, at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Maryetta Ferré, Mayor
Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem
Bea Cortes, Councilmember
Jim Miller, Councilmember
Tom Schwab, City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager
Larry Ronnow, Finance Director
Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director
Lt. Hector Guerra, Sheriff=s Department
Rick McClintock, San Bernardino County Fire
Colin Burns, City Attorney
ABSENT: Dan Buchanan, Councilmember
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
John Harper, City Attorney
The City Council meeting was opened with Invocation by Pastor Salim Elias, Azure Hills Seventh-Day Adventist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilman Jim Miller.
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ITEMS TO DELETE - None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - National Crime Victims’ Week - April 22-28, 2007
Mayor Pro Tem Garcia read a proclamation proclaiming the week of April 22 through 28, 2007 as National Crime Victims’ Week in the City of Grand Terrace.
B. Proclamation - National Day of Prayer - May 3, 2007
Councilmember Cortes read a proclamation proclaiming May 3, 2007 as National Day of Prayer in the City of Grand Terrace urging all citizens to observe this day in keeping with their personal beliefs.
Mayor Ferré presented Carolyn Preschern with the proclamation. Carolyn Preschern, Moderator, Connecting Leaders Through Prayer, thanked the City for the proclamation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
CC-2007-32 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN WAS ABSENT), to approve the following Consent Calendar Items:
3A. Approve Check Register Dated March 27, 2007
3B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
3C. Approval of 03-13-2007 Minutes
3D. Notice of Completion - 2006-2007 Slurry Seal Program (American Asphalt South, Inc.)
3E. Contract Between the City of Grand Terrace - Blue Waves Swim Program and the Riverside YMCA for Swim Lessons and Open Swim Program at Terrace Hills Middle School for Summer 2007
PUBLIC COMMENT
Roxanne Williams, 22005 Tanager Street, indicated that she has a proclamation that she would like the City Council and City Manager to consider and read the following:
Proclamation In Opposition to the AES Highgrove Power Plant
WHEREAS, the City Council of Grand Terrace supports the construction of the Colton Unified School District;s high school #3; and
WHEREAS, City Council of Grand Terrace finds that the AES Highgrove Power Plant is not in the best interest of the city, and offers no direct benefit to its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the AES Highgrove Power Plant poses safety risks to the high school #3 students due to the power plant=s storage of hazardous materials (ammonia, sulfuric acid, etc.), transport of wastewater, and the proximity of high pressure gas lines; and
WHEREAS, the AES Highgrove Power Plant will emit harmful air emissions of particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM 10), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxides (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2); and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED that the City Council of Grand Terrace:
HEREBY expresses our opposition to the AES Highgrove Power Plant
HEREBY urges the California Energy Commission (CEC), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the Colton Joint Unified School District to oppose the AES Highgrove Power Plant.
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the City of Grand Terrace urges its citizens and neighboring cities to oppose the AES Highgrove Power Plant.Dated March 27, 2007
She feels that the proclamation is important and that the City Council’s opinion should be heard prior to the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Energy Commission’s preliminary determinations. They should have the City Council’s input prior to the preliminary determinations. The proclamation will serve that purpose of that communication. She feels that the City Council has a responsibility to make a proclamation on the building and operation of a polluting power plant within its borders. She indicated that she met with the City Manager on 03/24/2007 and requested that the City Council direct the City Manager to hold a town meeting. She stated that they agreed that if the CEC and AES will come then he is willing to hold a meeting and to write a letter and to advertise in the local newspapers and to be on the front page.
REPORTS
5A. Committee Reports
3. Crime Prevention Committee
a. Minutes of February 12, 2007
CC-2007-33 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN WAS ABSENT), to accept the February 12, 2007 Minutes of the Crime Prevention Committee.
5B. Council Reports
Mayor Pro Tem Garcia, apologized for missing the last Council Meeting, she was not feeling well. She announced that the daffodils are blooming at Richard Rollins Park. She expressed her gratitude for the Inland Empire Breakfast and encouraged everyone to attend. She reported that a sunrise service will be held on Easter Sunday. She thanked Councilmember Jim Miller for attending the Commuter Rail Meeting. They were able to get the Commuter Rail Committee to agree to take no action at this time and allow SCAG to study the feasibility of the Metrolink station. She feels that it was beneficial to have Councilmember Miller there to speak on behalf of the project. She attended along with Mayor Ferré and Councilmember Cortes, the City County Conference. She reported that downtown San Bernardino will have a lot of building in the next five years. She was extremely impressed with the Director of Caltrans. She reported that she and Assistant City Manager Berry went to Sacramento for SCAG to testify on behalf of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and while they were there they were able to meet with Senator Dutton, who is doing a great job. They were also able to meet with Assemblyman Emmerson. It was a very good visit and very beneficial. She attended, along with Councilmember Cortes, the Economic Conference.
Councilmember Cortes, she enjoyed the forum with all the State Legislators that was held at the City County Conference. She announced that Vic Pfennighausen was in a terrible accident and wished him well. He is a long time resident of the City and a great volunteer and requested that a card and flowers be sent to him. She requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Dale C. Harpe. He had a long battle with cancer. He was active with the Girl Scouts and helped with a lot of their programs and coached little league. A certificate was prepared showing that the meeting was adjourned in his memory. She wished Richard Shields a happy birthday.
Councilmember Miller, feels that it may be the time to invite AES and the CEC to have a workshop so that everyone has a better understanding and knowledge of what is going on with the Power Plant. He reported that there is trash and junk on the hillside and asked him to get a hold of Caltrans. He indicated that it was Mayor Pro Tem Garcia that convinced the Commuter Rail Committee to go the way that they did. She is an excellent supporter of the community and the region and did a wonderful job changing the thoughts of some of the people on the Committee. He questioned when the next SANBAG meeting will be held.
Councilmember Cortes, responded that it will be on April 4, 2007.
Councilmember Miller, stated that Senator Emmerson will be having the Annual Woman of Distinction event. Laurie Shearer from the Library and Pauline Grant, a Volunteer for the City, will be honored at that event.
Mayor Ferré, indicated that she feels that the City looks very good.
PUBLIC HEARING
6A. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Adding Chapter 9.28 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code to Regulate Medical Marijuana Dispensaries within the City of Grand Terrace City Manager stated that currently the City of Grand Terrace does not have any regulations nor are there any codes cited regarding the medical marijuana dispensaries. Recent newspaper articles regarding this subject, many cities in the area are taking up ordinances and moratoriums to prevent these type of facilities to be located in their communities. He spoke to the City Attorney who recommended that the staff bring forth this Ordinance to regulate these type of dispensaries. Although the State of California has approved laws allowing for medical marijuana they are still prohibited under Federal Law are in violation of the Federal Controlled Substances Act. He is recommending that the Council conduct a Public Hearing and adopt the first reading of the Ordinance.
Mayor Ferré opened discussion to the public.
Thelma Winkler Beach, 12570 Mt. Vernon Avenue, expressed her thoughts regarding the proposed Ordinance. She encouraged the Council not to allow Marijuana Dispensaries in the City.
Mayor Ferré returned discussion to the Council.
CC-2007-34 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN WAS ABSENT), to approve the first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Adding Chapter 9.28 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code to Regulate Medical Marijuana Dispensaries within the City of Grand Terrace.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
CLOSED SESSION - None
Mayor Ferré adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m. in memory of Dale Harpe, until the next CRA/City Council Meeting which is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace
MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 24, 2007
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PM
22795 Barton Road
* Call to Order -
* Invocation -
* Pledge of Allegiance -
* Roll Call -
AGENDA ITEMS
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 6 PM
1. Approval of 03-27-2007 Minutes
2. Transfer Webster Property from CRA to City (22645 Grand Terrace Road)
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Blue Ribbon Week - Week of May 13, 2007
B. Women of Distinction
C. Proclamation - Earthquake Preparedness Month, April 2007
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
A. Approve Check Register Dated April 10, 2007 and April 24, 2007
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 03-27-2007 Minutes
D. Approval of NO OVERNIGHT PARKING ZONE on the North Side of De Berry Street, 861 Feet Westward from Mt. Vernon
E. Public Improvement Deferral Agreement (22195 McClarren Street)
THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT (909) 824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING, PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON BY THE MAYOR AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
F. Request to Purchase Two Motorola XTS-5000 Portable Radios Using California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) Funding
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the City Council may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Mayor may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request a matter be agendized for a future meeting.
5. REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
1. Emergency Operations Committee
a. Minutes of March 6, 2007
A. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Adding Chapter 9.28 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code to Regulate Medical Marijuana Dispensaries within the City of Grand Terrace
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Red Light Photo Enforcement (Redflex Traffic Systems)
B. 2007 Contract with the City of San Bernardino for Animal Housing Services
C. Joint Community Facilities Agreement (JCFA) and Reimbursement Agreement for the Springbrook Project
D. Award Contract for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funded Project - Newport Avenue Street Improvement #32325
9. CLOSED SESSION - None
ADJOURN
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007 AT 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE NO LATER THAN 14 CALENDAR DAYS PRECEDING THE MEETING.
MINUTES TO BE APPROVED
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 27, 2007
A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace, was held in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on March 27, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Maryetta Ferré, Chairman
Lee Ann Garcia, Vice-Chairman
Bea Cortes, Agency Member
Jim Miller, Agency Member
Tom Schwab, City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager
Larry Ronnow, Finance Director
Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director
Lt. Hector Guerra, Sheriff=s Department
Rick McClintock, San Bernardino County Fire Department
Colin Burns, City Attorney
ABSENT: Dan Buchanan, Agency Member
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
John Harper, City Attorney
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
APPROVAL OF 03-13-2007 MINUTES
CRA-2007-09 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER CORTES, SECOND AGENCY MEMBER MILLER, CARRIED 3-0-1-1 (VICE-CHAIRMAN GARCIA ABSTAINED AND AGENCY MEMBER BUCHANAN WAS ABSENT), to approve the March 13, 2007 Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes.
Chairman Ferré adjourned the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 6:15 p.m., until the next CRA/City Council Meeting that is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
SECRETARY of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
CHAIRMAN of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 27, 2007
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on March 27, 2007, at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Maryetta Ferré, Mayor
Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem
Bea Cortes, Councilmember
Jim Miller, Councilmember
Tom Schwab, City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager
Larry Ronnow, Finance Director
Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director
Lt. Hector Guerra, Sheriff=s Department
Rick McClintock, San Bernardino County Fire
Colin Burns, City Attorney
ABSENT: Dan Buchanan, Councilmember
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
John Harper, City Attorney
The City Council meeting was opened with Invocation by Pastor Salim Elias, Azure Hills Seventh-Day Adventist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilman Jim Miller.
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ITEMS TO DELETE - None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - National Crime Victims’ Week - April 22-28, 2007
Mayor Pro Tem Garcia read a proclamation proclaiming the week of April 22 through 28, 2007 as National Crime Victims’ Week in the City of Grand Terrace.
B. Proclamation - National Day of Prayer - May 3, 2007
Councilmember Cortes read a proclamation proclaiming May 3, 2007 as National Day of Prayer in the City of Grand Terrace urging all citizens to observe this day in keeping with their personal beliefs.
Mayor Ferré presented Carolyn Preschern with the proclamation. Carolyn Preschern, Moderator, Connecting Leaders Through Prayer, thanked the City for the proclamation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
CC-2007-32 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN WAS ABSENT), to approve the following Consent Calendar Items:
3A. Approve Check Register Dated March 27, 2007
3B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
3C. Approval of 03-13-2007 Minutes
3D. Notice of Completion - 2006-2007 Slurry Seal Program (American Asphalt South, Inc.)
3E. Contract Between the City of Grand Terrace - Blue Waves Swim Program and the Riverside YMCA for Swim Lessons and Open Swim Program at Terrace Hills Middle School for Summer 2007
PUBLIC COMMENT
Roxanne Williams, 22005 Tanager Street, indicated that she has a proclamation that she would like the City Council and City Manager to consider and read the following:
Proclamation In Opposition to the AES Highgrove Power Plant
WHEREAS, the City Council of Grand Terrace supports the construction of the Colton Unified School District;s high school #3; and
WHEREAS, City Council of Grand Terrace finds that the AES Highgrove Power Plant is not in the best interest of the city, and offers no direct benefit to its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the AES Highgrove Power Plant poses safety risks to the high school #3 students due to the power plant=s storage of hazardous materials (ammonia, sulfuric acid, etc.), transport of wastewater, and the proximity of high pressure gas lines; and
WHEREAS, the AES Highgrove Power Plant will emit harmful air emissions of particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM 10), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxides (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2); and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED that the City Council of Grand Terrace:
HEREBY expresses our opposition to the AES Highgrove Power Plant
HEREBY urges the California Energy Commission (CEC), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the Colton Joint Unified School District to oppose the AES Highgrove Power Plant.
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the City of Grand Terrace urges its citizens and neighboring cities to oppose the AES Highgrove Power Plant.Dated March 27, 2007
She feels that the proclamation is important and that the City Council’s opinion should be heard prior to the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Energy Commission’s preliminary determinations. They should have the City Council’s input prior to the preliminary determinations. The proclamation will serve that purpose of that communication. She feels that the City Council has a responsibility to make a proclamation on the building and operation of a polluting power plant within its borders. She indicated that she met with the City Manager on 03/24/2007 and requested that the City Council direct the City Manager to hold a town meeting. She stated that they agreed that if the CEC and AES will come then he is willing to hold a meeting and to write a letter and to advertise in the local newspapers and to be on the front page.
REPORTS
5A. Committee Reports
3. Crime Prevention Committee
a. Minutes of February 12, 2007
CC-2007-33 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN WAS ABSENT), to accept the February 12, 2007 Minutes of the Crime Prevention Committee.
5B. Council Reports
Mayor Pro Tem Garcia, apologized for missing the last Council Meeting, she was not feeling well. She announced that the daffodils are blooming at Richard Rollins Park. She expressed her gratitude for the Inland Empire Breakfast and encouraged everyone to attend. She reported that a sunrise service will be held on Easter Sunday. She thanked Councilmember Jim Miller for attending the Commuter Rail Meeting. They were able to get the Commuter Rail Committee to agree to take no action at this time and allow SCAG to study the feasibility of the Metrolink station. She feels that it was beneficial to have Councilmember Miller there to speak on behalf of the project. She attended along with Mayor Ferré and Councilmember Cortes, the City County Conference. She reported that downtown San Bernardino will have a lot of building in the next five years. She was extremely impressed with the Director of Caltrans. She reported that she and Assistant City Manager Berry went to Sacramento for SCAG to testify on behalf of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and while they were there they were able to meet with Senator Dutton, who is doing a great job. They were also able to meet with Assemblyman Emmerson. It was a very good visit and very beneficial. She attended, along with Councilmember Cortes, the Economic Conference.
Councilmember Cortes, she enjoyed the forum with all the State Legislators that was held at the City County Conference. She announced that Vic Pfennighausen was in a terrible accident and wished him well. He is a long time resident of the City and a great volunteer and requested that a card and flowers be sent to him. She requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Dale C. Harpe. He had a long battle with cancer. He was active with the Girl Scouts and helped with a lot of their programs and coached little league. A certificate was prepared showing that the meeting was adjourned in his memory. She wished Richard Shields a happy birthday.
Councilmember Miller, feels that it may be the time to invite AES and the CEC to have a workshop so that everyone has a better understanding and knowledge of what is going on with the Power Plant. He reported that there is trash and junk on the hillside and asked him to get a hold of Caltrans. He indicated that it was Mayor Pro Tem Garcia that convinced the Commuter Rail Committee to go the way that they did. She is an excellent supporter of the community and the region and did a wonderful job changing the thoughts of some of the people on the Committee. He questioned when the next SANBAG meeting will be held.
Councilmember Cortes, responded that it will be on April 4, 2007.
Councilmember Miller, stated that Senator Emmerson will be having the Annual Woman of Distinction event. Laurie Shearer from the Library and Pauline Grant, a Volunteer for the City, will be honored at that event.
Mayor Ferré, indicated that she feels that the City looks very good.
PUBLIC HEARING
6A. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Adding Chapter 9.28 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code to Regulate Medical Marijuana Dispensaries within the City of Grand Terrace City Manager stated that currently the City of Grand Terrace does not have any regulations nor are there any codes cited regarding the medical marijuana dispensaries. Recent newspaper articles regarding this subject, many cities in the area are taking up ordinances and moratoriums to prevent these type of facilities to be located in their communities. He spoke to the City Attorney who recommended that the staff bring forth this Ordinance to regulate these type of dispensaries. Although the State of California has approved laws allowing for medical marijuana they are still prohibited under Federal Law are in violation of the Federal Controlled Substances Act. He is recommending that the Council conduct a Public Hearing and adopt the first reading of the Ordinance.
Mayor Ferré opened discussion to the public.
Thelma Winkler Beach, 12570 Mt. Vernon Avenue, expressed her thoughts regarding the proposed Ordinance. She encouraged the Council not to allow Marijuana Dispensaries in the City.
Mayor Ferré returned discussion to the Council.
CC-2007-34 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN WAS ABSENT), to approve the first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Adding Chapter 9.28 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code to Regulate Medical Marijuana Dispensaries within the City of Grand Terrace.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
CLOSED SESSION - None
Mayor Ferré adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m. in memory of Dale Harpe, until the next CRA/City Council Meeting which is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace
MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
From InTheNews: Death of Richard Rollins
GT icon kept his parks pristine
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 04/17/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_5683855
GRAND TERRACE - They called him "Mr. Clean" because he was obsessed with keeping everything spotless. Years before he started working for the city, Richard Rollins was a fixture at the park across from his house that was later named in his honor.
"He would go over there and pick up trash and keep the place neat and tidy. He sort of became the caretaker of that park on his own," City Manager Tom Schwab said.
Rollins, a Grand Terrace resident since about 1960, was found dead Sunday afternoon in his home of apparent heart failure. He was 85.
City leaders and relatives remember Rollins as an integral part of the Grand Terrace fabric. He campaigned door to door for Grand Terrace to become its own city rather than to be annexed to Colton.
He also formed the first Parks and Recreation Committee when the city was incorporated in 1978. Rollins also fought to protect land that a developer wanted to build houses on so it could be preserved for a park. The land became Terrace Hills Community Park, which was renamed Richard Rollins Park in 1997.
Rollins was so dedicated to taking care of the park that the city finally offered him a part-time job in the early 1990s.
Until the day before his death, Rollins was responsible for opening and closing Rollins and Pico parks seven days a week. He also cleaned the restrooms and picked up trash at the two parks. "Even when we asked him recently if he wanted to slow down and not take on the responsibility of taking care of the parks, he insisted on doing it as long as he could," Schwab said. "Toward the end, he was using a cane and a walker."
His obsession with cleanliness extended to his personal life. Andy Rollins, the eldest of his three sons, said his father washed down the sidewalk and curb in front of his house and washed his truck several times a week. "He didn't like the way his wife cleaned the house, so he cleaned it himself," Andy Rollins said. "I guarantee that his truck is sitting in his garage right now and there's not a spot on it, and it has 400,000 miles on it."
Rollins also served on the citizen's patrol crime prevention committee and volunteered with several community events such as Grand Terrace Days and the former Tour de Terrace bicycle race. "He meant everything to Grand Terrace," said JoAnn Johnson, the volunteer director of the Grand Terrace Senior Center. "He did so many things that it's just impossible to remember everything."
Rollins, a native of Detroit, enlisted in the Army in 1942 and served in World War II.
He moved to California in 1952 and lived in Riverside before coming to Grand Terrace.
He spent much of his life after the war working in the construction business.
Rollins was married twice, first to Jean Lepley and later to Beth Gordon. Both died earlier.
He is survived by three sons with his first wife, Andy Rollins, 60, of Melbourne, Fla.; Don Rollins, 59, of Eugene, Ore.; and David Rollins, 56, of Scotts Mills, Ore.; a sister, Janet Daniels of Los Altos; and five grandchildren.
Andy Rollins said his father did not want a funeral or burial service.
The city plans to schedule a memorial event in his honor.
He will be buried at Riverside National Cemetery.
Sun Telegram:
IN Brief: GRAND TERRACE Service planned for park volunteer
The city and The Brook Church will have a memorial service for volunteer Richard Rollins at 3 p.m. Friday at Rollins Park, 22735 De Berry St.
Rollins was a longtime resident whose passion for taking care of the park led to it being named in his honor. Rollins died earlier this week at age 85.
Also in the News:
Grand Terrace Day Care Snow Day: costs 4,500.00 for the one day event. 100 Children will paricipate in the one day event. Funds to pay for the one day event in part came from the Walk-a-thon Fundraiser we see on TV CH 3. The cost of the Day of Snow is 45.00 per child.
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 04/17/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_5683855
GRAND TERRACE - They called him "Mr. Clean" because he was obsessed with keeping everything spotless. Years before he started working for the city, Richard Rollins was a fixture at the park across from his house that was later named in his honor.
"He would go over there and pick up trash and keep the place neat and tidy. He sort of became the caretaker of that park on his own," City Manager Tom Schwab said.
Rollins, a Grand Terrace resident since about 1960, was found dead Sunday afternoon in his home of apparent heart failure. He was 85.
City leaders and relatives remember Rollins as an integral part of the Grand Terrace fabric. He campaigned door to door for Grand Terrace to become its own city rather than to be annexed to Colton.
He also formed the first Parks and Recreation Committee when the city was incorporated in 1978. Rollins also fought to protect land that a developer wanted to build houses on so it could be preserved for a park. The land became Terrace Hills Community Park, which was renamed Richard Rollins Park in 1997.
Rollins was so dedicated to taking care of the park that the city finally offered him a part-time job in the early 1990s.
Until the day before his death, Rollins was responsible for opening and closing Rollins and Pico parks seven days a week. He also cleaned the restrooms and picked up trash at the two parks. "Even when we asked him recently if he wanted to slow down and not take on the responsibility of taking care of the parks, he insisted on doing it as long as he could," Schwab said. "Toward the end, he was using a cane and a walker."
His obsession with cleanliness extended to his personal life. Andy Rollins, the eldest of his three sons, said his father washed down the sidewalk and curb in front of his house and washed his truck several times a week. "He didn't like the way his wife cleaned the house, so he cleaned it himself," Andy Rollins said. "I guarantee that his truck is sitting in his garage right now and there's not a spot on it, and it has 400,000 miles on it."
Rollins also served on the citizen's patrol crime prevention committee and volunteered with several community events such as Grand Terrace Days and the former Tour de Terrace bicycle race. "He meant everything to Grand Terrace," said JoAnn Johnson, the volunteer director of the Grand Terrace Senior Center. "He did so many things that it's just impossible to remember everything."
Rollins, a native of Detroit, enlisted in the Army in 1942 and served in World War II.
He moved to California in 1952 and lived in Riverside before coming to Grand Terrace.
He spent much of his life after the war working in the construction business.
Rollins was married twice, first to Jean Lepley and later to Beth Gordon. Both died earlier.
He is survived by three sons with his first wife, Andy Rollins, 60, of Melbourne, Fla.; Don Rollins, 59, of Eugene, Ore.; and David Rollins, 56, of Scotts Mills, Ore.; a sister, Janet Daniels of Los Altos; and five grandchildren.
Andy Rollins said his father did not want a funeral or burial service.
The city plans to schedule a memorial event in his honor.
He will be buried at Riverside National Cemetery.
Sun Telegram:
IN Brief: GRAND TERRACE Service planned for park volunteer
The city and The Brook Church will have a memorial service for volunteer Richard Rollins at 3 p.m. Friday at Rollins Park, 22735 De Berry St.
Rollins was a longtime resident whose passion for taking care of the park led to it being named in his honor. Rollins died earlier this week at age 85.
Also in the News:
Grand Terrace Day Care Snow Day: costs 4,500.00 for the one day event. 100 Children will paricipate in the one day event. Funds to pay for the one day event in part came from the Walk-a-thon Fundraiser we see on TV CH 3. The cost of the Day of Snow is 45.00 per child.
Monday, April 16, 2007
From the Email InBox: State of Air 2006 re AES Power Plant
The American Lung Association State of the Air 2006 Report , offers a great deal of information that may be of assistance in determining your support or concern regarding the proposed AES Power Plant.
In Summary:
We live in some of he worst possible air quality in the country. We are already at the high end of health affects due to pollution of all types. To add anymore to what is already unhealthy, is just asking for more adverse health affects. Will the AES Power Plant be paying for all the Citizens in our town, and students attending HS #3 and residents of Highrove to have full medical coverage, as they max out our capacity to survive our unhealthful air?
The Report is 98 pages, down load it here.
http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/sota06/SOTA06_Final.pdf
San Bernardino County:
HIGH OZONE DAYS 2006 Report
Ozone Grade: F
Weighted Average: 109
Orange Ozone Days: 150
Red Ozone Days: 86
Purple Ozone Days: 24
PARTICLE POLLUTION - 24 Hour 2006 Report
Grade: F
Weighted Average: 21.8
Orange Particle Days: 49
Red Particle Days: 11
Purple Particle Days: 0
PARTICLE POLLUTION - Annual 2006 Report
Grade: FAIL
Design Value 23.4
GROUPS AT RISK
Pediatric Asthma: 50,045
Adult Asthma: 101,975
Chronic Bronchitis: 53,378
Emphysema: 18,462
Cardiovascular Disease: 390,748
Diabetes: 81,249
Total Population: 1,921,131
Population Under 18: 590,853
Population 65 & Over: 157,655
RIVERSIDE County
HIGH OZONE DAYS 2006 Report
Ozone Grade: F
Weighted Average: 93.2
Orange Ozone Days: 165
Red Ozone Days: 67
Purple Ozone Days: 7
PARTICLE POLLUTION - 24 Hour 2006 Report
Grade: F
Weighted Average: 54.8
Orange Particle Days: 133
Red Particle Days: 21
Purple Particle Days: 0
PARTICLE POLLUTION - Annual 2006 Report
Grade: FAIL
Design Value 24.8
GROUPS AT RISK
Pediatric Asthma: 45,258
Adult Asthma: 101,805
Chronic Bronchitis: 55,076
Emphysema: 21,193
Cardiovascular Disease: 424,140
Diabetes: 88,859
Total Population: 1,871,950
Population Under 18: 534,328
Population 65 & Over: 217,741
In Summary:
We live in some of he worst possible air quality in the country. We are already at the high end of health affects due to pollution of all types. To add anymore to what is already unhealthy, is just asking for more adverse health affects. Will the AES Power Plant be paying for all the Citizens in our town, and students attending HS #3 and residents of Highrove to have full medical coverage, as they max out our capacity to survive our unhealthful air?
The Report is 98 pages, down load it here.
http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/sota06/SOTA06_Final.pdf
San Bernardino County:
HIGH OZONE DAYS 2006 Report
Ozone Grade: F
Weighted Average: 109
Orange Ozone Days: 150
Red Ozone Days: 86
Purple Ozone Days: 24
PARTICLE POLLUTION - 24 Hour 2006 Report
Grade: F
Weighted Average: 21.8
Orange Particle Days: 49
Red Particle Days: 11
Purple Particle Days: 0
PARTICLE POLLUTION - Annual 2006 Report
Grade: FAIL
Design Value 23.4
GROUPS AT RISK
Pediatric Asthma: 50,045
Adult Asthma: 101,975
Chronic Bronchitis: 53,378
Emphysema: 18,462
Cardiovascular Disease: 390,748
Diabetes: 81,249
Total Population: 1,921,131
Population Under 18: 590,853
Population 65 & Over: 157,655
RIVERSIDE County
HIGH OZONE DAYS 2006 Report
Ozone Grade: F
Weighted Average: 93.2
Orange Ozone Days: 165
Red Ozone Days: 67
Purple Ozone Days: 7
PARTICLE POLLUTION - 24 Hour 2006 Report
Grade: F
Weighted Average: 54.8
Orange Particle Days: 133
Red Particle Days: 21
Purple Particle Days: 0
PARTICLE POLLUTION - Annual 2006 Report
Grade: FAIL
Design Value 24.8
GROUPS AT RISK
Pediatric Asthma: 45,258
Adult Asthma: 101,805
Chronic Bronchitis: 55,076
Emphysema: 21,193
Cardiovascular Disease: 424,140
Diabetes: 88,859
Total Population: 1,871,950
Population Under 18: 534,328
Population 65 & Over: 217,741
From the Email InBox: Reese Fire UPDATE
kay reese wrote:
Hi Gramps,
Hope this note finds you well. You had asked me to keep you informed about our situation.
Since our last email conversation, I was contacted by the bishop for the Latter Day Saints. I think his name is Corey Sorenson. He met with us over at Deseret Industries and helped us out with some clothing.
The Lions Club club donated a generous amount in Stater Bros gift cards.
The Grand Terrace news published an article about our situation and asked the public for assistance, so we have received some very nice items through that venue as well.
Jim and I just want to thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your kindness and your interest in us and our well being. None of the above would have ever happened if it wasn't for you. If our world had a few more people like you in it, then I'm pretty certain it would be a different place.
Jim and I are still staying with family. Our lives are still horribly disrupted and are going to continue to be for some time. But I guess thats to be expected. I will continue to keep you advised Gramps.
Once again thank you for your unsolicited kindness.
Best Regards,Kay
Dear Kay,
Thank you for your kind words. It is a small thing that I did. I will post your email as a progress report. Please let me know if you come to a point needing a bit more assistance. Things will pop up..
We are at our best when we are in service to others. Sometimes in our lives we are the ones served.
Gramps.
Hi Gramps,
Hope this note finds you well. You had asked me to keep you informed about our situation.
Since our last email conversation, I was contacted by the bishop for the Latter Day Saints. I think his name is Corey Sorenson. He met with us over at Deseret Industries and helped us out with some clothing.
The Lions Club club donated a generous amount in Stater Bros gift cards.
The Grand Terrace news published an article about our situation and asked the public for assistance, so we have received some very nice items through that venue as well.
Jim and I just want to thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your kindness and your interest in us and our well being. None of the above would have ever happened if it wasn't for you. If our world had a few more people like you in it, then I'm pretty certain it would be a different place.
Jim and I are still staying with family. Our lives are still horribly disrupted and are going to continue to be for some time. But I guess thats to be expected. I will continue to keep you advised Gramps.
Once again thank you for your unsolicited kindness.
Best Regards,Kay
Dear Kay,
Thank you for your kind words. It is a small thing that I did. I will post your email as a progress report. Please let me know if you come to a point needing a bit more assistance. Things will pop up..
We are at our best when we are in service to others. Sometimes in our lives we are the ones served.
Gramps.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
From the Email InBox: DUMPSTER DAY REPORT
Dear Gramps Please Post This Good News Story:
Dumpster Day April 14, 2007 was a well attended event. The line started forming at 7:30 and soon there was a line of cars truck and even a few trailers. They contained old well used furniture, old washers, refrigerators, fans, yard trimming, chairs and all things that won’t fit into a 96 gl trash can. I wonder if the Staff will report on the strangest thing dumped. The Largest thing dumped. Dumpster Day Report could be made almost fun.
This service to the community is a great aid. It was well organized and attended. Of course it is always a great idea to review an activity and see how it could be improved.
Some people may have items to dispose of but have no way of getting them to the drop off point. Here is an opportunity for the Sports Teams to earn money. Perhaps the City and the Sports teams could coordinate resources. Parents and Citizens who own trucks could act as Curb Side Pick Up Service. The home owner would pre arrange for a Full or half Load to be picked up at the curb for a “Donation” to the Teams. The Pick Up Points being limited of course to Grand Terrace and if the city requires it… Perhaps the Sports Team Driver will check ID, and Keep a Pick Up Log to account for funds and data reporting.
For those delivering items in and on cars a neighborly assist by someone with a truck would have been most welcome.
PickUP and Deliver Service could be a challenge between teams and even Service Clubs for example the Lions, Women’s Club or perhaps even 4H and Church Youth Clubs could join in the aid in transporting the item from curb to Drop Off Point.
Well again, a well done event, people were all appreciative, and friendly. Perhaps this could be a quarterly event rather than bi-annual. When and IF he participation does not fill the containers, the number of events may be reduced to two a year. This is a event where the City Staff from Code Enforcement to Maintenance are able to be collaborators in the Citizens efforts to tend to the yards and homes. I think that if this was done more often and with curb pick up fund raising at the same time. The Code Enforcement Officer would be delivering good news to folks that need to trim this or that.
A letter saying, Here is the day, Here is the Time, Here is who to contact for the Pickup… This is specifically what needs to be done. Do you need any additional help. IF these notices went out 2 weeks prior to Dumpster Day, the home owners would be less overwhelmed, and the entire city could focus a couple of weeks 4 times a year on Pruning, Cleaning and Dumping Large Items.
A letter or communication like that would be much friendlier than the form letters filled with threats, non specific directions, and an already expired deadline that have stressed many of our older senior residents over the years.
If there is a way to make Code Enforcement a Friendlier Task, it may be worth trying it.. I am sure he Code Envorcement Officers would like to deminish the advasarial nature of the communication and task they are charged with. Perhaps the above would help in doing that.
It may also help if the Code Enforcement Officer aided residents in obtaining additional trash cans or on location dumpsters. Many homeowers do not know how to get this done. I don't.. Gramps perhaps you can find out who do you call to get a dumpster, more trash cans? Green Cans in paricular.
Well Done… Well Done…
Citizens who were up and Loaded Today and to the City Staff and Waste Management... Well Done...
Thanks
RR
Dumpster Day April 14, 2007 was a well attended event. The line started forming at 7:30 and soon there was a line of cars truck and even a few trailers. They contained old well used furniture, old washers, refrigerators, fans, yard trimming, chairs and all things that won’t fit into a 96 gl trash can. I wonder if the Staff will report on the strangest thing dumped. The Largest thing dumped. Dumpster Day Report could be made almost fun.
This service to the community is a great aid. It was well organized and attended. Of course it is always a great idea to review an activity and see how it could be improved.
Some people may have items to dispose of but have no way of getting them to the drop off point. Here is an opportunity for the Sports Teams to earn money. Perhaps the City and the Sports teams could coordinate resources. Parents and Citizens who own trucks could act as Curb Side Pick Up Service. The home owner would pre arrange for a Full or half Load to be picked up at the curb for a “Donation” to the Teams. The Pick Up Points being limited of course to Grand Terrace and if the city requires it… Perhaps the Sports Team Driver will check ID, and Keep a Pick Up Log to account for funds and data reporting.
For those delivering items in and on cars a neighborly assist by someone with a truck would have been most welcome.
PickUP and Deliver Service could be a challenge between teams and even Service Clubs for example the Lions, Women’s Club or perhaps even 4H and Church Youth Clubs could join in the aid in transporting the item from curb to Drop Off Point.
Well again, a well done event, people were all appreciative, and friendly. Perhaps this could be a quarterly event rather than bi-annual. When and IF he participation does not fill the containers, the number of events may be reduced to two a year. This is a event where the City Staff from Code Enforcement to Maintenance are able to be collaborators in the Citizens efforts to tend to the yards and homes. I think that if this was done more often and with curb pick up fund raising at the same time. The Code Enforcement Officer would be delivering good news to folks that need to trim this or that.
A letter saying, Here is the day, Here is the Time, Here is who to contact for the Pickup… This is specifically what needs to be done. Do you need any additional help. IF these notices went out 2 weeks prior to Dumpster Day, the home owners would be less overwhelmed, and the entire city could focus a couple of weeks 4 times a year on Pruning, Cleaning and Dumping Large Items.
A letter or communication like that would be much friendlier than the form letters filled with threats, non specific directions, and an already expired deadline that have stressed many of our older senior residents over the years.
If there is a way to make Code Enforcement a Friendlier Task, it may be worth trying it.. I am sure he Code Envorcement Officers would like to deminish the advasarial nature of the communication and task they are charged with. Perhaps the above would help in doing that.
It may also help if the Code Enforcement Officer aided residents in obtaining additional trash cans or on location dumpsters. Many homeowers do not know how to get this done. I don't.. Gramps perhaps you can find out who do you call to get a dumpster, more trash cans? Green Cans in paricular.
Well Done… Well Done…
Citizens who were up and Loaded Today and to the City Staff and Waste Management... Well Done...
Thanks
RR
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Reminders:
Free Dump Day is this weekend April 14th....
Dumpsters will be on Canal, line starts at Barton Rd... turn onto Canal, and you will exit Dumpster Lane at the Mt. Vernon intersection.....
Free Compost May 19th... 100 lbs of the good stuff per resident... Bring your own containers. Again this will be in the same area on Canal Street (Edison Property)..
City Council Meeting to Resume.... and Planning Revisions to be reviewed.... Ongoing.
Dumpsters will be on Canal, line starts at Barton Rd... turn onto Canal, and you will exit Dumpster Lane at the Mt. Vernon intersection.....
Free Compost May 19th... 100 lbs of the good stuff per resident... Bring your own containers. Again this will be in the same area on Canal Street (Edison Property)..
City Council Meeting to Resume.... and Planning Revisions to be reviewed.... Ongoing.
Monday, April 09, 2007
From the Email InBox: Murder at Zendejas Resturant
Dear Gramps:
The tragic shooting and Murder at the Zendejas Mexican Restaurant in Colton just a hop skip and a jump away from Grand Terrace should be a warning of the potential activity if there is allowed additional Bar Centered Restaurants in Grand Terrace in Particular in an area adjacent to residential homes.
Imagine if there are bullets firring in the proposed Town Square Development. Who will be in the line of fire, folks sleeping in their beds? Do Concrete walls stop all bullets? Will there be cars spraying bullets down Michigan as a Fight leaves the Parking lot and goes into the residential areas?
National Bars and clubs like Chilies, TGIF, and even the Non Chain Club Zendejas, Club 215 and the club on La Cadena have all been areas of violent crime. Knives and Guns and Alcohol seem to gravitate to the same places.
If the City Hall and the ABC Board approve such a facility in the Town Square the next thing the Planning Department may want to add to the city plan is a Cemetery for the Deaths caused by that source of much sought after "Income".
Watch carefully the businesses that are being included in the Town Square. We don't need our citizens to be at the Bars, nor do we need to invite this type of money and the expense it will bring to our community. We do not have the resources for the Law Enforcement for such activities, and the revenue generated will not cover the cost in money or lives.
Look at the number of arrests that are related to drug and alcohol use. Do we need to attract and nurture more of the same? I say no..
From the EMail InBox: Brian Adds His Opinion
I don't want the Town Centre to consist of a bunch of bars, etc either, but the previous poster's logic is flawed. A man was killed in his front yard on the same day as the Zendejas shooting. Should Grand Terrace ban all front yards. Should we ban cars due to a drive-by in San Bernardino. A shooting in Colton, San Bernardino, LA, or where ever, does not mean that it will happen here. Freedom means having choices. If I want to go to the town center, have a beer, and watch a game, I should have that option in Grand Terrace. The problem is not the bar...per se...its the people. Lets stop the hysterical hyperbole, shall we. "Will the brick wall stop all the bullets?" Give me a break! Just a thought.
Brian
From the Email InBox: Reply to Brian's Thoughts...
Brian’s logic… is the logic with the flaws. Of course front yards should not be banned as he suggests. His failure to accept the fact that the use of drugs and alcohol contributes to the majority of crime, violence and civil disturbances in our society is indicative of a person who is not wanting to assimilate available data. In addition the reality of the limited available law enforcement presence in Grand Terrace should further support a ban on any additional ABC Licenses issued in GT for any type of business, bars, restaurants, gas stations, or stores.
Brian, if you want to sit at a bar and watch a game, yes you have a right to do that in a town where they have adequate law enforcement to regulate the associated problems that come from it. A desire to not invite the associate problems of Bars, Alcohol Outlets and Increase Alcohol and Drug Consumption is in truth the prior writers point. Yes Brian You are right, People are the Problem. People who will be attracted to a Bar are the Problem. Their compromised thought process and behavior is the problem. Do we gain from opening up our small town to these added challenges for the “Benefit” of increased taxes? An empty field is better use of the property than a Bar of even the BEST People as Guests.
How about watching the game with an Iced Tea or do you NEED a BEER to enjoy yourself?
From the Email InBox:
Dear Gramps,
We already have a saturation point of Alcohol Sales Points in Our City. There is no need to locate another in Grand Terrace let alone near an Elementary School. Attached is an article that may be informative to Brian and to those who are even entertaining the idea of additional liquor sales points in GT or even transfering of existing licenses such as Stater Brothers to Town Square which is so close to the Elementary School. Sure you will no doubt hear from Brian, that the gas stations sell alcohol and they are closer to the school. Well, that is a case of false logic. The mix of Gas, Schools and Alcohol should not be acceptable to any of us. To add to something that is already not good just will make it worse.
Thanks. Lets Count how many places in GT Sell Alcohol:
CVS "Drug Store", Taco Villa, Starbucks(Yes) Some of their "Flavors" are alcohol based, Chevron, GT Liquor, Stater Brothers, Bonellos, Tie Resturant, TJ's Bar (Or what ever it's new name is), Food Connection, Stop and Go Market, ARCO, GTMarket, Quick Market near Demetri's.
That is 16 places in a town of less than 13,000 people. Is the Shell Station going to add Alcohol Sales? That would be 17. Add a replacement for Stater Brothers Mkt wanting a liquor license and that will be 18. They Booze Zone From Mt. Vernon and Barton Rd, to Barton Rd and the 214 has all but one of the outlets for alcohol. This is a saturation zone already. Adding a Bar or Resturant that serves alcohol will just further flood this area and the community.
Three points of sale would be across the street from the GT Elm School. Even letting Stater's Relocate its license may need to be reviewed with CAUTION. Do we need a Biger Liquor Section as Jack Brown promoted as being a feature of the new store? If there are to be additional points of sale in the Town Center as suggested a Chili's Bar and Grill or an additional "Drug Store that sales Liquor", we are pre programing our children to accept consumption of alcohol just by its prevalance and its location.
Brian, you can keep your front yard. But, the community may want to think about additional locations for you to have your beer and watch the Game. The community may also want to think about how many places you have available to purchase your beer. Beer Drinking is not a RIGHT, it is a regulated activity. There is significant reason and justification for that regulation so the orriginal post was not flawed in its logic Brian. Yes Brian you have the ability to go sit in a Bar and watch the game, just not in this town.
Gramps Please Post:
First off..I don't routinely drink. Not even socially. I probably have 3-4 beers per YEAR, if that. My point is not that I need a beer to watch a game. My point is that if a person does want a beer to watch a game...that should be an option. Do you not understand that to mandate that someone "drink Iced Tea" instead of beer is not freedom. This is true no mater how distasteful you may find it. One of the marks of an open mind is to be able to accept that people like and do different things, even though you may find them distasteful
I agree with most all of the content of the articles that you've provided. I see the consequences of alcohol ABUSE...not simple consumption...ABUSE every singe day. I'm buried in it and don't need that lecture. Everything can increase crime if abused. Guns, baseball bats, cars..everything. Establishments such as Chili's cannot be lumped in the same category as a corner liquor store in South Central Los Angeles. The articles dealt almost exclusively with off-sale liquor outlets in poor/high crime neighborhoods. Chili's is not an off-sale liquor outlet and Grand Terrace is not a high crime neighborhood. Alcohol does not create crime...it can enhance it in an otherwise violent person. The non-violent surgical technician or engineer who goes to Chili's is no more likely to commit a crime after a beer than he was before that beer. The fact remains though that we, as a society, have decided that alcohol is legal and acceptable. We tried prohibition once. It didn't work and increased crime dramatically.
"The types" of people who will go to a Chili's are ordinary Grand Terrace Citizens. For you or anyone to assume that our residents can't handle a restaurant that serves beer, and that they will start beating and shooting one another is absurd. You treat us like children who need to be regulated at every turn, lest we go crazy and fall prey to the evils of the big bad world. Remember..we're all different and we all like different things.
Brian
Dear Gramps Please Post:
Brian suggests that the City of Grand Terrace and the ABC board have no regulatory reason to justify not inviting a Chili’s Type Bar and Grill to Grand Terrace. His statement
“One of the marks of an open mind is to be able to accept that people like and do different things, even though you may find them distasteful”. Is a contradiction to his prior support of the City Council, and shows continued flawed logic and true concern for his family and yours.
The mayor and council find speakers speaking longer than 3 minutes a bother to the flow of the City Council Meetings. The City Council and the City won’t let you have a chicken in your yard where the County Regulation would allow 6 chickens and one rooster. I can go on and on how the City Regulates the lives of people they find “distasteful”, right down to who gets to park an RV and what kind of RV can be parked on private property. So Brian, lets be Fair and get rid of all City Regulations including the one that allows Fireworks when the County Does Not, but ABC Board May still say no to additional Alcohol Distribution Points as State Regulations are at their limit as it now stands.
Chili’s Bar and Grill would not serve only Grand Terrace Residents as Brian wants the reader to believe. Chilie’s, TGIF, OutBack, and so forth are not Neighborhood Restaurants, they are Destination Restaurants that will invite many people from outside of Grand Terrace to Grand Terrace for the sole purpose of Getting Drunk with Friends. His suggestion that is not the fact of the business plan he is seriously delusional.
Yes the study sighted was about South Central LA. We are just about ready to pattern our business district in the same way. Brian’s suggestion that it won’t happen here is like those who say 50% of Drugs are Used in the City, and ignore that the other 50% are used in towns like Grand Terrace or on farms in Iowa.
I invite anyone interested in what a Chili’s will bring to GT to visit any of them on a busy night and see if you want that near your home and school.
The fact is that alcohol is regulated, its distribution is regulated, and part of that regulation limits the number of permits to distribute and sell to 600 feet of a school, church, or pre existing license. It also limits it to one per one thousand people. In Grand Terrace that would be 12 places of distribution, we have 17 now. We have DUI, and Domestic Violence sufficient to keep our Sheriff busy. What the Regulation of Alcohol does not do is cause the Sellers to Compensate the City, and Victims of its consumption for the damages and expenses incurred. If each alcohol license also paid for a Law Enforcement Officer each, and Medical and Property Insurance for all incidences where alcohol has contributed to the cause of injury or damage, perhaps you could justify the inclusion of a Chili’s in a development which is being built on a project so entangled with the Redevelopment Agency.
"The types of people who will go to a Chili's are ordinary Grand Terrace Citizens”. Ordinary Grand Terrace Citizens and those who drive through our town are weekly arrested for intoxication and public intoxication, and DUI and Drug Charges. There is no need to increase neither the availability nor the suggested acceptance of the use of alcohol in GT.
The tragic shooting and Murder at the Zendejas Mexican Restaurant in Colton just a hop skip and a jump away from Grand Terrace should be a warning of the potential activity if there is allowed additional Bar Centered Restaurants in Grand Terrace in Particular in an area adjacent to residential homes.
Imagine if there are bullets firring in the proposed Town Square Development. Who will be in the line of fire, folks sleeping in their beds? Do Concrete walls stop all bullets? Will there be cars spraying bullets down Michigan as a Fight leaves the Parking lot and goes into the residential areas?
National Bars and clubs like Chilies, TGIF, and even the Non Chain Club Zendejas, Club 215 and the club on La Cadena have all been areas of violent crime. Knives and Guns and Alcohol seem to gravitate to the same places.
If the City Hall and the ABC Board approve such a facility in the Town Square the next thing the Planning Department may want to add to the city plan is a Cemetery for the Deaths caused by that source of much sought after "Income".
Watch carefully the businesses that are being included in the Town Square. We don't need our citizens to be at the Bars, nor do we need to invite this type of money and the expense it will bring to our community. We do not have the resources for the Law Enforcement for such activities, and the revenue generated will not cover the cost in money or lives.
Look at the number of arrests that are related to drug and alcohol use. Do we need to attract and nurture more of the same? I say no..
From the EMail InBox: Brian Adds His Opinion
I don't want the Town Centre to consist of a bunch of bars, etc either, but the previous poster's logic is flawed. A man was killed in his front yard on the same day as the Zendejas shooting. Should Grand Terrace ban all front yards. Should we ban cars due to a drive-by in San Bernardino. A shooting in Colton, San Bernardino, LA, or where ever, does not mean that it will happen here. Freedom means having choices. If I want to go to the town center, have a beer, and watch a game, I should have that option in Grand Terrace. The problem is not the bar...per se...its the people. Lets stop the hysterical hyperbole, shall we. "Will the brick wall stop all the bullets?" Give me a break! Just a thought.
Brian
From the Email InBox: Reply to Brian's Thoughts...
Brian’s logic… is the logic with the flaws. Of course front yards should not be banned as he suggests. His failure to accept the fact that the use of drugs and alcohol contributes to the majority of crime, violence and civil disturbances in our society is indicative of a person who is not wanting to assimilate available data. In addition the reality of the limited available law enforcement presence in Grand Terrace should further support a ban on any additional ABC Licenses issued in GT for any type of business, bars, restaurants, gas stations, or stores.
Brian, if you want to sit at a bar and watch a game, yes you have a right to do that in a town where they have adequate law enforcement to regulate the associated problems that come from it. A desire to not invite the associate problems of Bars, Alcohol Outlets and Increase Alcohol and Drug Consumption is in truth the prior writers point. Yes Brian You are right, People are the Problem. People who will be attracted to a Bar are the Problem. Their compromised thought process and behavior is the problem. Do we gain from opening up our small town to these added challenges for the “Benefit” of increased taxes? An empty field is better use of the property than a Bar of even the BEST People as Guests.
How about watching the game with an Iced Tea or do you NEED a BEER to enjoy yourself?
From the Email InBox:
Dear Gramps,
We already have a saturation point of Alcohol Sales Points in Our City. There is no need to locate another in Grand Terrace let alone near an Elementary School. Attached is an article that may be informative to Brian and to those who are even entertaining the idea of additional liquor sales points in GT or even transfering of existing licenses such as Stater Brothers to Town Square which is so close to the Elementary School. Sure you will no doubt hear from Brian, that the gas stations sell alcohol and they are closer to the school. Well, that is a case of false logic. The mix of Gas, Schools and Alcohol should not be acceptable to any of us. To add to something that is already not good just will make it worse.
Broken Bottles: Alcohol, Disorder, and Crimeby John J. DiIulio, Jr.
Over the past quarter-century, Americans have spent billions of dollars to wage a war on drugs as part of a broader effort to fight crime and community breakdown, especially in the inner city.
The particular focus on illicit drugs, however, has kept the spotlight off a more familiar, yet perhaps more dangerous, psychoactive drug — alcohol. The tendency to leave liquor out of the nation's crime equation is understandable. After all, adult liquor sales are legal, most Americans drink in moderation, and, whatever the social costs of alcohol abuse, no one who wishes to be taken seriously is about to call for a return to prohibition. Policymakers concerned about the health of the nation's inner cities, however, must not ignore the links between alcohol and crime. Although the relationships are complex, the high concentration of liquor stores in the inner cities, the ready availability of beer and hard liquor, and the high incidence of alcohol abuse are deeply implicated in the troubled homes, disorderly neighborhoods, and dangerous streets there.
This insight comes as no news to the struggling, law-abiding residents who live in these neighborhoods. They beg local police and other public authorities to "do something" about the corner-to-corner proliferation of liquor outlets. They spray paint over liquor billboards. They try without success to get zoning laws changed to make it as tough to open retail liquor stores in their neighborhoods as it generally is to open them in rich, white, suburban neighborhoods.It is time for the rest of us, policymakers and citizens alike, to pay attention.
A Multiplier of Crime
Although scientific research on alcohol-related crime and other social ills has been crowded out by studies of the social costs and consequences of drug abuse, researchers are beginning to get a handle on the epidemiology of alcohol-related crime. Perhaps the single best summary of the evidence is this, by Jeffrey Fagan: "Alcohol use has been associated with assaultive and sex-related crimes, serious youth crime, family violence toward both spouses and children, being both a homicide victim and a perpetrator, and persistent aggression as an adult. Alcohol 'problems' occur disproportionately among both juveniles and adults who report violent behaviors."
Most crime, of course, is not related to drinking, and most drinking never results in crime. But some people are far more prone to crime and violence when they are drinking or drunk than when they are clean and sober. Analysts are careful to stress that "conceptions of how drinking affects social behavior are . . . shaped more by powerful cultural, economic, and political forces than by scientific evidence regarding the direct effects of alcohol." But exactly the same sorts of cautions apply to the links between drug abuse and crime. The evidence that "drug abuse causes crime" is of the same kind and quality as the evidence that "alcohol abuse causes crime"
— namely, plentiful but inferential, generally persuasive but not scientifically precise.
What the evidence suggests is that alcohol, like drugs, acts as a multiplier of crime. Aggressive behavior or criminality often occurs before involvement with drugs or alcohol, but the onset of use increases aggressive or criminal behavior. If anything, alcohol abuse probably drives crime and other social problems more than drug abuse does, simply because the use of alcohol is so widespread.
Liquor, Disorder, and Crime
Neighborhood disorder takes many forms — public drinking, prostitution, catcalling, aggressive panhandling, rowdy teenagers, battling spouses, graffiti, vandalism, abandoned buildings, trash-filled lots, alleys strewn with bottles and garbage. But no social disorder is at once so disruptive in its own right and so conducive of other disorders and crime as public drinking. In a classic 1990 study of community breakdown in American cities by William Skogan, public drinking was ranked first among the disorders identified by residents across 40 neighborhoods.
The statistics are striking. Sixty percent of convicted homicide offenders drank just before committing the offense. Sixty-three percent of adults jailed for homicide had been drinking before the offense. Sixty percent of prison inmates drank heavily just before committing the violent crime for which they were incarcerated. The relationship between poverty and homicide is stronger in neighborhoods with higher rates of alcohol consumption than in those with average or below-average rates. Numerous studies report a strong association between sexual violence and alcohol, finding that "anywhere between 30 and 90 percent of convicted rapists are drunk at the time of offense." Juveniles, especially young men, who drink to the point of drunkenness are more likely than those who do not drink to get into fights, get arrested, commit violent crimes, and recidivate later in life. Alcohol-dependent male factory workers are more than three times as likely to physically abuse their wives than are otherwise comparable, non-alcohol-dependent counterparts.
The high incidence of drinking among convicted criminals does not necessarily prove that drinking stimulates crime; it may be nearer to being evidence that criminals who drink are more likely to get caught and convicted than those who do not. But it is important not to discount or deny the probable, and in some cases patently obvious, connections between liquor, disorder, and crime.
Alcohol in the Inner City
The map shown in figure 1 illustrates the relationship between liquor and crime in Milwaukee in 1993. The map categorizes each city tract according to its crime rate; the darker the shading, the higher the crime rate. Each dot represents a liquor outlet. If one knew nothing about the city or what the shaded areas or dots represent and simply drew circles around the places where the dots are clustered, Milwaukee's poor, minority, high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods would be enclosed in those circles. And the same pattern is true for other inner-city communities all across the country.
Numerous first-rate studies have found close links between the geographic density of alcohol outlets and consumption (and alcohol problem) rates. Without leaping to the further conclusion that if inner-city neighborhoods had fewer liquor outlets and less alcohol consumption, they would also have less crime, policymakers who care about reducing community breakdown and crime in the inner city should nevertheless seriously consider restricting alcohol availability and reducing the density of liquor stores.
The practical question is how best to do so. The main finding of the scientific research literature is that more strongly enforcing liquor law regulations can reduce alcohol availability and consumption, as well as alcohol-related problems, including violent crime, among at-risk youth and adults.
Most states do not have strong liquor-law regulations and procedures. Even states that have them on the books tend to underfund the agencies responsible for enforcing them. Naturally, anemic funding often leads to inadequate enforcement, which opens up the possibility of socially harmful concentrations of liquor outlets and other regulatory failures that can lead to a hornet's nest of alcohol-related social problems.
Developing and enforcing rigorous liquor laws and regulations that might cut crime and alcohol-related problems in poor, minority, high-crime inner-city neighborhoods has not been a high priority for most states. To put it bluntly, America's liquor-control regime is structured without any apparent regard for the connection between alcohol availability, consumption, crime, and other social problems — and is calculated to give the states almost zero capacity to regulate and directly enforce liquor laws. A study of ABC offices and investigators in California, for example, found that investigators were "less concerned with public health and welfare than with the rights of applicants." The study concluded that selling alcohol in California "is treated more as a right than a privilege."
In their new book, Alcohol and Homicide, R. N. Nash and L. A. Rebhun observe, rightly, that the high concentration of liquor outlets in inner-city neighborhoods reflects "the relative power of alcohol producers and wholesalers who supply liquor outlets, banks who loan money to store owners, and state regulators whose activities are more oriented toward the interests of alcohol industry lobbying groups than the regulation of that industry and the relative powerlessness of the poor and unemployed individuals and groups who live in greater concentration in these areas of high outlet density."
Middle-class Americans would not tolerate for one second laws that permitted an inner-city level concentration of liquor stores in and around the places where they and their loved ones live, work, shop, go to school, or play. It makes no sense to insist that it is all merely a matter of free markets, as if liquor stores simply go where the people want what they sell and sell to whomever they want. Nor can one hide behind a fog of empirical uncertainties about the connections between liquor, disorder, and crime. In the end, academic statistical exercises are no substitute for live ethnographic realities. A 1993 feature in U.S. News and World Report reported on that reality from the perspective of a typical inner-city child named John. "To John, Tom's Liquor is a short walk from his house, school and the storefront church in the same shopping strip. A slew of transactions take John to Tom's. He tags along with
his mom when she goes to cash her welfare checks free of charge. With no supermarket nearby, John goes to Tom's when he wants a candy bar. Even when his mother takes him to the adjoining neighborhoods, John rarely sees a bank or
supermarket. Many neighborhood traits convey disorder, but unchecked public drinking is a particularly potent affirmation that 'no one cares.' That is the
message John gains by observing Tom's Liquor, where winos and crack addicts congregate at night in the parking lot."
Some years ago James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling offered a by-now almost universally accepted "broken windows" thesis —Preserving Social Capital
States and cities should begin immediately to experiment with policies aimed at cutting crime by curbing alcohol availability and consumption. The place to start is in high-crime neighborhoods where the density of liquor outlets exceeds citywide averages. The theory behind this experiment should be guided by the large and methodologically sophisticated body of research that documents that in inner-city neighborhoods, the relationship between poverty on the one side and crime and disorder on the other is mediated by community norms and the extent of citizens' attachments to traditional institutions like home, school, and church.
As a rule, the stronger are community norms and traditional institutional attachments, the weaker the link between poverty and crime and the lower the chances that poor children will become deviant, delinquent, or predatory. Studies have shown that religious affiliation fosters less drinking. Indeed, one major study finds that even after controlling for all relevant individual characteristics such as race, gender, education, parental education, family structure, and religious involvement, young people whose neighbors attend church are more likely to find a job, less likely to use drugs, and less likely to be involved in criminal activities whether or not they themselves attend church or have other attachments to traditional institutions.
But in poor neighborhoods where alcohol is readily available and liquor outlets dot every intersection, informal and indirect social controls on deviant, delinquent, and criminal behavior are diluted. Where broken bottles fill the gutters, social capital goes down the drain. Whether or not they themselves drink to excess, hang out at bars, or engage directly in related behaviors, it is probable that poor, inner-city youths who grow up in places where drinking is common and liquor outlets are everywhere are more likely than otherwise comparable youths to have diminished life prospects that include joblessness, substance abuse, and serious trouble with the law.
At least three specific policy experiments should be considered as means of deepening our understanding of the alcohol-disorder-crime nexus. First, conduct systematic empirical research on alcohol availability and crime. Develop a rich
database that includes detailed information about the precise degrees of spatial overlap between liquor outlets, the incidence of communal disorders, rates of
criminal activity, and the frequency of police response. Building such data sets would require the concerted efforts and cooperation of many different state and local agencies, including police departments and social service agencies.
Second, impose stricter zoning ordinances for liquor stores. New zoning laws would increase the distances between liquor stores, reduce the number of bars and liquor stores in the city, and ban the sale of malt liquor to go.
Third, limit alcoholic beverage advertising. Few systematic, scientifically rigorous studies have documented the relationship between alcohol ads and the incidence of excessive drinking, disorder, crime, and related social problems.But the alcohol industry seems to believe that these ads make a positive difference to their sales. Indeed, the industry seems perfectly well aware of the relationship between alcohol, disorder, and crime — and in some infamous cases has been quick to exploit it for commercial gain. In the early 1990s, for example, one of the billboarded spokesmen for St. Ides malt liquor was Ice Cube, a "gangsta rapper" whose hits feature lyrics such as "Pay respect to the black fist or we'll burn your store right down to a crisp."
Religious leaders in black communities often paint over offensive billboards. City officials should follow their lead by enforcing zoning limitations on billboard alcohol advertising, banning such ads from the horizons of schools, churches, and public housing centers.
One policy experiment that should be avoided at all costs is lowering the legal drinking age. The drinking-disorder-crime nexus seems strongly age-specific. Most violent crime is committed by young males. Drinking in males normally begins around adolescence and rises until the late teens or mid-twenties. Research suggests that the relationship between drinking and serious crime is strongest before young men reach age 31.
In a word, states should refuse to enact any measure that would increase alcohol consumption and particularly consumption among young people. Unless one simply refuses to accept the overwhelming weight of the evidence on the relationship between drinking, disorder, and crime, one must believe that reducing the minimum drinking age or any other measure that would increase, rather than further limit, the availability of alcohol would have socially undesirable, even disastrous, consequences — most especially in America's inner-city neighborhoods.
Thanks. Lets Count how many places in GT Sell Alcohol:
CVS "Drug Store", Taco Villa, Starbucks(Yes) Some of their "Flavors" are alcohol based, Chevron, GT Liquor, Stater Brothers, Bonellos, Tie Resturant, TJ's Bar (Or what ever it's new name is), Food Connection, Stop and Go Market, ARCO, GTMarket, Quick Market near Demetri's.
That is 16 places in a town of less than 13,000 people. Is the Shell Station going to add Alcohol Sales? That would be 17. Add a replacement for Stater Brothers Mkt wanting a liquor license and that will be 18. They Booze Zone From Mt. Vernon and Barton Rd, to Barton Rd and the 214 has all but one of the outlets for alcohol. This is a saturation zone already. Adding a Bar or Resturant that serves alcohol will just further flood this area and the community.
Three points of sale would be across the street from the GT Elm School. Even letting Stater's Relocate its license may need to be reviewed with CAUTION. Do we need a Biger Liquor Section as Jack Brown promoted as being a feature of the new store? If there are to be additional points of sale in the Town Center as suggested a Chili's Bar and Grill or an additional "Drug Store that sales Liquor", we are pre programing our children to accept consumption of alcohol just by its prevalance and its location.
Brian, you can keep your front yard. But, the community may want to think about additional locations for you to have your beer and watch the Game. The community may also want to think about how many places you have available to purchase your beer. Beer Drinking is not a RIGHT, it is a regulated activity. There is significant reason and justification for that regulation so the orriginal post was not flawed in its logic Brian. Yes Brian you have the ability to go sit in a Bar and watch the game, just not in this town.
Gramps Please Post:
First off..I don't routinely drink. Not even socially. I probably have 3-4 beers per YEAR, if that. My point is not that I need a beer to watch a game. My point is that if a person does want a beer to watch a game...that should be an option. Do you not understand that to mandate that someone "drink Iced Tea" instead of beer is not freedom. This is true no mater how distasteful you may find it. One of the marks of an open mind is to be able to accept that people like and do different things, even though you may find them distasteful
I agree with most all of the content of the articles that you've provided. I see the consequences of alcohol ABUSE...not simple consumption...ABUSE every singe day. I'm buried in it and don't need that lecture. Everything can increase crime if abused. Guns, baseball bats, cars..everything. Establishments such as Chili's cannot be lumped in the same category as a corner liquor store in South Central Los Angeles. The articles dealt almost exclusively with off-sale liquor outlets in poor/high crime neighborhoods. Chili's is not an off-sale liquor outlet and Grand Terrace is not a high crime neighborhood. Alcohol does not create crime...it can enhance it in an otherwise violent person. The non-violent surgical technician or engineer who goes to Chili's is no more likely to commit a crime after a beer than he was before that beer. The fact remains though that we, as a society, have decided that alcohol is legal and acceptable. We tried prohibition once. It didn't work and increased crime dramatically.
"The types" of people who will go to a Chili's are ordinary Grand Terrace Citizens. For you or anyone to assume that our residents can't handle a restaurant that serves beer, and that they will start beating and shooting one another is absurd. You treat us like children who need to be regulated at every turn, lest we go crazy and fall prey to the evils of the big bad world. Remember..we're all different and we all like different things.
Brian
Dear Gramps Please Post:
Brian suggests that the City of Grand Terrace and the ABC board have no regulatory reason to justify not inviting a Chili’s Type Bar and Grill to Grand Terrace. His statement
“One of the marks of an open mind is to be able to accept that people like and do different things, even though you may find them distasteful”. Is a contradiction to his prior support of the City Council, and shows continued flawed logic and true concern for his family and yours.
The mayor and council find speakers speaking longer than 3 minutes a bother to the flow of the City Council Meetings. The City Council and the City won’t let you have a chicken in your yard where the County Regulation would allow 6 chickens and one rooster. I can go on and on how the City Regulates the lives of people they find “distasteful”, right down to who gets to park an RV and what kind of RV can be parked on private property. So Brian, lets be Fair and get rid of all City Regulations including the one that allows Fireworks when the County Does Not, but ABC Board May still say no to additional Alcohol Distribution Points as State Regulations are at their limit as it now stands.
Chili’s Bar and Grill would not serve only Grand Terrace Residents as Brian wants the reader to believe. Chilie’s, TGIF, OutBack, and so forth are not Neighborhood Restaurants, they are Destination Restaurants that will invite many people from outside of Grand Terrace to Grand Terrace for the sole purpose of Getting Drunk with Friends. His suggestion that is not the fact of the business plan he is seriously delusional.
Yes the study sighted was about South Central LA. We are just about ready to pattern our business district in the same way. Brian’s suggestion that it won’t happen here is like those who say 50% of Drugs are Used in the City, and ignore that the other 50% are used in towns like Grand Terrace or on farms in Iowa.
I invite anyone interested in what a Chili’s will bring to GT to visit any of them on a busy night and see if you want that near your home and school.
The fact is that alcohol is regulated, its distribution is regulated, and part of that regulation limits the number of permits to distribute and sell to 600 feet of a school, church, or pre existing license. It also limits it to one per one thousand people. In Grand Terrace that would be 12 places of distribution, we have 17 now. We have DUI, and Domestic Violence sufficient to keep our Sheriff busy. What the Regulation of Alcohol does not do is cause the Sellers to Compensate the City, and Victims of its consumption for the damages and expenses incurred. If each alcohol license also paid for a Law Enforcement Officer each, and Medical and Property Insurance for all incidences where alcohol has contributed to the cause of injury or damage, perhaps you could justify the inclusion of a Chili’s in a development which is being built on a project so entangled with the Redevelopment Agency.
"The types of people who will go to a Chili's are ordinary Grand Terrace Citizens”. Ordinary Grand Terrace Citizens and those who drive through our town are weekly arrested for intoxication and public intoxication, and DUI and Drug Charges. There is no need to increase neither the availability nor the suggested acceptance of the use of alcohol in GT.
Review of Proposed Specific Plan Revisions for BMSV
NOTE: Many Readers have contributed to the comments in RED. This is a compilation of the emails received in the past week. The Development as Represented in the EIR is a significant change from that approved by the City Council. The Court Case and the Required EIR has resulted in changes in the design and should be looked at by all parties. The folks who USE the Current Senior Center may be concerned about the lack of Parking. The folks who are interested in Parks may be concerned about the lack of Parking and Restrooms.
1.3 Project Summary
The project site contains an existing senior center and parking lot that has been serving the community of Grand Terrace for a number of years. The site has proven to be well-placed near goods and services for seniors in the downtown area of Grand Terrace, while also located in a quiet, uncongested neighborhood that is conducive for senior activities. In anticipation of development of the site, pursuant to the original approval of the project, the senior center and parking lot were re-located from the east end to the west end of the site as grading commenced for the project. The senior center, however, remains in service to the community. The project was successfully challenged in a court of law that resulted in revisions to the design of the project and preparation of a companion environmental impact report. These changes necessitate an amendment to the adopted Specific Plan.
The above contains several false statements:
The Site is not proven to be Well-Placed near goods and Services. As a Matter of fact the EIR Suggest the Location for the Senior Housing should be on Barton Road closer to public transportation and services. The writers of the EIR then offer a concession to the city’s desire to use Barton Road as a Retail Sales Tax Generation District. In doing so it does not explore the Environmental Impacts on the Entire Community if there are Businesses surrounding for example “The Terrace” Retirement and Assisted Living Complex.
Grand Terrace has Limited Public Transportation NONE of which goes near the Senior Center/Senior Villas.
Grand Terrace Stores and Shops and Doctors ALL are on Roads that Prohibit the use of LEV’s and NEV’s to make short trips.
Full Pedestrian Improvements are not made between the Senior Center/Housing and the stores. There are Places where NO Sidewalk exists.
The Development will create Congested which the Development lists as Uncontested. Any Activity that will begin at the beginning or end of the School Day will result in excessive congestion along Grand Terrace Road. The Changes to the Specific Plan are not necessitated as a result of the Court Case; the Changes are necessitated by the Extreme Variance between the intended use of building a Senior Center/ Housing Project and the Current Un-amended Specific
Plan and Zoning.
The frontage of the site has full improvements, including, utilities, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. An ALTA survey of the site is provided as Figure 3 that reflects the previous location of on-site improvements. The proposed development will feature a two-story, 120 room residential facility for active senior citizens totaling approximately 100,000 square feet, a one-story approximately 7,000 square foot senior facility on one-half acre for senior-oriented activities; and an approximately 2.6 acre public park. The residential facility is designed to provide 103 one-bedroom and 17 two-bedroom apartments. Parking is provided to include 92 spaces for residents and 54 spaces for joint use by resident guests, senior center visitors, and park visitors. A total of 146 parking spaces are provided, including 11 ADA accessible parking spaces
There is clearly a Problem with Parking: 120 ACTIVE SENIORS Units: 92 Parking Spaces. NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, INCOMPLETE PEDESTRIAN WAY TO SERVICES. ONLY 54 Parking Spaces for all other Non Resident Uses including Senior Center Visitors, Resident Guests, and Park Visitors, Senior Center Use OFTEN Exceeds 50 cars on activity days. That is without Resident Visitors and Park Visitors also demanding parking space.
The current maximum density allowed within the City’s Zoning Ordinance is 12 units per acre, with a 20% density bonus provision for up to 16 dwelling units per acre where a public benefit, such as a privately maintained park with posted hours for public access, is provided and where infrastructure already exists. A general plan amendment has been filed to establish the Medium High Density Residential designation that allows 20 units per acre, subject to concurrent processing of a Specific Plan that sets forth the provisions of the R3-S (Multiple Family Residential-Senior Citizen) zone. The proposed density of 20 dwelling units per acre is appropriate for this site due to several factors.
1. The City’s Zoning Ordinance allows a density bonus for projects that provide a community benefit, such as a park. The proposed project includes the development of Petta Park.
A Park with insufficient Parking is not a Public Use Park. There are no Restrooms in the Park; Public Sanitation will be at risk, not only for Residents visiting the park but for members of the public.
2. The City must comply with State Housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). In a letter dated June 10, 2005, (attached as Exhibit ‘A’), the State Department of Housing and Community development found the City of Grand Terrace to be in compliance with the law, provided that the City specifically rezone this site, and certain other properties, as R3 (+) and complete the processing of the Grand Terrace Road Senior Housing Specific Plan, (now titled the Blue Mountain Senior Villas Amended Specific Plan), for the subject site. The R3 (+) is expressed as R3-S.
Reading Attachment A:
……… However, the City Must also commit to rezoning at least one additional site in Action 1.n, either site No. 6 comparable size site to R-3+ as well. This commitment will insure that appropriate housing opportunities are available to non-senior households as described in our February 14, 2005 review. The City should also update those programs with deadlines that have passed (including rezone).
The above is not done and thus the City Remains out of compliance with the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development.
3. All forms of public improvements currently exist at the site and the proposed project serves as an infill development.
Does the Water Treatment Provider have sufficient capacity to treat the additional load of sewage?
4. Objections previously raised over the original project, under “Citizens for Responsible and Open Government” vs. the “City of Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency and Corporation for Better Housing” that resulted in a court action requiring this amendment to the original project, are being addressed under the proposed project.
The following actions are necessary to facilitate the proposed project:
• Approve a General Plan Amendment to designate the project site as Medium High Density Residential; and
• Approve the Specific Plan to establish density and design criteria specifically for the proposed project; and
• Approve the Zone Change to R-3-S (Multiple Family, Senior Citizen) zone; and
• Approve revised Site Plan and Architectural plans for the proposed project; and
Certify an environmental impact report that discloses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.
A Plan should not include statements about Court Action as a point of reference or in justification or rational for a Plan Proposal. This portion should be redacted and not considered as justification for approval of the Specific Plan or changes to the General Plan. This is Retroactive Adjustment to make the Site fit the Project, it is not a PLAN being followed. This is a Development writing or leading the Plan. The city has in the past refused reversed engineering drawings and statements from people who built without permits. A Development changing the General Plan or Specific Plan for an area is Reverse Planning and some would say not Planning. This practice is ill advised as it has an arbitrary nature restricting projects not favored by the City Staff, and accommodations being made for Selected Individuals or Developers.
1.4 Development Context
The project site is bound on three sides by existing development. Single family residential units, consisting of one and two-story structures, exist along the southerly and westerly boundaries. Fencing has been installed by individual lot owners and consists of a mix of wood fences, masonry walls, and combination masonry and wrought iron fencing, all typically at six feet in height. A chain link fence exists along the easterly boundary installed by the school district for Terrace View Elementary School. The nearest classroom facilities are setback approximately 40 feet inside the school property.
Perhaps the Temporary Buildings are closer than 40 feet from the school property line someone may want to check this fact. As it relates to noise and other environmental issues.
Vegetation consists of non-native grasses and scattered trees. There are no defined drainage courses, or noticeable topographic relief except for an earthen berm constructed at the edge of improvements associated with the existing senior citizen center.
It is true that this is a previously farmed piece of property. Which contains historical trees, Walnut, and so forth? This Plan should include the replanting of trees and pomegranate bushes for their historical value and site integrity. The Plan and list of plants in the EIR are High Water Use Plants, and some are Poisonous to Individuals and wildlife and possibly pets and children. There is no need to add toxic plants to a park design.
The existing senior center consists of roughly 4,500 square feet. The well utilized facility presently offers exercise classes, art classes, music and dance classes; a game room for cards, crafts, and board games; evening entertainment, and special holiday events. The County of San Bernardino provides weekday lunches at the facility, and counselors are on hand to provide advice about social services, health, and financial matters. The center includes space for offices, a library/reading room, a computer area, a lounge, and the lobby area. The facility is operated daily by volunteers.
It would be important to list existing number of cars and participants and visitors to the current senior center.
The proposed project will have access from two driveway entries along Grand Terrace Road, a 66 foot wide Collector street. A 1.6 acre parcel lying along Grand Terrace Road, opposite the proposed project, is owned by the City and includes an Edison easement that contains electrical towers that support power lines.
Has Edison Approved this? Has the effect of a parking lot on the Bluff been studied for the issues of Bluff Stability and Hydrology of the effect of additional pavement and pressure on the Bluff? It could not be determined that this study was done from the information in the EIR
The project site lies at an interface between suburban residential development and a cluster of public facilities, (senior center and elementary school), and electrical utilities that serve the area.
1.5 Authority and Scope
The Blue Mountain Senior Villas Amended Specific Plan has been prepared under the authority of California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Article 8, Section 65450 et seq. Section 65451 of the Government Code states that a specific plan shall include “all detailed regulations, conditions, programs, and proposed legislation which shall be necessary and convenient for systematic implementation” of each of the mandated elements, adopted by the City as part of the General Plan. The Code further specifies the content of the Specific Plan to include:
(a) Text and diagrams that specify all of the following:
1. The location and standards for land uses and facilities; and
2. The location and standards for streets, roads, and other transportation facilities; and
3. Standards for population density and building intensity, and provisions for supporting services; and
4. Provisions for implementing the Open Space Element; and
5. Other appropriate measures.
As required by state law, all specific plans shall be consistent with the General Plan. A General Plan Amendment has been filed to accomplish this consistency.
II Planning Framework
2.1 Jurisdictional Framework
2.1.1 City of Grand Terrace General Plan and Zoning (Figure 4)
Land Use is guided by the City of Grand Terrace General Plan. The Plan allocates land use types and intensity, augmented by goals, policies, and standards to guide development. The General Plan designation for the project site is currently Low Density Residential. This designation applies to areas intended for single family residential projects at a density of up to 5 units per acre. The proposed project features a density of twenty (20) units per acre. The following policy applies in this case:
Specific Plans shall be required for all multiple family projects of 20 or more units, and shall also be applied to low density projects.
In this instance, a Specific Plan and a general plan amendment have been filed to establish a new density category to allow Medium High density development and R3-S (Multiple Family Residential-Senior Citizens) zone, such as the proposed senior-oriented development. The purpose and standards for the new designation are set forth under this Specific Plan.
The City of Grand Terrace Title 18 Zoning Code outlines the uses permitted and development standards to guide development. The project site is zoned R1- 7.2 that is intended for low density single family residences on lots having a minimum area of 7,200 square feet. The maximum density under the zone is five dwelling units per acre. A zone change has been filed to rezone the property as R-3-S (Multiple Family Residential-Senior Citizens).
The Loss of this Low Density Residential Area in Grand Terrace also eliminates the opportunity for our citizens to have the benefits of such an area, which includes larger lots that can host small farm animals or perhaps a horse or ???? The lost opportunity for these features in a General Plan Affect not only the adjacent homes but the entire community. Shouldn’t it be asked if the new plan is ok, what is wrong or why was it planned for low density in the past?
2.2 Existing Conditions
2.2.1 Existing Land Use
The City intends to merge two parcels into one parcel that are currently identified on County tax records as Assessors Parcels 276-461-09 and 14. What had been Assessors Parcel 276-461-09 is currently developed in part as a senior center and related parking offering community activities to senior citizens. The majority of the property remains vacant.
2.2.2 Land Use Setting
The proposed project represents an infill development among surrounding uses that have been described in Section 1.4, Development Context. Single family residential development exists to the south and west, an elementary school lies to the east, and undeveloped land containing electrical towers exists to the north.
There is No Mention of the BLUFF/Cliff and Stability of the Cliff Face and the Roadway that is often covered in Dirt Slides from hill collapse, or planned road work regarding the 215 and off ramp.
The proposed project features senior villas that are building setback approximately 25 feet or greater from the property line, and related parking setback a minimum of approximately six feet from the property line. A privately maintained park, with controlled public access during posted hours, would extend from the apartment and senior center complex to the westerly property line.
WHAT is a Controlled Privately Maintained Public Park? WHO and What are the Controls? The Park will apparently be maintained by the Corporation for Better Housing with gates open Sun Up to Sun Down like Pico Park. However, In the summer months when the Senior Center Is Closed and the Park is Open the lack of Public Restroom Facilities, may become a health issue.
2.2.3 Circulation / Traffic
Access to the project site shall be from Grand Terrace Road is a publicly dedicated Collector Street designed for 44 feet of paving within 66 feet of right-of-way. Full public improvements, except sidewalks, exist along the frontage of the site. The proposed project will be required to complete the parkway improvements along the opposite side of the street.
Will all improvements be made to connect sidewalks to Public Services and Stores? A full sidewalk from Senior Center to Stores and Doctors on Mt Vernon and Barton Rd?
The project proposes two points of access. A public access is planned at the west of the senior villas for residents, senior center visitors, and park visitors. This parking area comprises 48 spaces. A second access is planned near the easterly boundary for parking by project residents and their guests. Resident parking consists of 98 spaces. The total parking is 146 spaces, including 11 ADA accessible parking spaces. No physical connection is proposed between the two parking areas, although a public sidewalk will be constructed along the frontage of the site. Due to the length of driveway serving resident around area has been provided pursuant to Fire Departments standards.
The project is responsible for construction of on-site street improvements and for any modifications required to Grand Terrace Road that are related to the development of the proposed project.
2.2.4 Topography
Existing elevations of the site, not including the proposed park area, range from 1072 to 1100 feet above mean sea level with an average 3% slope. Natural terrain and the area graded to establish the existing senior center are separated by an earthen berm.
Proposed finished floor elevations are designed to descend from east to west as shown in the Grading Plan, (Figure 5). A twenty-foot cut will be created along the easterly boundary, (adjoining the elementary school), and will be replaced with a 2:1 slope between the property line and the parking area. Maximum 2:1 cut slopes are also designed at varying heights between the southerly property line and the parking area. The variation in elevation between the property line and the structure will aid in screening parking area from off-site vantages while also, in combination with setback distances, minimize conflicts between adjacent single story residences and proposed two-story senior villas.
Run off into Storm Drains is the lowest form of water management. Maximum water retention and filtration should be required prior to the water going into the “Storm Drains” Concern for the Homes between the Development and the storm drain is not completely reviled in the EIR. Current conditions on Mt. Vernon are such that the storm drain is a flooded area when it rains, and when the city’s watering of the median causes overflow onto the street and across to the storm drain, the slick road has been the cause of many near accidents. When the street is flooded or the storm drain is not carrying off all the water there is an increased hazard to both drivers and pedestrians. Cars have jumped the curb during a water related slide.
There is a four-foot grade reduction over a portion of the east building façade, while the balance is ground level. This creates the variable slope height condition along the southerly boundary.
2.2.5 Flooding
This project site is free of flood hazards according the Federal Emergency management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map. The project site will be graded to convey onsite drainage to the street to be collected in the city storm drain system.
This does not remove the fact the Bluff will have new Water Dynamic affecting its stability and the safety of the Road?
2.2.6 Utilities
All utilities exist within grand Terrace Road at the site and are sufficient to serve the development. Existing on-site improvements any require removal and replacement to serve the proposed project. This will be accomplished pursuant to the requirements of each affected agency. Section IV provides details of existing services.
WOW there is a great big Black Hole of Possible Cost to the Citizens… “ANY REQUIRED and REMOVAL and REPLACMENT TO SERVE THE …..
3.1 Land Uses
The proposed project are consist of approximately 6.10 acres and features three land use categories that establish under the Specific Plan. The Conceptual Land Use Plan (Figure 7) illustrates these categories and support uses.
3.1.1 Multiple Family Senior Development
This category will consist of 120 senior-oriented villas, and related parking area on approximately 3.0 acres. The facility and grounds will be privately operated and maintained under a long-term lease with the City of Grand Terrace. The villas will consist of 103 one bedroom units and 17 two bedroom units. This one and two bedroom units will be approximately 540 sq. ft and approximately 810 sq. ft., respectively.
That is 40 Units per Ac. Not 20. That could be 2 person per unit for the one bedroom or 206 and another max of 64 for the two bedroom units. So 270 people on 3 acres and that is not including the Senior Center Day Participants.
3.1.2 Senior Center
A senior center facility, consisting of approximately 7,000 square feet on approximately one-half acre, will be provided for public use. The facility will be attached to the adjoining apartment building to enable interior access by residents of the villas. A separate entry will be provided for the public. Parking is provided for 54 vehicles. Including six (6) handicapped spaces, to be used jointly by villa residents. Villa guests, senior center visitors, and park visitors.
With a Maximum Possible Population of 270 People in the Senior Villas, and only 96 Parking Places it is natural to assume the 56 “Shared” spaces will be used by Villa Residents and there will be insufficient parking for Seniors Visiting the Senior Center or Park Visitors or even Villa Resident Visitors.
The Boomers will be moving in to this Senior Project and Bommers are Car People if there is no alternative transportation available. The Current Parking Plan seems to be insufficient planning. Lack of Garage for Residents is also a Variant from the requirements of other housing requirements.
3.1.3 Public Access Park
An adjacent park with public access during posted hours, is planned on approximately 2.6 acres for day use activities. The park will be maintained by a private entity and secured, as required by the City, to control access during night time hours. The park will be available for public use, typically from dawn to dusk as a passive recreational area, in that there will be no structures or activity equipment. The park will be landscaped and contain walking trails with sitting areas.
(NO Drinking Fountains? No Restrooms? SOME of the PUBLIC can’t make it all the way home or to the Senior Center).
IV INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
This section will outline the existing and planned public services and infrastructure that is needed to support the proposed development. To a great extent, these services or infrastructure already exists to serve the proposed project.
4.1 Circulation
Vehicular Access
Direct access exists at the site from Grand Terrace Road, a two-lane undivided stret designed to Local Street standards under the General Plan. A Collector Street requires 44 feet of paving, with eleven feet of parkway for a sidewalk and landscaping on each side, within a 66-foot right-of-way. A complete level of street improvements exists along the frontage of the property. No parkway improvements exist on the opposite side of Grand Terrace Road.
Parkway Risks in need of mitigation are also on the opposite side of Grand Terrace Road. There exists an entrenchment which has been the ruin of many automobiles and has been routinely overgrown with weeds leading drivers to assume that there is solid level ground on the shoulder of the road only to find that there is a trench to guide the runoff away from the bluff. Additional Parking will be needed. People will park on the street due to the lack of parking on site. Traffic Jams Currently happens on days of Senior Citizen Activities and School being let out at the same time. There is a problem here to say there is no problem is a gross error in judgment for the conditions of the present and the future should the development be built and more traffic and use is added to this roadway.
Regional access is provided to the site from Mt. Vernon Avenue, designated as a major Highway. Major Highways require 72 feet of paving within a 100 foot right-of-way. This allows for four lanes of travel as a divided highway. Mt. Vernon Avenue provides access to I-215 to the southwest and I-10 to the north. The street is fully improved going south from Grand Terrace Road, and tapers to a local street section going northbound due to topographical constraints.
The Designation of Mt. Vernon Avenue being a “Major Highway” was done at a time Pre 215 and was a DoD Designation which was needed to connect the then Norton AFB and March Field via Pigeon Pass. Part of that Designation would not allow for the Island of Boulders and Palm Trees or the Stop sign at the Top of the Grade. So this statement is only partially correct and representative of how the road is used and why the designation was made and oddly that it still exists as the Bases have Closed, and Stop Signs have been installed.
The local street system is operating below capacity and no additional streets or right-of-way are needed to support the project.
Try making the claim that the local street system is operating below capacity in the Morning on a School Day, or After School. IF Capacity is to be Major Highway… Perhaps, but Major Highways don’t have stop signs at nearly every corner, and they don’t feed into a narrow two lane cliff road.
Parking
Parking will be shared among the uses on the site with the City as sole owner of the property.
Parking is insufficient. Including if permitted and improved on street parking is available.
4.2 Water Supply
Riverside-Highland Water Company provides domestic water supply service to the City of Grand Terrace. Water service presently exists at the site in the form of an eight (8) inch line having 90 pounds of pressure. The proposed project does not require any upgrades to lines serving the area.
4.3 Sewer Service
The City of Grand Terrace operates the sewer collection system through the city and has purchased capacity within the Colton Regional Treatment Plant for processing. Sewage capacity will need to be verified as part of the permitting process for the project.
How much more can be handled by the treatment plant? This should be a known amount by the Treatment Plant. The residents will be NEW USERS and Additional requirements unlike the people who visit the senior center who would be using the facilities if they were at home or at the Senior Center so the amount needing processed is not increased by the Citizen User at the Park or the Senior Center.
An eight (8) inch sewer line presently exists at the site and does not require any upgrades to trunk lines serving the area.
4.4 Storm Drains
The project site is located within the San Bernardino County Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan No. 3. The plan established an integrated system of local storm drains necessary to collect and convey storm flows. The system is maintained by the County of San Bernardino. Drainage at the site is conveyed as surface flows within grand Terrace Road and collected in a storm drain located at the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Mt. Vernon Avenue.
A Hydrology study will be prepared, as necessary, in conjunction with the proposed project to verify the ability of existing drainage systems to handle any additional flows generated from the project.
The Hydrology study should also contain a study on the impact on the stability of the bluff and the road should the increased runoff have an affect on the bluff in any adverse way.
4.5 Dry Utilities
Electricity: Southern California Edison provides electrical power to the area. Power is presently available at the site within an underground conduit along the frontage. Additional overhead lines exist along the west and south boundaries of the project site. No additional off-site improvements are required for the propose project.
Threre are no requirements to use PV Cells, or have a “Green Building” design.
Telephone: Pacific Telephone provides telephone service to the area. This service presently exists at the site within an underground conduit along the frontage and no additional off-site improvements are required.
(Our Phone Service is SBC not Pacific Telephone)
Natural Gas: Southern California Gas Company provides service to the area. A gas line exists along the frontage of the site and no additional off-site improvements are required.
4.6 Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste collection is under a franchise with Waste Management, Inc. and hauled to the San Bernardino County Landfill at San Timeteo Canon. This Service Already exists at the site and will continue with the proposed project.
Recycling Requirements and other Environmental or Green Use has been neglected. Trash shoots for garbage and Recycles?
V DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Blue Mountain Senior Villas Amended Specific Plan will serve as the principal guide for implementation of the proposed project through site plan, design review, and final engineering processes. The Specific Plan will define the character of the development through the definition of allowable uses, density, design guidelines, and infrastructure services. The design guidelines will address the building layout design, architectural standards, and landscape architecture. These elements will collectively address all of the key design features that form the project.
The intent of the Development Standards is to define development specifications to assure an orderly development, achieve a high level of design quality, reflect features that are unique to senior-oriented developments, and to unify all of the elements that form the project. Therefore, these regulations and standards will supersede the provisions of the City of Grand Terrace Zoning Ordinance that relate to the proposed project. Instances where the Specific Plan does not address a development issue, regulation, procedure, or policy, the applicable sections of the Grand Terrace Zoning Ordinance, and/or any other applicable City ordinance, shall prevail.
5.1 Specific Plan Land Use Development Standards
This section outlines the development standards for the land use designations within the specific plan. As noted above, where development standards for the proposed Specific Plan land uses are different from the City Zoning Code requirements, the provisions of this Specific Plan shall prevail. Development within the Specific Plan must meet the criteria of the land use designations described herein.
5.1.1 Multiple Family Residential (MFR): Is the proposed Specific Plan designation applied to residential development within the project in a manner consistent with the Conceptual Land Use Plan (CLUP), Figure 5. As a conceptual plan, the CLUP will be subject to refinement as part of the plan review process as more precise engineering details become available and public input is applied.
The maximum density within the MFR designation is 20 units per net acre, based on a density transfer of all of the approximately 6.1 acres within the development to the area of this designation. The density transfer is necessary in order to establish other public uses. All residences within this designation shall be limited to senior citizens over the age of 62 years.
( It is 40 per acre, LETS BE TRUTHFUL). The City does not allow the building of a stand alone house that small on a lot owned and occupied by the homeowner. The Park is planned; it is not a Requirement in the prior reference to the Park in relation to the Senior Villas. This allows for alternative uses or not building of the park.) Where else in Grand Terrace is housing available to non seniors, of Very Low and Low Income? IF there is housing for Non Seniors… what is stopping Seniors from moving into those accommodations?
Permitted uses shall be limited to the following:
1. Multiple family dwelling units.
2. Off-street parking serving on-site uses
5.1.2 Senior Center (SC): This designation applies to the approximately 7000 square-foot Senior Center within the Specific Plan. The center shall be available for use of project residents and the public.
Permitted uses, aimed at senior citizens age 55 and over, including, but not limited to the following:
1. Exercise and Instructional Classes
2. Recreational activities
3. Entertainment
4. Catered meals
5. Counseling services
6. Reading rooms
7. Laundry room
8. Other similar uses related to senior center activities.
(AND Where do the OTHER YOUNGER or YOUTH Go?)
5.1.3 Park (P): This designation is applied to the park area, with controlled public access during posted hours, as described within the Specific Plan. The park shall be developed in a manner consistent with the Specific Plan, and will be subject to further refinement through the final engineering processes.
Permitted uses shall be limited to outdoor recreation facilities
The development standards for each of the land use designations is presented in Table 2.
Perhaps this should be called the NASA PARK: Wear your Adult Diapers because there are no Restrooms.
5.2 General Plan Land Use Designation
The entire project site is designated as Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) on the Grand Terrace General Plan. All of the specific plan land use categories must be consistent with the general plan land use designation.
40 units / ac is Medium High Density Residential, what is HIGH Density Residential?
BLUE MOUNTAIN SENIO VILLAS AMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1Off-street parking will be shared among the uses based on variable peak hours of use. The peak hour use for the senior center will be from 11AM to 3 PM weekdays. The Petta Park peak hours of use will be in the early mornings, late afternoons/early evenings, and on weekends. Parking for the senior villas will be assigned .75 space for each unit. Additional on-street parking is available.
(Note that the Senior Center Activities start and begin at the same time and the 3PM Ending hour is at the same time as school being let out) The Parking Spaces are being double counted to many times now.. this is creative parking and creative math.
Development Criteria Standard
MFR District:
Approximate Lot Area 3.0 Acres
Minimum Lot Width 340 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 338 feet
Minimum Building Setbacks:
Front: 25 feet
Rear: 60 feet
Side: 70 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage (Building): 40%
Maximum Building Height: 24 feet
Parking Required: 175 spaces per unit (92 spaces provided)
Parking Landscaping Landscape divider every eight (8) parking spaces
Minimum Parking Area Setbacks:
Property Line: 6 feet
SC District:
Approximate Lot Area 0.5 Acre
Minimum Building Setbacks
Front: 100 feet
Rear: 60 feet
Side: 0 feet
Maximum Building Height: 20 feet
Parking Required: 154 spaces shared jointly with Petta Park and resident visitors
Minimum Parking Area Setbacks:
Property Line: 6 feet
P District: 1Secured Park with Public Access
Approximate Lot Area 2.6 acres
VI DESIGN GUIDELINES
These Guidelines strive to create a distinct identity for the project and to promote consistency among planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture elements in order to achieve high quality in development design and function. As guidelines, these provisions are intended to allow reasonable flexibility to assure that the developments meets expectations, and to assure that the project goals and objectives are met.
The project is an infill development situated on a key circulation route in the City of Grand Terrace. Adjoining lands that can be developed, have been developed. Public services and utilities already exist at the site. Therefore, these design guidelines focus upon on-site structures and the proposed park site.
6.1 Desiçn Guidelines
Intent of Design Guidelines
Those elements that define desirable design guidelines are described in the following sections. These guidelines are not intended to inhibit the developer and their professional design teams in the implementation of the proposed project, but rather to assure continuity among the design elements of the project.
These guidelines are intended to:
• Assist in maintaining design continuity within the project
• Ensure compatibility among adjoining land uses
• Assure high quality through rich design standards
• Promote efficient application of all design elements
These guidelines are intended for use by the developer, their design team, city staff, and decision-makers during the preparation, review, and implementation of development plans for the project.
6.1.1 Residential Siting Criteria
• Structures shall be placed on the property in scale with the community and adjoining residential development by setting greater setbacks from adjoining single family homes and Grand Terrace Road, or by use of grade variations. Figure 8 demonstrates how this criteria is met through the building design
• Parking areas shall be setback from the public street and property boundaries in order to meet City standards for landscape screening.
6.1.2 Senior Center Siting Criteria
• Access shall be designed to meet ADA requirements and for convenience to the project residents and the public who use the senior center as well as the Park.
• Parking shall be designed for joint use by visitors to the senior center, to the residential facility, and for park day users.
6.2 Architectural Guidelines
Roof Lines
The proposed project features Monterey Style architecture, with shades of Mediterranean and Craftsman style, as shown in Figure 11. Elements of the Monterey style include gable roof lines with exposed rafters. In this instance, multi-planed roof lines have been designed to avoid the monotony of a single continuous plane. All roofs will have reddish clay tile.
Windows and Doors
The Monterey style includes wide surrounds at windows and doors, often with accent braces below window sills. This theme is carried over into the balustrades along individual room balconies. The public entrance to the senior center has coved windows and doors to enrich and define this primary access portal. Certain featured windows may contain classic multi-paned glass.
Exterior finishes
The project provides variation in wall planes that serve to avoid an institutional appearance of the buildings. This variation creates shadow lines and shade for rooms at various parts of the day. The exterior finish will be stucco in either white or tan shades. Wall areas below first story windows will have an accent color of stucco. The combination of tile roofs, stucco finishes, wood surrounds, and alternate colors and/or materials along the bottom of the building will establish the mix of natural elements that define the Monterey style, while maintaining visual interest over a sustained period of time.
Gates and Trellises
Gates at the facility will consist of wrought iron material that will provide security while maintaining a sense of openness around the buildings. Wooden trellises will be provided along the elevation facing the park to add visual interest while offering shade to first story rooms during parts of the day. The trellis structures carry out the Monterey architectural theme in a transition from building area to park land.
Floor Plans
Figure 12 provides typical examples of individual apartment room layouts and content. The complex will feature one and two bedroom villas each having two square footages based on their location within the building. Units situated over parking spaces will be slightly larger. The one-bedroom units will be approximately 540 sq. ft and the two-bedroom units will be approximately 810 sq. ft.
6.2.3 Landscape Guidelines
Petta Park Conceptual Plan
The design concept for Petta Park evokes a meditative inspirational setting featuring walking paths through gardens and commemorative display areas that relate to the History of the City and the area’s culture. The park name was chosen by the City in memory of Susan Petta, the daughter of Grand Terrace’s first mayor Tony Petta, who succumbed to Leukemia.
( The land was donated by Tony Petta for a park in the memory of Susan Petta and the gift is conditional on its use being for said memorial park). Susan Petta was an avid member of Youth Activities prior to the onset of her illness. Our History and Culture is Farming, 4H, FFA, the Canal?)
The park will be secured with access portals from Grand Terrace Road and from the senior center. A senior-friendly circular walking path extends throughout the park with benches provided as resting places. An area for holiday trees and/or displays serves as the focal point at the center of the park. The display area is flanked to the north and south by formal gardens. Trees and shrubs are strategically placed to enhance each of the displays and to provide appropriate screening. Open lawn areas will be provided throughout the park.
Historical displays along the park walkways are anticipated to commemorate the area’s past. Suggested outdoor artwork could include sculptures of honey pots and honey collection boxes to symbolize past bee-keeping activities in the area. A plaque would be provided to describe the significance of the displays. The Conceptual Park Plan is presented in Figure 13.
SOLAR LIGHING REQUIRED:
6.2.4 PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE
THERE SHOULD BE NO NON EDDIBLE PLANTS. NO POISIONOUSE PLANTS SHOULD BE USED IN PUBLIC PLANTINGS Low Water Required Plants should be used other than the trees. AND Plants should be Natural to the Terrace Not Imports without Cultural or Historical Connection such as Farming Plants.
VII IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Blue Mountain Senior Villas Specific Plan will be implemented through a series of procedural steps within a timeframe that will be influenced by entitlement, permitting, financing, and market considerations. This section will elaborate upon these steps leading to project implementation.
7.1 Phasing
New construction will occur on two phasing sequences. Phase One will entail the development of the senior villas and senior center with related parking. All grading, utility extensions, buildings, and landscaped areas relating to the senior villas and senior center, as well as all parking areas for the entire project, will be constructed under Phase One. Phase Two will entail the relocation of the existing senior center into the new facility and the development of Petta Park. All grading, utility extensions, buildings, and landscaped areas relating to Petta Park will be constructed under Phase Two.
7.2 Financing Maintenance Plan
A financing plan has been prepared to identify funding mechanisms that may be used to construct improvements within the project. A decision on the type of funding will be made during the final engineering stage of the development, based on financial and market conditions that exist at that time.
The project is receiving funding, in part, from the City Redevelopment Agency. All lands within the City are designated as Redevelopment Areas. When these lands are developed, the increase in property tax value that would otherwise go to county and state governments can be retained by the City to fund projects. In order to do this, state law requires that portions of these proceeds be set aside to fund low-moderate income housing. The proposed project meets this requirement and will receive Redevelopment Agency ‘set-aside’ funds to comply with state law.
It is anticipated that all improvements will be privately maintained, although Petta Park will have controlled public access and use during posted daytime hours.
FINANCING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
Servicel Facility Construction Funding Operations & Responsibility
Responsibility Maintenance
Buildings and Grounds
Villas Developer/Builder Developer/Builder Developer/Builder
Senior Center Developer/Builder Developer/Builder Volunteers/Developer
7.3 Development Review Process
The Blue Mountain Senior Villas Specific Plan will require a series of actions to gain approvals and permits for construction. Discretionary approvals are required for the Specific Plan and site plan review. Additional approvals are required by the City and other agencies that provide services to the site relating to grading plans, drainage plans, landscape/irrigation plans, building permits, occupancy permits, and utility plans. These plans and permits shall follow the appropriate review processes that are in place by the various agencies.
7.4 Adjustments and Amendments
Changes may be made to the project as minor adjustments subject to administrative approval by City staff. Staff may elect to refer changes deemed ‘major’ to the Planning Commission and affirmed by the City Council. The following section provides examples of changes that may be considered as minor and those that may be considered as major.
7.4.1 Administrative Adjustments
Certain minor adjustments to the provisions of the Specific Plan may be made administratively by the Community Development Director without amending the plan. Examples of minor adjustments include:
• Addition of new information to the Specific Plan text or exhibits that does not change the purpose and intent of any provisions or guidelines.
• Changes to the community infrastructure, including water, sewer, drainage streets, or utilities which do not substantially alter the development plan.
• Minor changes to the architectural style or landscape plans for the project.
• Other changes that are qualify as adjustments based on the determination of the Community Development Director, and are consistent with the overall objectives of the Specific Plan.
7.4.2 Amendments
The Specific Plan may be amended in the same manner as the General
Plan and considered in public hearings as a discretionary action. Specific
Plan shall be consistent with the General Plan. Examples of amendments
include:
• Substantive changes to the text or exhibits which materially change the Specific Plan provisions or guidelines.
• Changes affecting the boundary, land use type, or land use intensity of the Specific Plan.
• Changes to architecture, landscape architecture, or conceptual land use plan which constitute a substantial change from the established theme for the project.
VIII RELATION TO GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
As stated in Section 1.5 of this document, state law requires that all specific plans be consistent with the general plan of the lead agency, (i.e. City of Grand Terrace). A general plan amendment has been filed to accomplish this consistency. The general plan addresses the aspects of community development through six sections, or Elements. This section compares the Blue Mountain Senior Villas Amended Specific Plan with the applicable Goals and Objectives for the Elements of the Grand Terrace General Plan.
8.1 LAND USE ELEMENT
Goal 1.1: Enrichment of the community by optimizing the availability and usefulness of the City’s aesthetic, cultural, and recreational resources.
Consistency: The proposed project implements this goal in several ways. The aesthetic quality of the community is enhanced by converting vacant land to development featuring strong architectural design, landscaped grounds, and a privately maintained park that will be available for public use during daytime hours. Moreover, the design and amenities of the park celebrate the cultural history of Grand Terrace.
Vacant Land is not UGLY it is the closest to NATURE we HAVE, Cultural History of Grand Terrace, and that is not a formal park it is farming, irrigation, and family.
Goal 1.2: Balanced growth which seeks to provide opportunities for a wide range of employment and housing and maintenance of a healthy, diverse, economy.
Consistency: The project increases the range of housing diversity by providing housing for seniors, complete with senior-oriented amenities. The project also offers employment opportunities for on-site and support staff to operate the facility and maintain Petta Park.
(Low income jobs, and the amenities like Doctors and Markets and Public Transportation are not located or planned)
Goal 1.3: Promote and encourage a supply of housing suitable to the needs
of and sufficient in number to serve existing and projected residents of Grand Terrace.
Consistency: The project provides additional housing opportunities, aimed at a specific market population, that is ideally suited to the pace and amenities of the community.
(Most if not all seniors living at the Villas will be not prior residents of Grand Terrace).
Goal 1.4: Promote and encourage housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community, regardless of age, sex, ethnic background, physical condition, or family size.
Consistency: Though age restrictions will be in place, this development is oriented to the specific needs of an aging population and represents an opportunity to serve a growing need in the community for senior housing. No restrictions will be applied on the basis of sex, ethnic background, or physical condition. The living areas will be sized to accommodate singles or couples with no children in residence.
Can 4 Adults, move into a 2 Bedroom Apartment? Say a Mom and Dad in their 90’s and their two Daughters in their 65+, all within the age requirements? This would bring the total Maximum Population of the Villas up to 270. With only 96 planned parking spaces for 120 apartments. This is California, and this is Grand Terrace. This town is Car Dependent and no Public Transportation. PARKING IS A PROBLEM how many times does it need to be said?
Goal 2.1: Require the provision of useful recreational open spaces within new residential developments.
Consistency: The project serves to implement the development of Petta Park for public use during posted daytime hours.
Susan Petta love Goats and was a member of 4H . Is the Park going to have a 4H portion? This would give the Seniors Pets without having Pets in the Villa, and the Youth a reason to interact with Seniors on a Common Interest.
Goal 2.2: Design of new development shall respect and preserve the view opportunities of existing development in the area.
Consistency: Careful attention is being provided to landscape selection and placement within Petta Park to minimize impact to the neighboring residences. The design of the senior villas retains a two story maximum height for compatibility with the current heights of single family residences in the area. The building setback from the rear property line, where the nearest single family residences exist, is 60 feet in order to retain the scale of building massing between land uses.
(This is an improvement)
8.3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Goal 3.1: Mixed use development which can demonstrate superior use of land, more efficient utilization of public facilities, and more effective conservation of natural resources shall be strongly encouraged by the City of Grand Terrace.
Consistency: The project is a mixed use development featuring residential use with two forms of recreational uses. Recreational and community service activities will be available through the senior center and within the park. The privately maintained park will be available for public use during posted daytime hours. The project represents an infill development where all forms of public services and infrastructure already exist. The site does not contain any significant natural resources.
How Significant are Roadrunners, Hawks, and Open Space?
Goal 3.2 Specific Plan shall be required for all multi-family projects of 20 or more units, and shall also be applied to low density projects....
Consistency: The project features more than 20 dwelling units and is being processed as a specific plan.
Where is a similar project for people of ALL AGES and Perhaps a YOUTH CENTER?
Review of the Specific Plan Revisions for the Purpose of Building the Blue Mt. Senior Villas
1.3 Project Summary
The project site contains an existing senior center and parking lot that has been serving the community of Grand Terrace for a number of years. The site has proven to be well-placed near goods and services for seniors in the downtown area of Grand Terrace, while also located in a quiet, uncongested neighborhood that is conducive for senior activities. In anticipation of development of the site, pursuant to the original approval of the project, the senior center and parking lot were re-located from the east end to the west end of the site as grading commenced for the project. The senior center, however, remains in service to the community. The project was successfully challenged in a court of law that resulted in revisions to the design of the project and preparation of a companion environmental impact report. These changes necessitate an amendment to the adopted Specific Plan.
The above contains several false statements:
The Site is not proven to be Well-Placed near goods and Services. As a Matter of fact the EIR Suggest the Location for the Senior Housing should be on Barton Road closer to public transportation and services. The writers of the EIR then offer a concession to the city’s desire to use Barton Road as a Retail Sales Tax Generation District. In doing so it does not explore the Environmental Impacts on the Entire Community if there are Businesses surrounding for example “The Terrace” Retirement and Assisted Living Complex.
Grand Terrace has Limited Public Transportation NONE of which goes near the Senior Center/Senior Villas.
Grand Terrace Stores and Shops and Doctors ALL are on Roads that Prohibit the use of LEV’s and NEV’s to make short trips.
Full Pedestrian Improvements are not made between the Senior Center/Housing and the stores. There are Places where NO Sidewalk exists.
The Development will create Congested which the Development lists as Uncontested. Any Activity that will begin at the beginning or end of the School Day will result in excessive congestion along Grand Terrace Road. The Changes to the Specific Plan are not necessitated as a result of the Court Case; the Changes are necessitated by the Extreme Variance between the intended use of building a Senior Center/ Housing Project and the Current Un-amended Specific
Plan and Zoning.
The frontage of the site has full improvements, including, utilities, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. An ALTA survey of the site is provided as Figure 3 that reflects the previous location of on-site improvements. The proposed development will feature a two-story, 120 room residential facility for active senior citizens totaling approximately 100,000 square feet, a one-story approximately 7,000 square foot senior facility on one-half acre for senior-oriented activities; and an approximately 2.6 acre public park. The residential facility is designed to provide 103 one-bedroom and 17 two-bedroom apartments. Parking is provided to include 92 spaces for residents and 54 spaces for joint use by resident guests, senior center visitors, and park visitors. A total of 146 parking spaces are provided, including 11 ADA accessible parking spaces
There is clearly a Problem with Parking: 120 ACTIVE SENIORS Units: 92 Parking Spaces. NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, INCOMPLETE PEDESTRIAN WAY TO SERVICES. ONLY 54 Parking Spaces for all other Non Resident Uses including Senior Center Visitors, Resident Guests, and Park Visitors, Senior Center Use OFTEN Exceeds 50 cars on activity days. That is without Resident Visitors and Park Visitors also demanding parking space.
The current maximum density allowed within the City’s Zoning Ordinance is 12 units per acre, with a 20% density bonus provision for up to 16 dwelling units per acre where a public benefit, such as a privately maintained park with posted hours for public access, is provided and where infrastructure already exists. A general plan amendment has been filed to establish the Medium High Density Residential designation that allows 20 units per acre, subject to concurrent processing of a Specific Plan that sets forth the provisions of the R3-S (Multiple Family Residential-Senior Citizen) zone. The proposed density of 20 dwelling units per acre is appropriate for this site due to several factors.
1. The City’s Zoning Ordinance allows a density bonus for projects that provide a community benefit, such as a park. The proposed project includes the development of Petta Park.
A Park with insufficient Parking is not a Public Use Park. There are no Restrooms in the Park; Public Sanitation will be at risk, not only for Residents visiting the park but for members of the public.
2. The City must comply with State Housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). In a letter dated June 10, 2005, (attached as Exhibit ‘A’), the State Department of Housing and Community development found the City of Grand Terrace to be in compliance with the law, provided that the City specifically rezone this site, and certain other properties, as R3 (+) and complete the processing of the Grand Terrace Road Senior Housing Specific Plan, (now titled the Blue Mountain Senior Villas Amended Specific Plan), for the subject site. The R3 (+) is expressed as R3-S.
Reading Attachment A:
……… However, the City Must also commit to rezoning at least one additional site in Action 1.n, either site No. 6 comparable size site to R-3+ as well. This commitment will insure that appropriate housing opportunities are available to non-senior households as described in our February 14, 2005 review. The City should also update those programs with deadlines that have passed (including rezone).
The above is not done and thus the City Remains out of compliance with the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development.
3. All forms of public improvements currently exist at the site and the proposed project serves as an infill development.
Does the Water Treatment Provider have sufficient capacity to treat the additional load of sewage?
4. Objections previously raised over the original project, under “Citizens for Responsible and Open Government” vs. the “City of Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency and Corporation for Better Housing” that resulted in a court action requiring this amendment to the original project, are being addressed under the proposed project.
The following actions are necessary to facilitate the proposed project:
• Approve a General Plan Amendment to designate the project site as Medium High Density Residential; and
• Approve the Specific Plan to establish density and design criteria specifically for the proposed project; and
• Approve the Zone Change to R-3-S (Multiple Family, Senior Citizen) zone; and
• Approve revised Site Plan and Architectural plans for the proposed project; and
Certify an environmental impact report that discloses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.
A Plan should not include statements about Court Action as a point of reference or in justification or rational for a Plan Proposal. This portion should be redacted and not considered as justification for approval of the Specific Plan or changes to the General Plan. This is Retroactive Adjustment to make the Site fit the Project, it is not a PLAN being followed. This is a Development writing or leading the Plan. The city has in the past refused reversed engineering drawings and statements from people who built without permits. A Development changing the General Plan or Specific Plan for an area is Reverse Planning and some would say not Planning. This practice is ill advised as it has an arbitrary nature restricting projects not favored by the City Staff, and accommodations being made for Selected Individuals or Developers.
1.4 Development Context
The project site is bound on three sides by existing development. Single family residential units, consisting of one and two-story structures, exist along the southerly and westerly boundaries. Fencing has been installed by individual lot owners and consists of a mix of wood fences, masonry walls, and combination masonry and wrought iron fencing, all typically at six feet in height. A chain link fence exists along the easterly boundary installed by the school district for Terrace View Elementary School. The nearest classroom facilities are setback approximately 40 feet inside the school property.
Perhaps the Temporary Buildings are closer than 40 feet from the school property line someone may want to check this fact. As it relates to noise and other environmental issues.
Vegetation consists of non-native grasses and scattered trees. There are no defined drainage courses, or noticeable topographic relief except for an earthen berm constructed at the edge of improvements associated with the existing senior citizen center.
It is true that this is a previously farmed piece of property. Which contains historical trees, Walnut, and so forth? This Plan should include the replanting of trees and pomegranate bushes for their historical value and site integrity. The Plan and list of plants in the EIR are High Water Use Plants, and some are Poisonous to Individuals and wildlife and possibly pets and children. There is no need to add toxic plants to a park design.
The existing senior center consists of roughly 4,500 square feet. The well utilized facility presently offers exercise classes, art classes, music and dance classes; a game room for cards, crafts, and board games; evening entertainment, and special holiday events. The County of San Bernardino provides weekday lunches at the facility, and counselors are on hand to provide advice about social services, health, and financial matters. The center includes space for offices, a library/reading room, a computer area, a lounge, and the lobby area. The facility is operated daily by volunteers.
It would be important to list existing number of cars and participants and visitors to the current senior center.
The proposed project will have access from two driveway entries along Grand Terrace Road, a 66 foot wide Collector street. A 1.6 acre parcel lying along Grand Terrace Road, opposite the proposed project, is owned by the City and includes an Edison easement that contains electrical towers that support power lines.
Has Edison Approved this? Has the effect of a parking lot on the Bluff been studied for the issues of Bluff Stability and Hydrology of the effect of additional pavement and pressure on the Bluff? It could not be determined that this study was done from the information in the EIR
The project site lies at an interface between suburban residential development and a cluster of public facilities, (senior center and elementary school), and electrical utilities that serve the area.
1.5 Authority and Scope
The Blue Mountain Senior Villas Amended Specific Plan has been prepared under the authority of California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Article 8, Section 65450 et seq. Section 65451 of the Government Code states that a specific plan shall include “all detailed regulations, conditions, programs, and proposed legislation which shall be necessary and convenient for systematic implementation” of each of the mandated elements, adopted by the City as part of the General Plan. The Code further specifies the content of the Specific Plan to include:
(a) Text and diagrams that specify all of the following:
1. The location and standards for land uses and facilities; and
2. The location and standards for streets, roads, and other transportation facilities; and
3. Standards for population density and building intensity, and provisions for supporting services; and
4. Provisions for implementing the Open Space Element; and
5. Other appropriate measures.
As required by state law, all specific plans shall be consistent with the General Plan. A General Plan Amendment has been filed to accomplish this consistency.
II Planning Framework
2.1 Jurisdictional Framework
2.1.1 City of Grand Terrace General Plan and Zoning (Figure 4)
Land Use is guided by the City of Grand Terrace General Plan. The Plan allocates land use types and intensity, augmented by goals, policies, and standards to guide development. The General Plan designation for the project site is currently Low Density Residential. This designation applies to areas intended for single family residential projects at a density of up to 5 units per acre. The proposed project features a density of twenty (20) units per acre. The following policy applies in this case:
Specific Plans shall be required for all multiple family projects of 20 or more units, and shall also be applied to low density projects.
In this instance, a Specific Plan and a general plan amendment have been filed to establish a new density category to allow Medium High density development and R3-S (Multiple Family Residential-Senior Citizens) zone, such as the proposed senior-oriented development. The purpose and standards for the new designation are set forth under this Specific Plan.
The City of Grand Terrace Title 18 Zoning Code outlines the uses permitted and development standards to guide development. The project site is zoned R1- 7.2 that is intended for low density single family residences on lots having a minimum area of 7,200 square feet. The maximum density under the zone is five dwelling units per acre. A zone change has been filed to rezone the property as R-3-S (Multiple Family Residential-Senior Citizens).
The Loss of this Low Density Residential Area in Grand Terrace also eliminates the opportunity for our citizens to have the benefits of such an area, which includes larger lots that can host small farm animals or perhaps a horse or ???? The lost opportunity for these features in a General Plan Affect not only the adjacent homes but the entire community. Shouldn’t it be asked if the new plan is ok, what is wrong or why was it planned for low density in the past?
2.2 Existing Conditions
2.2.1 Existing Land Use
The City intends to merge two parcels into one parcel that are currently identified on County tax records as Assessors Parcels 276-461-09 and 14. What had been Assessors Parcel 276-461-09 is currently developed in part as a senior center and related parking offering community activities to senior citizens. The majority of the property remains vacant.
2.2.2 Land Use Setting
The proposed project represents an infill development among surrounding uses that have been described in Section 1.4, Development Context. Single family residential development exists to the south and west, an elementary school lies to the east, and undeveloped land containing electrical towers exists to the north.
There is No Mention of the BLUFF/Cliff and Stability of the Cliff Face and the Roadway that is often covered in Dirt Slides from hill collapse, or planned road work regarding the 215 and off ramp.
The proposed project features senior villas that are building setback approximately 25 feet or greater from the property line, and related parking setback a minimum of approximately six feet from the property line. A privately maintained park, with controlled public access during posted hours, would extend from the apartment and senior center complex to the westerly property line.
WHAT is a Controlled Privately Maintained Public Park? WHO and What are the Controls? The Park will apparently be maintained by the Corporation for Better Housing with gates open Sun Up to Sun Down like Pico Park. However, In the summer months when the Senior Center Is Closed and the Park is Open the lack of Public Restroom Facilities, may become a health issue.
2.2.3 Circulation / Traffic
Access to the project site shall be from Grand Terrace Road is a publicly dedicated Collector Street designed for 44 feet of paving within 66 feet of right-of-way. Full public improvements, except sidewalks, exist along the frontage of the site. The proposed project will be required to complete the parkway improvements along the opposite side of the street.
Will all improvements be made to connect sidewalks to Public Services and Stores? A full sidewalk from Senior Center to Stores and Doctors on Mt Vernon and Barton Rd?
The project proposes two points of access. A public access is planned at the west of the senior villas for residents, senior center visitors, and park visitors. This parking area comprises 48 spaces. A second access is planned near the easterly boundary for parking by project residents and their guests. Resident parking consists of 98 spaces. The total parking is 146 spaces, including 11 ADA accessible parking spaces. No physical connection is proposed between the two parking areas, although a public sidewalk will be constructed along the frontage of the site. Due to the length of driveway serving resident around area has been provided pursuant to Fire Departments standards.
The project is responsible for construction of on-site street improvements and for any modifications required to Grand Terrace Road that are related to the development of the proposed project.
2.2.4 Topography
Existing elevations of the site, not including the proposed park area, range from 1072 to 1100 feet above mean sea level with an average 3% slope. Natural terrain and the area graded to establish the existing senior center are separated by an earthen berm.
Proposed finished floor elevations are designed to descend from east to west as shown in the Grading Plan, (Figure 5). A twenty-foot cut will be created along the easterly boundary, (adjoining the elementary school), and will be replaced with a 2:1 slope between the property line and the parking area. Maximum 2:1 cut slopes are also designed at varying heights between the southerly property line and the parking area. The variation in elevation between the property line and the structure will aid in screening parking area from off-site vantages while also, in combination with setback distances, minimize conflicts between adjacent single story residences and proposed two-story senior villas.
Run off into Storm Drains is the lowest form of water management. Maximum water retention and filtration should be required prior to the water going into the “Storm Drains” Concern for the Homes between the Development and the storm drain is not completely reviled in the EIR. Current conditions on Mt. Vernon are such that the storm drain is a flooded area when it rains, and when the city’s watering of the median causes overflow onto the street and across to the storm drain, the slick road has been the cause of many near accidents. When the street is flooded or the storm drain is not carrying off all the water there is an increased hazard to both drivers and pedestrians. Cars have jumped the curb during a water related slide.
There is a four-foot grade reduction over a portion of the east building façade, while the balance is ground level. This creates the variable slope height condition along the southerly boundary.
2.2.5 Flooding
This project site is free of flood hazards according the Federal Emergency management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map. The project site will be graded to convey onsite drainage to the street to be collected in the city storm drain system.
This does not remove the fact the Bluff will have new Water Dynamic affecting its stability and the safety of the Road?
2.2.6 Utilities
All utilities exist within grand Terrace Road at the site and are sufficient to serve the development. Existing on-site improvements any require removal and replacement to serve the proposed project. This will be accomplished pursuant to the requirements of each affected agency. Section IV provides details of existing services.
WOW there is a great big Black Hole of Possible Cost to the Citizens… “ANY REQUIRED and REMOVAL and REPLACMENT TO SERVE THE …..
3.1 Land Uses
The proposed project are consist of approximately 6.10 acres and features three land use categories that establish under the Specific Plan. The Conceptual Land Use Plan (Figure 7) illustrates these categories and support uses.
3.1.1 Multiple Family Senior Development
This category will consist of 120 senior-oriented villas, and related parking area on approximately 3.0 acres. The facility and grounds will be privately operated and maintained under a long-term lease with the City of Grand Terrace. The villas will consist of 103 one bedroom units and 17 two bedroom units. This one and two bedroom units will be approximately 540 sq. ft and approximately 810 sq. ft., respectively.
That is 40 Units per Ac. Not 20. That could be 2 person per unit for the one bedroom or 206 and another max of 64 for the two bedroom units. So 270 people on 3 acres and that is not including the Senior Center Day Participants.
3.1.2 Senior Center
A senior center facility, consisting of approximately 7,000 square feet on approximately one-half acre, will be provided for public use. The facility will be attached to the adjoining apartment building to enable interior access by residents of the villas. A separate entry will be provided for the public. Parking is provided for 54 vehicles. Including six (6) handicapped spaces, to be used jointly by villa residents. Villa guests, senior center visitors, and park visitors.
With a Maximum Possible Population of 270 People in the Senior Villas, and only 96 Parking Places it is natural to assume the 56 “Shared” spaces will be used by Villa Residents and there will be insufficient parking for Seniors Visiting the Senior Center or Park Visitors or even Villa Resident Visitors.
The Boomers will be moving in to this Senior Project and Bommers are Car People if there is no alternative transportation available. The Current Parking Plan seems to be insufficient planning. Lack of Garage for Residents is also a Variant from the requirements of other housing requirements.
3.1.3 Public Access Park
An adjacent park with public access during posted hours, is planned on approximately 2.6 acres for day use activities. The park will be maintained by a private entity and secured, as required by the City, to control access during night time hours. The park will be available for public use, typically from dawn to dusk as a passive recreational area, in that there will be no structures or activity equipment. The park will be landscaped and contain walking trails with sitting areas.
(NO Drinking Fountains? No Restrooms? SOME of the PUBLIC can’t make it all the way home or to the Senior Center).
IV INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
This section will outline the existing and planned public services and infrastructure that is needed to support the proposed development. To a great extent, these services or infrastructure already exists to serve the proposed project.
4.1 Circulation
Vehicular Access
Direct access exists at the site from Grand Terrace Road, a two-lane undivided stret designed to Local Street standards under the General Plan. A Collector Street requires 44 feet of paving, with eleven feet of parkway for a sidewalk and landscaping on each side, within a 66-foot right-of-way. A complete level of street improvements exists along the frontage of the property. No parkway improvements exist on the opposite side of Grand Terrace Road.
Parkway Risks in need of mitigation are also on the opposite side of Grand Terrace Road. There exists an entrenchment which has been the ruin of many automobiles and has been routinely overgrown with weeds leading drivers to assume that there is solid level ground on the shoulder of the road only to find that there is a trench to guide the runoff away from the bluff. Additional Parking will be needed. People will park on the street due to the lack of parking on site. Traffic Jams Currently happens on days of Senior Citizen Activities and School being let out at the same time. There is a problem here to say there is no problem is a gross error in judgment for the conditions of the present and the future should the development be built and more traffic and use is added to this roadway.
Regional access is provided to the site from Mt. Vernon Avenue, designated as a major Highway. Major Highways require 72 feet of paving within a 100 foot right-of-way. This allows for four lanes of travel as a divided highway. Mt. Vernon Avenue provides access to I-215 to the southwest and I-10 to the north. The street is fully improved going south from Grand Terrace Road, and tapers to a local street section going northbound due to topographical constraints.
The Designation of Mt. Vernon Avenue being a “Major Highway” was done at a time Pre 215 and was a DoD Designation which was needed to connect the then Norton AFB and March Field via Pigeon Pass. Part of that Designation would not allow for the Island of Boulders and Palm Trees or the Stop sign at the Top of the Grade. So this statement is only partially correct and representative of how the road is used and why the designation was made and oddly that it still exists as the Bases have Closed, and Stop Signs have been installed.
The local street system is operating below capacity and no additional streets or right-of-way are needed to support the project.
Try making the claim that the local street system is operating below capacity in the Morning on a School Day, or After School. IF Capacity is to be Major Highway… Perhaps, but Major Highways don’t have stop signs at nearly every corner, and they don’t feed into a narrow two lane cliff road.
Parking
Parking will be shared among the uses on the site with the City as sole owner of the property.
Parking is insufficient. Including if permitted and improved on street parking is available.
4.2 Water Supply
Riverside-Highland Water Company provides domestic water supply service to the City of Grand Terrace. Water service presently exists at the site in the form of an eight (8) inch line having 90 pounds of pressure. The proposed project does not require any upgrades to lines serving the area.
4.3 Sewer Service
The City of Grand Terrace operates the sewer collection system through the city and has purchased capacity within the Colton Regional Treatment Plant for processing. Sewage capacity will need to be verified as part of the permitting process for the project.
How much more can be handled by the treatment plant? This should be a known amount by the Treatment Plant. The residents will be NEW USERS and Additional requirements unlike the people who visit the senior center who would be using the facilities if they were at home or at the Senior Center so the amount needing processed is not increased by the Citizen User at the Park or the Senior Center.
An eight (8) inch sewer line presently exists at the site and does not require any upgrades to trunk lines serving the area.
4.4 Storm Drains
The project site is located within the San Bernardino County Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan No. 3. The plan established an integrated system of local storm drains necessary to collect and convey storm flows. The system is maintained by the County of San Bernardino. Drainage at the site is conveyed as surface flows within grand Terrace Road and collected in a storm drain located at the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Mt. Vernon Avenue.
A Hydrology study will be prepared, as necessary, in conjunction with the proposed project to verify the ability of existing drainage systems to handle any additional flows generated from the project.
The Hydrology study should also contain a study on the impact on the stability of the bluff and the road should the increased runoff have an affect on the bluff in any adverse way.
4.5 Dry Utilities
Electricity: Southern California Edison provides electrical power to the area. Power is presently available at the site within an underground conduit along the frontage. Additional overhead lines exist along the west and south boundaries of the project site. No additional off-site improvements are required for the propose project.
Threre are no requirements to use PV Cells, or have a “Green Building” design.
Telephone: Pacific Telephone provides telephone service to the area. This service presently exists at the site within an underground conduit along the frontage and no additional off-site improvements are required.
(Our Phone Service is SBC not Pacific Telephone)
Natural Gas: Southern California Gas Company provides service to the area. A gas line exists along the frontage of the site and no additional off-site improvements are required.
4.6 Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste collection is under a franchise with Waste Management, Inc. and hauled to the San Bernardino County Landfill at San Timeteo Canon. This Service Already exists at the site and will continue with the proposed project.
Recycling Requirements and other Environmental or Green Use has been neglected. Trash shoots for garbage and Recycles?
V DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Blue Mountain Senior Villas Amended Specific Plan will serve as the principal guide for implementation of the proposed project through site plan, design review, and final engineering processes. The Specific Plan will define the character of the development through the definition of allowable uses, density, design guidelines, and infrastructure services. The design guidelines will address the building layout design, architectural standards, and landscape architecture. These elements will collectively address all of the key design features that form the project.
The intent of the Development Standards is to define development specifications to assure an orderly development, achieve a high level of design quality, reflect features that are unique to senior-oriented developments, and to unify all of the elements that form the project. Therefore, these regulations and standards will supersede the provisions of the City of Grand Terrace Zoning Ordinance that relate to the proposed project. Instances where the Specific Plan does not address a development issue, regulation, procedure, or policy, the applicable sections of the Grand Terrace Zoning Ordinance, and/or any other applicable City ordinance, shall prevail.
5.1 Specific Plan Land Use Development Standards
This section outlines the development standards for the land use designations within the specific plan. As noted above, where development standards for the proposed Specific Plan land uses are different from the City Zoning Code requirements, the provisions of this Specific Plan shall prevail. Development within the Specific Plan must meet the criteria of the land use designations described herein.
5.1.1 Multiple Family Residential (MFR): Is the proposed Specific Plan designation applied to residential development within the project in a manner consistent with the Conceptual Land Use Plan (CLUP), Figure 5. As a conceptual plan, the CLUP will be subject to refinement as part of the plan review process as more precise engineering details become available and public input is applied.
The maximum density within the MFR designation is 20 units per net acre, based on a density transfer of all of the approximately 6.1 acres within the development to the area of this designation. The density transfer is necessary in order to establish other public uses. All residences within this designation shall be limited to senior citizens over the age of 62 years.
( It is 40 per acre, LETS BE TRUTHFUL). The City does not allow the building of a stand alone house that small on a lot owned and occupied by the homeowner. The Park is planned; it is not a Requirement in the prior reference to the Park in relation to the Senior Villas. This allows for alternative uses or not building of the park.) Where else in Grand Terrace is housing available to non seniors, of Very Low and Low Income? IF there is housing for Non Seniors… what is stopping Seniors from moving into those accommodations?
Permitted uses shall be limited to the following:
1. Multiple family dwelling units.
2. Off-street parking serving on-site uses
5.1.2 Senior Center (SC): This designation applies to the approximately 7000 square-foot Senior Center within the Specific Plan. The center shall be available for use of project residents and the public.
Permitted uses, aimed at senior citizens age 55 and over, including, but not limited to the following:
1. Exercise and Instructional Classes
2. Recreational activities
3. Entertainment
4. Catered meals
5. Counseling services
6. Reading rooms
7. Laundry room
8. Other similar uses related to senior center activities.
(AND Where do the OTHER YOUNGER or YOUTH Go?)
5.1.3 Park (P): This designation is applied to the park area, with controlled public access during posted hours, as described within the Specific Plan. The park shall be developed in a manner consistent with the Specific Plan, and will be subject to further refinement through the final engineering processes.
Permitted uses shall be limited to outdoor recreation facilities
The development standards for each of the land use designations is presented in Table 2.
Perhaps this should be called the NASA PARK: Wear your Adult Diapers because there are no Restrooms.
5.2 General Plan Land Use Designation
The entire project site is designated as Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) on the Grand Terrace General Plan. All of the specific plan land use categories must be consistent with the general plan land use designation.
40 units / ac is Medium High Density Residential, what is HIGH Density Residential?
BLUE MOUNTAIN SENIO VILLAS AMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1Off-street parking will be shared among the uses based on variable peak hours of use. The peak hour use for the senior center will be from 11AM to 3 PM weekdays. The Petta Park peak hours of use will be in the early mornings, late afternoons/early evenings, and on weekends. Parking for the senior villas will be assigned .75 space for each unit. Additional on-street parking is available.
(Note that the Senior Center Activities start and begin at the same time and the 3PM Ending hour is at the same time as school being let out) The Parking Spaces are being double counted to many times now.. this is creative parking and creative math.
Development Criteria Standard
MFR District:
Approximate Lot Area 3.0 Acres
Minimum Lot Width 340 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 338 feet
Minimum Building Setbacks:
Front: 25 feet
Rear: 60 feet
Side: 70 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage (Building): 40%
Maximum Building Height: 24 feet
Parking Required: 175 spaces per unit (92 spaces provided)
Parking Landscaping Landscape divider every eight (8) parking spaces
Minimum Parking Area Setbacks:
Property Line: 6 feet
SC District:
Approximate Lot Area 0.5 Acre
Minimum Building Setbacks
Front: 100 feet
Rear: 60 feet
Side: 0 feet
Maximum Building Height: 20 feet
Parking Required: 154 spaces shared jointly with Petta Park and resident visitors
Minimum Parking Area Setbacks:
Property Line: 6 feet
P District: 1Secured Park with Public Access
Approximate Lot Area 2.6 acres
VI DESIGN GUIDELINES
These Guidelines strive to create a distinct identity for the project and to promote consistency among planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture elements in order to achieve high quality in development design and function. As guidelines, these provisions are intended to allow reasonable flexibility to assure that the developments meets expectations, and to assure that the project goals and objectives are met.
The project is an infill development situated on a key circulation route in the City of Grand Terrace. Adjoining lands that can be developed, have been developed. Public services and utilities already exist at the site. Therefore, these design guidelines focus upon on-site structures and the proposed park site.
6.1 Desiçn Guidelines
Intent of Design Guidelines
Those elements that define desirable design guidelines are described in the following sections. These guidelines are not intended to inhibit the developer and their professional design teams in the implementation of the proposed project, but rather to assure continuity among the design elements of the project.
These guidelines are intended to:
• Assist in maintaining design continuity within the project
• Ensure compatibility among adjoining land uses
• Assure high quality through rich design standards
• Promote efficient application of all design elements
These guidelines are intended for use by the developer, their design team, city staff, and decision-makers during the preparation, review, and implementation of development plans for the project.
6.1.1 Residential Siting Criteria
• Structures shall be placed on the property in scale with the community and adjoining residential development by setting greater setbacks from adjoining single family homes and Grand Terrace Road, or by use of grade variations. Figure 8 demonstrates how this criteria is met through the building design
• Parking areas shall be setback from the public street and property boundaries in order to meet City standards for landscape screening.
6.1.2 Senior Center Siting Criteria
• Access shall be designed to meet ADA requirements and for convenience to the project residents and the public who use the senior center as well as the Park.
• Parking shall be designed for joint use by visitors to the senior center, to the residential facility, and for park day users.
6.2 Architectural Guidelines
Roof Lines
The proposed project features Monterey Style architecture, with shades of Mediterranean and Craftsman style, as shown in Figure 11. Elements of the Monterey style include gable roof lines with exposed rafters. In this instance, multi-planed roof lines have been designed to avoid the monotony of a single continuous plane. All roofs will have reddish clay tile.
Windows and Doors
The Monterey style includes wide surrounds at windows and doors, often with accent braces below window sills. This theme is carried over into the balustrades along individual room balconies. The public entrance to the senior center has coved windows and doors to enrich and define this primary access portal. Certain featured windows may contain classic multi-paned glass.
Exterior finishes
The project provides variation in wall planes that serve to avoid an institutional appearance of the buildings. This variation creates shadow lines and shade for rooms at various parts of the day. The exterior finish will be stucco in either white or tan shades. Wall areas below first story windows will have an accent color of stucco. The combination of tile roofs, stucco finishes, wood surrounds, and alternate colors and/or materials along the bottom of the building will establish the mix of natural elements that define the Monterey style, while maintaining visual interest over a sustained period of time.
Gates and Trellises
Gates at the facility will consist of wrought iron material that will provide security while maintaining a sense of openness around the buildings. Wooden trellises will be provided along the elevation facing the park to add visual interest while offering shade to first story rooms during parts of the day. The trellis structures carry out the Monterey architectural theme in a transition from building area to park land.
Floor Plans
Figure 12 provides typical examples of individual apartment room layouts and content. The complex will feature one and two bedroom villas each having two square footages based on their location within the building. Units situated over parking spaces will be slightly larger. The one-bedroom units will be approximately 540 sq. ft and the two-bedroom units will be approximately 810 sq. ft.
6.2.3 Landscape Guidelines
Petta Park Conceptual Plan
The design concept for Petta Park evokes a meditative inspirational setting featuring walking paths through gardens and commemorative display areas that relate to the History of the City and the area’s culture. The park name was chosen by the City in memory of Susan Petta, the daughter of Grand Terrace’s first mayor Tony Petta, who succumbed to Leukemia.
( The land was donated by Tony Petta for a park in the memory of Susan Petta and the gift is conditional on its use being for said memorial park). Susan Petta was an avid member of Youth Activities prior to the onset of her illness. Our History and Culture is Farming, 4H, FFA, the Canal?)
The park will be secured with access portals from Grand Terrace Road and from the senior center. A senior-friendly circular walking path extends throughout the park with benches provided as resting places. An area for holiday trees and/or displays serves as the focal point at the center of the park. The display area is flanked to the north and south by formal gardens. Trees and shrubs are strategically placed to enhance each of the displays and to provide appropriate screening. Open lawn areas will be provided throughout the park.
Historical displays along the park walkways are anticipated to commemorate the area’s past. Suggested outdoor artwork could include sculptures of honey pots and honey collection boxes to symbolize past bee-keeping activities in the area. A plaque would be provided to describe the significance of the displays. The Conceptual Park Plan is presented in Figure 13.
SOLAR LIGHING REQUIRED:
6.2.4 PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE
THERE SHOULD BE NO NON EDDIBLE PLANTS. NO POISIONOUSE PLANTS SHOULD BE USED IN PUBLIC PLANTINGS Low Water Required Plants should be used other than the trees. AND Plants should be Natural to the Terrace Not Imports without Cultural or Historical Connection such as Farming Plants.
VII IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Blue Mountain Senior Villas Specific Plan will be implemented through a series of procedural steps within a timeframe that will be influenced by entitlement, permitting, financing, and market considerations. This section will elaborate upon these steps leading to project implementation.
7.1 Phasing
New construction will occur on two phasing sequences. Phase One will entail the development of the senior villas and senior center with related parking. All grading, utility extensions, buildings, and landscaped areas relating to the senior villas and senior center, as well as all parking areas for the entire project, will be constructed under Phase One. Phase Two will entail the relocation of the existing senior center into the new facility and the development of Petta Park. All grading, utility extensions, buildings, and landscaped areas relating to Petta Park will be constructed under Phase Two.
7.2 Financing Maintenance Plan
A financing plan has been prepared to identify funding mechanisms that may be used to construct improvements within the project. A decision on the type of funding will be made during the final engineering stage of the development, based on financial and market conditions that exist at that time.
The project is receiving funding, in part, from the City Redevelopment Agency. All lands within the City are designated as Redevelopment Areas. When these lands are developed, the increase in property tax value that would otherwise go to county and state governments can be retained by the City to fund projects. In order to do this, state law requires that portions of these proceeds be set aside to fund low-moderate income housing. The proposed project meets this requirement and will receive Redevelopment Agency ‘set-aside’ funds to comply with state law.
It is anticipated that all improvements will be privately maintained, although Petta Park will have controlled public access and use during posted daytime hours.
FINANCING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
Servicel Facility Construction Funding Operations & Responsibility
Responsibility Maintenance
Buildings and Grounds
Villas Developer/Builder Developer/Builder Developer/Builder
Senior Center Developer/Builder Developer/Builder Volunteers/Developer
7.3 Development Review Process
The Blue Mountain Senior Villas Specific Plan will require a series of actions to gain approvals and permits for construction. Discretionary approvals are required for the Specific Plan and site plan review. Additional approvals are required by the City and other agencies that provide services to the site relating to grading plans, drainage plans, landscape/irrigation plans, building permits, occupancy permits, and utility plans. These plans and permits shall follow the appropriate review processes that are in place by the various agencies.
7.4 Adjustments and Amendments
Changes may be made to the project as minor adjustments subject to administrative approval by City staff. Staff may elect to refer changes deemed ‘major’ to the Planning Commission and affirmed by the City Council. The following section provides examples of changes that may be considered as minor and those that may be considered as major.
7.4.1 Administrative Adjustments
Certain minor adjustments to the provisions of the Specific Plan may be made administratively by the Community Development Director without amending the plan. Examples of minor adjustments include:
• Addition of new information to the Specific Plan text or exhibits that does not change the purpose and intent of any provisions or guidelines.
• Changes to the community infrastructure, including water, sewer, drainage streets, or utilities which do not substantially alter the development plan.
• Minor changes to the architectural style or landscape plans for the project.
• Other changes that are qualify as adjustments based on the determination of the Community Development Director, and are consistent with the overall objectives of the Specific Plan.
7.4.2 Amendments
The Specific Plan may be amended in the same manner as the General
Plan and considered in public hearings as a discretionary action. Specific
Plan shall be consistent with the General Plan. Examples of amendments
include:
• Substantive changes to the text or exhibits which materially change the Specific Plan provisions or guidelines.
• Changes affecting the boundary, land use type, or land use intensity of the Specific Plan.
• Changes to architecture, landscape architecture, or conceptual land use plan which constitute a substantial change from the established theme for the project.
VIII RELATION TO GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
As stated in Section 1.5 of this document, state law requires that all specific plans be consistent with the general plan of the lead agency, (i.e. City of Grand Terrace). A general plan amendment has been filed to accomplish this consistency. The general plan addresses the aspects of community development through six sections, or Elements. This section compares the Blue Mountain Senior Villas Amended Specific Plan with the applicable Goals and Objectives for the Elements of the Grand Terrace General Plan.
8.1 LAND USE ELEMENT
Goal 1.1: Enrichment of the community by optimizing the availability and usefulness of the City’s aesthetic, cultural, and recreational resources.
Consistency: The proposed project implements this goal in several ways. The aesthetic quality of the community is enhanced by converting vacant land to development featuring strong architectural design, landscaped grounds, and a privately maintained park that will be available for public use during daytime hours. Moreover, the design and amenities of the park celebrate the cultural history of Grand Terrace.
Vacant Land is not UGLY it is the closest to NATURE we HAVE, Cultural History of Grand Terrace, and that is not a formal park it is farming, irrigation, and family.
Goal 1.2: Balanced growth which seeks to provide opportunities for a wide range of employment and housing and maintenance of a healthy, diverse, economy.
Consistency: The project increases the range of housing diversity by providing housing for seniors, complete with senior-oriented amenities. The project also offers employment opportunities for on-site and support staff to operate the facility and maintain Petta Park.
(Low income jobs, and the amenities like Doctors and Markets and Public Transportation are not located or planned)
Goal 1.3: Promote and encourage a supply of housing suitable to the needs
of and sufficient in number to serve existing and projected residents of Grand Terrace.
Consistency: The project provides additional housing opportunities, aimed at a specific market population, that is ideally suited to the pace and amenities of the community.
(Most if not all seniors living at the Villas will be not prior residents of Grand Terrace).
Goal 1.4: Promote and encourage housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community, regardless of age, sex, ethnic background, physical condition, or family size.
Consistency: Though age restrictions will be in place, this development is oriented to the specific needs of an aging population and represents an opportunity to serve a growing need in the community for senior housing. No restrictions will be applied on the basis of sex, ethnic background, or physical condition. The living areas will be sized to accommodate singles or couples with no children in residence.
Can 4 Adults, move into a 2 Bedroom Apartment? Say a Mom and Dad in their 90’s and their two Daughters in their 65+, all within the age requirements? This would bring the total Maximum Population of the Villas up to 270. With only 96 planned parking spaces for 120 apartments. This is California, and this is Grand Terrace. This town is Car Dependent and no Public Transportation. PARKING IS A PROBLEM how many times does it need to be said?
There are no 2nd story fire excape ramps. Exit Ramps for Second Story Apartments should be part of the design plan and requirement.
8.2 AESTHETIC, CULTURAL, & RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ELEMENTGoal 2.1: Require the provision of useful recreational open spaces within new residential developments.
Consistency: The project serves to implement the development of Petta Park for public use during posted daytime hours.
Susan Petta love Goats and was a member of 4H . Is the Park going to have a 4H portion? This would give the Seniors Pets without having Pets in the Villa, and the Youth a reason to interact with Seniors on a Common Interest.
Goal 2.2: Design of new development shall respect and preserve the view opportunities of existing development in the area.
Consistency: Careful attention is being provided to landscape selection and placement within Petta Park to minimize impact to the neighboring residences. The design of the senior villas retains a two story maximum height for compatibility with the current heights of single family residences in the area. The building setback from the rear property line, where the nearest single family residences exist, is 60 feet in order to retain the scale of building massing between land uses.
(This is an improvement)
8.3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Goal 3.1: Mixed use development which can demonstrate superior use of land, more efficient utilization of public facilities, and more effective conservation of natural resources shall be strongly encouraged by the City of Grand Terrace.
Consistency: The project is a mixed use development featuring residential use with two forms of recreational uses. Recreational and community service activities will be available through the senior center and within the park. The privately maintained park will be available for public use during posted daytime hours. The project represents an infill development where all forms of public services and infrastructure already exist. The site does not contain any significant natural resources.
How Significant are Roadrunners, Hawks, and Open Space?
Goal 3.2 Specific Plan shall be required for all multi-family projects of 20 or more units, and shall also be applied to low density projects....
Consistency: The project features more than 20 dwelling units and is being processed as a specific plan.
Where is a similar project for people of ALL AGES and Perhaps a YOUTH CENTER?
Review of the 3oo + page EIR will be added if needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)