Saturday, September 30, 2006
Perhaps the pressures of inquiries and audits by State and Federal Agencies inspired the change. WHO knows, but one thing is evident there was and is a need for the change in operational practices when it comes to contracting for goods and services by the City. It has taken to many years and hours to initiate the welcome change.
In the Past Nolte Engineering was awarded the contracts to function as the City Engineer. In their part time employ was Mr. Koontz who was also on the City Payroll. This arrangement does not and did not seem to be the use of best management practices. The City’s record of losing court cases as a result of the Planning Department/ Planning Commission/ and City Council approving plans that are reversed by the courts may have also contributed to the change in management approach to the Contracting of the City’s Engineering Expertise. Let us hope the contract is awarded to a firm that will protect the City’s Interests and not the Interests of Developers who have some how gotten plans past the old system of checks and balances.
OCT 22nd 2006 (Sunday)
Lions Club Pancake Breakfast / Boy Scouts and Lions
7:00 am to 11:00 am
$4.00 for Adults $2.00 for Children 6-12
Grand Terrace Woman’s Club Will be having its
Yard Sale Annual Hamburger Barbeque
OCT 31 2006 (Halloween Haunt)
Pico Park 5:00 to 8:00
Games Candy and Entertainment
Grand Terrace Woman’s Club: Hot Dogs 1.00 each, till sold out.
GT Country Fair: Nov 4th 2006
Join your neighbors and have a bite to eat, chat with your fellow GrandTerraceites.
OCTOBER 16th is the Deadline to Present them to the City Clerk
The Recall Process Ends with the Question To Recall or Not Recall a Public Official, on a Ballot for the Voters to Make their decision known.
It takes 1509 Signatures on the Recall Petitions to Get the Question on a Ballot.
What has been Accomplished:
Intent to Recall: Written and Signed by 20 Registered Voters
Intent to Recall: Accepted
Intent to Recall: Responded To
Writing of Petition Form: Including Response Written By Recalled Official
Approval of Petition Form:
Gathering of Signatures:
Voter and Citizen Education Efforts by the Recall Proponents.
What is Left to Be Done:
Signatures are Still Being Collected:
Count Signatures IF Sufficient in Number Hand them In to City Clerk;
City Clerk Verifies Signatures in 30 Days.
Special Election Scheduled:
Candidates Announce their Availability:
There are a couple of forks in the Recall Road. One is a straight path to Recall.
The OTHER FORK in the Road:
IF there is clearly not support for a recall, the issue may be dropped by the recall proponents.
IF there are alternative means to bring about the desired goal, those options may be taken.
Friday, September 29, 2006
He indicated a dissatisfaction with communication between City Staff and City Council Members related to the subject of AES.
He indicated concerns that were echoed by other with regard to time and Place of the AES Meetings.
This Blog has encouraged all its readers to write letters of your concerns directly to the Calif Dept of Energy... and will continue to do so... Trying to have a voice via the City Staff is kind of like "Pounding Sand".
It is an event that is smaller in scale, than GT Days, but it is a true community event.
Lions Pancake Breakfasts, Fire House Pancake Breakfasts, Music in the Park, Country Days, Halloween Haunt, and Woman's Club Hamburger Cookout are true GT Community Events.
GT DAYS has become an Event Devoid of this same Community Feeling. Hired Bands, and Entertainment, Parking snarls, and the use of precious contributions that could be raised for Year Round events are all shot on a one day event attended mostly by the folks hired for the entertainment.
IF you take the attendance of GT Days, remove the Band Members, Vendors, Performers, and their Parents from the attendance figures how many folks are from Grand Terrace? Does the event build Community? Friends Lets give this some real thought... Is this the best use of the effort spent? Would it be better to let the GT Foundation or a NPO handle these funds, and get away from the Conflict of Interest Issues of Donations being made by Developers and City Contractors?
Just a Suggestion.
City Manager Tom Schwab's response was it included engineering, Permits, Design, and Legal Fees, and was a part of the 9 million approved by the City Council for the project. He said they have already released 1,000,000.oo of that, but it is closer to 2,000,000.00 and the 60 year land lease. So there is a need for an accounting of funds and what they are paying for and what they are supposed to be paying for.
Council Member Miller requested a detailed disclosure of the Accounting of what was being paid for with this payment and I hope all payments made to CFBH.
IT would be prudent also to obtain a full detailed disclosure of the ENTIRE DEAL that CFBH and the City have negotiated. THIS FULL DISCLOSURE has not yet been made available to the Citizens, or the City Council Members. Last report was it was still "BEING NEGOTIATED".
With the Current Court HOLD on the Project, and Reversal of all Approvals the City Council Members should stop all payments and reverse all Approvals until the ERI is done and the COURT LIFTS the Reversal or APPROVES the Project for a go ahead.
This entanglement is a RESULT of CFBH and the RDA/Planning Department/Staff not doing a full detailed ERI. The COUNCIL should act PRUDENTLY and Monitor this Project VERY carefully as it proceeds if it Does Proceed.
Will this Report be Provided to Council Member Miller as quickly as the GT Days Audit?
Will this Report be Provided to Council Member Miller as quickly as the Disclosure of the CFBH Deal Details?
Will this Report be provided to Council Member Miller as quickly as the Eminent Domain Reform gets on the City Agenda?
Thursday, September 28, 2006
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Council to Review Proposed Passive Park Design and Comment on the Concept
B. Schedule November and December
HOW AGENDA ITEM WAS PRESENTED IN THE SUN TELEGRAM:
Article Launched: 9/26/2006 12:00 AM
In Brief 9-26-2006
San Bernardino County Sun
Design of park up for review
The City Council on Thursday will review the concept and design of a new park next to the proposed senior-housing complex.
The 4-acre park is slated to be built on Grand Terrace Road just east of Mount Vernon Avenue.
The park is expected to be designed with open space and features such as walking paths, a water fountain and a tribute to the city's heritage.
It will not be available for sports or other active recreational uses.
The council meets at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road.
What was Presented at the City Council was a Different thing all together. The Passive Park Presented was a Set Back / Landscape on the corner of Mt. Vernon and Deberry 5000 + square feet not 4 ac. To call it a Park is a stretch if it is to go in as it was presented.
This Visual nicety is for the enjoyment principally of folks driving by it, not an enhancement or improvement to add to the quality of life for those living in the community. Window Dressing is what it is called. There apparently is a desire not to have a place for youth to skate board, or neighbors to meet to play checkers, cards, or chess. There will apparently be a drinking fountain, but no restroom facilities, or benches and tables. The grassy knoll will be specifically designed to discourage use as a play field.
There was no cost of how much it will cost in annual maintenance.
The need for Public Restrooms at all places called Parks should be self evident. Bicycle Riders, or folks walking should have restroom facilities other than the bushes. This is a kindness for them and a health issue for the rest of the community.
I like the idea of mini Parks, but all parks should maximize their function, and all should provide public restroom and drinking fountain as a minimum requirement.
IN ADDITION: The STAFF could be more specific about the ITEM listed in the AGENDA you know like the Council has asked over and over again, provide location and some detail.
It would be nice if the DRAFT PLAN had been posted on the CITY WEB Site... But no... That may cause public comment and interest in the design.
Perhaps a 1/8 mile walking track... And toddler safe park would be a better used facility. Mom and baby could get in a bit of exercise in a Toddler Safe Park. Pico and Rollins Park have toxic Plants and are not Toddler Safe Parks.
An alternative use such as an Outdoor Arts Center could be an option that would provide for YOUTH Activity Alternatives. Painting easels, Craft Work Stations, and even a place to do homework.
It is impossible to get into the mind of the STAFF on why the communication was misleading to the public, and the press. One hopes this is not going to be the first and last Plan or Public Meeting on the Design and Use of this PUBLIC Land.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
DATE: September 27, 2006
HEADLINE: IS GRAND TERRACE A KID FRIENDLY CITY?
Grand Terrace presently has Tiny Tots, and Day Care, and Tai Kwan Do which are city income producing programs. The parents of Grand Terrace created and support soccer, baseball, and basketball up until "maybe" junior high school. I say maybe because not all kids are interested in sports. So where do the pre-teens and teen agers go in Grand Terrace?
Grand Terrace has the potential to be a great family oriented City. In fact that is what the founders set out to do, according to the original general plan (which was written when separating from Colton). I feel our Planning Department, City Manager, Assistant City Manager and City Council lack vision that include our children and families.
About seven years ago the registered voters of Grand Terrace voted against an across the board, no accountability, 5% tax increase the City was asking for. I voted against it because I felt we needed accountability. Because the increase did not pass, the City cancelled what few extra programs we had for the children. There was a roar throughout the parents who felt the city was retaliating.
The next thing we hear is Maryetta Ferre saying "if we don’t build more tax producing businesses we won’t have enough to run the City". Steve Berry says we don’t have money to fix our streets. Lee Ann Garcia says we are not in debt, we have $5 million.
Who is telling the truth? Is it too much to ask for honest people to run our city?
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Vouchers that Don't Match the Amounts Approved by the Council, WHY?
Blue Mt. Senior Villa Payments to Corporation for Better Housing in spite of Court ORDER, Reversing All Approvals and requiring a EIR to be done, IF the project is to proceed.
NOTE ONE SUCH APPROVAL would be the EXTRA FUNDING or even PAYMENTS to the Corporation for Better Housing, wouldn't it. IF it were YOU and or I it sure would be reason for the City not to Pay until all Contractual and Court Matters are Resolved.
ALSO Note where the City of Grand Terrace Pays a Writer for an Article written in the Blue Mountain Outlook. This is an interesting use of $150.00. PERHAPS when such an article is written and paid for by the City of Grand Terrace it should be noted that the Payment was from Public Funds Spent by the City of Grand Terrace, and that the Blue Mt. Outlook recieves Othere Funds from the City of Grand Terrace, and what those funds are and for what services.
A Non "Sports" Park is a fine idea. However, in a community with limited parks and open spaces and alternative activities, the idea of Passive may not be the best use of the property.
Walking Paths, Community Vegetable Gardening, Fruit Trees, and dare I say it a PUBLIC RESTROOM not part of the Senior Center, may invite public use of the park by others than the seniors living in the Blue Mt. Sr. Villas, or visiting the Senior Center.
Or how about a Band Shell like Fleming Park, with a Dance Floor for Swing Dances and Square Dances.
Activities don't have to be "Sports". History does not have to be solemn... As a matter of fact Susan Petta in whose name the land was donated was a vibrant active young lady, who enjoyed animals, and agriculture. It would be fitting that this is included in the parks design, and use. She also liked sports.
The above link puts alot of ISSUES at ones finger tip. ODD how much attention is paid to Who is GrandpaTerrace when, the ISSUE is Eminent Domain, Development, RDA Land USE, Lack of Public Hearing and Public Debt.
From the Email In-Box: with regard to Garcia's election contributors:
Robert Brun is affiliated with Lee & Assoc. and is co-owner with Jacobsen of the trailer park property
BIA is the Building Industry Association, obviously a trade association that encourages new construction
or another way to get money from contributors without showing their names.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PM
22795 Barton Road
When there is nothing on an AGENDA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS PURPOSELY DISCOURAGED. THERE SEEMS TO BE A PURPOSE TO THE LIGHT AGENDA, THAT PURPOSE BEING IF THE COUNCIL HAS NOTHING ON THE AGENDA, THE PUBLIC CAN'T HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIONS THEY DON'T TAKE.
* Call to Order -
* Invocation - Pastor Salim Elias, Azure Hills Seventh-Day Adventist Church
* Pledge of Allegiance -
* Roll Call
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1. Approval of 09-14-2006 Minutes
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. YMCA Swim Program Presentation
B. The Friends of Blue Mountain - Denis Kidd
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 September 28, 2006
May 18 voucher 58221 to the Corp. The Exact amount is $182,604.96 we will have copy to Post Later Today. It appears that the City is sending money to the Corp even though the project is stopped. It appears about a million has been thrown down this rabbit hole.
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 09-14-2006 Minutes
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.
A. Committee Reports
1. Historical & Cultural Activities Committee
a. Minutes of July 3, 2006
2. Crime Prevention Committee
a. Minutes of August 14, 2006
B. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Council to Review Proposed Passive Park Design and Comment on the Concept
B. Schedule November and December Council Meetings
9. CLOSED SESSION - None
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY,OCTOBER 12, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 10-12-2006 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY NOON 10-05-2006.
The Audit of Funds for Grand Terrace Days is NOT Being Presented as Requested by Council Member Miller and promised by Assistant City Manager Steve Berry.
Citizens will NOT HAVE a real evaluation of Actual Log of Calls to the Sheriff, and Related Response time, not "Averages" or Estimates?
Remember: IF you have a comment on an Agenda Item: You have 3 minutes for each Agenda Item, and 3 Minutes during Public Comment for a Comment related to non-agenda items.
Be Involved, Be Informed
Saturday, September 23, 2006
There are some folks in town who feel this is a distraction, people should not be informed, and that a recall petition should not be an option given to the citizens of the community of Grand Terrace. There are some folks that have suggested that if you don't like the actions of the City Council, you should move out of town. Others suggest that mailing out the opportunity to participate in the process is some how inappropriate to provide the citizens the opportunity and access to the information.
Obviously the Recall of Council Member Ferre and Garcia, and not Electing Mrs. Ferre to the Mayorship, or returning Council Member Bea Cortes to her Council Seat is the desire of those who desire to put the Recall on the Ballot. The Petition is needed to provide this option to the GT Voter. The reason for the action is detailed and City Documents supporting that reasoning is provide in this blog. Please feel free to email Grandterracenews@yahoo.com if you would like additional information.
Citizens for an Honest and Open Government
WE HAVE INVITED YOU TO TALK WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS, READ THE EVIDENCE, AND TAKE AN ACTION!!
SOME FOLKS IN GT WOULD RATHER YOU NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
IS THIS HOW WE WANT TO BE TREATED IN THIS CITY?
According to the letter from the District Attorney Mr. Schwab told them he was "Required" to live in the City. His contract states differently. I know it is a violation of the law to lie to a law enforcement official conducting an investigation. This appears to be the case and Mr. Vanella seems to be complicit in this sham as has been the D.A.'s office when it comes to wrong doing by the politicians in this county.
Less we forget the past Sheriff burglarized the Sheriff's Office gun locker many many times stealing over 500 guns and he walked. That was the deal made with the D.A.'s office. If they do it for one, then justice should be meter out evenly. You or I do one burglary and we are going to prison.
It's strange that Mr. Schwab did not need to buy a home or be required to live in Grand Terrace until he lost his home in a divorcee. If he was required to live here then why didn't the City make his house payments when he was married as an "inducement" to live here. Why didn't all prior contracts require him to live here? Why, all of a sudden in the middle of the year on his contract and when he had to give up his house in a settlement did it become necessary for him to be "induced" to live in Grand Terrace? No other employees are "induced" to live here, save one, Mrs. Boustede who also has an RDA house that had a nearly $50,000 rehab done to it and sold to her for around $140,000 The City will not release her salary so I feel safe to presume she also was over qualified.
Can anyone tell me the benefit of Mr. Schwab living here or how many late night emergencies he has been called out on. If anyone should be "induced" to live here as a requirement of his job it should be Mr. Berry, after all he's our "go to guy" in case of a Haz-Mat problem.
Herein lays a bigger question and what I see as a fraud upon the taxpayers of Grand Terrace. The Dodson property deal. One million two hundred and ninety thousand problems. Mr. Schwab was the negotiator for the City in that deal that was originally a seven hundred and fifty thousand dollar property and one that Councilwoman Ferre lied about and said it had not taken place when it did. Former Councilman Gene Carlstrom handled the deal for the Dodson's and Mr. Schwab for the City. Does anyone in their right mind think that Mr. Schwab was going to look out for the taxpayers when he was beholding to the Dodson's? Ferre, Garcia, Cortes and Hilkey knew it. That may be the reason Councilman Hilkey voted against it and repeated many times at Council meetings that it was not a transaction the City had any business getting involved in. Two Council members voted against it. Mr. Hilkey with Mr. Miller reversing his vote later. Also do not forget this is not the first time Councilwoman Cortes has been employed by Mr. Carlstrom. She was employed by him in the past.
Mr. Schwab was the house guest of the Dodson's after his wife booted him to the curb. Does not anyone in this City get what is going on here. We don't have a City Council. We have a Council that is in business for their friends and has been for years. The trucking company is a prime example. The waiving of a $42,000 fee. Why?
It is my understanding that Federal Law enforcement now reads this website. The Citizens of this community need or demand that a Federal Grand Jury be convened to investigate the crooked dealing of this City Hall. We know the County District Attorney will do nothing perhaps a Federal Grand Jury needs to investigate them also.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Elect New Replacement Council Members to Replace Ferre and Garcia Please Read the PE Articles Aug 22 regarding Recall Protect your Property Rights, and Your Rights to have Elected Representation.
Don't Let Council Member Ferre DENY You Your Rights as she tries to AVOID a RECALL Fair Government For All Grand Terrace
This blog provides city documents, state audit documents and other reasons for the recall effort. Recall Resons: Not just Personality, not one Single Issue
Documents and Reason for the Recall of Council Member Ferre.
Lack of oversight of Mr. Schwab and City staff. Disregard of Citizens concerns. Favoritism of Gene Carlstrom, Mrs. Ferre campaign manager, a former Council member and owner of Terra Loma Reality, the only company that is allowed to handle City property. Mr. Carlstrom employes Councilwoman Cortes and is the employer of recently retired Planning Commissioner Bidney. Coming out of closed session on real estate deals and telling the community that "No reportable action was taken" or " They do not have to divulge until escrow closes" which is a violation of the Brown Act.
A prime example the Dodson property. Listed for $750,000. Mrs. Dodson is a relative of Mr. Carlstrom. The Council went into closed session and bought the house and property for $1,290,000. $540,000 more than it was listed for.
Mrs. Ferre in violation of the Brown Act said "No reportable action was taken. Councilman Hilkey, at the next Council meeting stated that the City had bought a property it did not need and paid too much for it and the deal was done within ten minutes of going into closed session. Mr. Hilkey was angry and stated he did not vote for it. Mr. Miller at a later Council meeting reversed his vote.
2. The allowing of Mr. Schwab to purchase RDA/City house without proper Public Hearing on the sale of the RDA or City Property. Michelle Boustede also has an RDA LOAN and the City will not release her salary. Mrs. Boustede also received a $44,000 silent second deed of trust. There are no interest payments or principle payments on a silent second deed of trust unless you ever sell the house. That debt is forgiven after a specified period of time. A silent second is not to be more than 10% of the purchase price of the house. Mrs. Boustede's is three times the amount allowed by law. Mrs. Boustede has quick claim deeds signed by her husband on her closing day that make her the sole owner as a married woman. Mr. Schwab's house went from the owner, to the RDA, to the City then to Mr. Schwab. The City carried the mortgage for several months. They justify this clear violation of RDA law by saying he is required to live within the City limits. A City contract does not trump State law. His contract does not "REQUIRE" him to live in Grand Terrace. IF it did the City should retain the ownership for the use of the next City Manager. An RDA house is for low to moderate income people. A single person must make $39,000 a year or less and be a first time home buyer. Mr. Schwab just went from $125,000 a year to $150,000 a year and is not a first time home buyer. This cheated a low income family out a home.
3. Even at the more recient Council meetings Mrs. Ferre refused to take criticism for or responsibility for the stiffling of the Council and members of the public by restricting the Council from engaging the public at Council meetings. Mr. Hikey again reminded her it was her doing when she was selected as Mayor.
4. Taking the word of Mr. Schwab and Mr. Koontz over that of two lawyers on the Essco project. By law it cannot be built. Again her ineptness brought a lawsuit on the taxpayers of the City.
5. Refusing to bring Mr. Schwab to task for deliberate lies to the Council and the Community. I quote." I have seen the signed long term leases signed by Lowes and Staters in Mr. Jacobsen's office". Jack Brown, President of Staters answered this at a joint Council/RDA meeting with the Planning Commission. Mr. Brown stated " Jack Brown has signed nothing. If you want to know what Jack Brown has signed ask Jack Brown". Lowes did not even appear because they have not signed long term leases either and Mr. Schwab is allowed to tell these untruths with her blessing. Mr. Barney Karger and I asked at several Council meeting where is the money. Mr. Schwab told us we have a $13,000,000 portfolio. As it turned out we did not have a portfolio we have a $13,000,000 RDA debt. The $13,000,000 are tax allocation bonds issued by the RDA and on the say so of Mr. Schwab that require no voter approval or knowledge.
6. The City brings in about $5,000,000 in revenue a year. According to one of our citizens that spoke at the joint meeting and is a retired Government Budget Analysts $4,500,000 goes to the RDA to pay debt that grows each year. Also RDA money and General fund money is run together so it is impossible to tell how much RDA money is actually being used for the everyday operations of the City. The Senior Housing. They told the seniors here it would be for low to moderate income seniors. After the no bid contracts were signed for $18,000,000 of which $9,000,000 comes from the city it has been changed to section 8 housing.
7. Continued transfer of RDA land to Developers (Jacobsen) without proper public hearings continued as reciently as in July 2006.
Mrs. Ferre refusal to make staff comply with The Open Records Act. To wit. Refusal to tell what became of the vehicle that the city buys for Mr. Schwabs personal use that was replaced with a new one. They claim no document exist to tell what happened to it, we have been given only a verbal esplanation no documents to support the transaction as Mr. Schwab now details. Her refusal to read anything that pertains to development projects in the City. Every one of them has been stopped by law suits because of the City manager and Planning Director's failure to abide by the law.. Mrs. Ferre us of a chink in the election law armor that allows her not to list the donors to her political campaigns. Allowing Developers that have projects pending in town to contribute to City funded functions. Corp. For Better Housing and Jacobsen Family Holdings. The list is endless including she continues to be Pro Eminent Domain, and has not put the issue on the AGENDA.
Reasons for Recall of Council Woman Garcia:
She is the Board member for The League of California Cities for this area. The League is a private corporation that opposed and lobbied against limited use of eminent domain. They lobbied against any amendments to the State Constitution that would limit the use of eminent domain that would not allow a government to take private property to give to developers. The League's partners are all land use lawyers, construction unions, tax bond companies, utilities and those that stand to make a profit from the unlimited use of eminent domain.
The Community, even those in favor of the Town Center voiced their objections to the use of eminent domain. The League looks at the "Anderson" initiative that will most likely make it on the November ballot to give voters the choice to limit eminent domain as troublesome. Ms. Garcia has charged back her travel expenses for League business to the taxpayers of Grand Terrace for years. This should anger voters when they learn the true nature of the League.
2. Ms. Garcia accepted campaign contributions from Doug Jacobsen and his wife and then refused to recluse herself from the vote on his project The Town Center. She allowed Jacobsen to contribute to City functions with the knowledge he had business pending in front of the Council.
3. As a member of the General Plan Task Force she has allowed projects that violate the General Plan to proceed. She has voted for projects that even after being shown the proof that they violated State and Federal Law. The OAC. Manhole and The Blue Mt. Villas.
4. She comes to Council meeting uninformed. She ask questions of the City manager on projects that she should be able to answer if she took the time to become informed as to what the City Manager is doing. She, as Ferre does, just takes the "staffs" word on everything. This shows an incompetent lack of oversight.
5. She is part and parcel of the Schwab House deal, the Dodson House deal, the Boustede House deal and allowing Mr. Carlstrom and Terra Loma Reality to use the City for his profit. This shows an utter disregard for the citizens and using her position to profit a former Council member. They have allowed the RDA to become a revenue devouring monster that produces nothing but debt. Debt that takes money away from schools, streets, law enforcement and the services the taxes the citizens pay should be receiving. This is just a partial list of why the voters of Grand Terrace know it is time for a change.
The days of "Good Ol Boy" politics is over. We will replace them with candidates that will place the community and the well being of it citizens above those of their developer friends. Here are some thoughts from others. Lack of Competitive Bids Nolte Engineering/ Koontz Improper Planning Commission Oversight, and Practices Threats of the intent to use Eminent Domain being Overlooked by the Council long before authorization to negotiate was issued by the Council Failure of the Council/RDA Board to act as responcible oversite to the pracices and procedures utilized by the City Manager RDA Director Tom Schwab. Use of Terra Loma Realy for Management of Property Non Reporting of Sales of Land, Houses Allowing the miss use of Low and Moderate Income Funds Allowing Developers to contribute to City Community Development Department Activities when they have Issues before Planning Department, and Planning Commission.
Failure to PUBLICLY Repremand City Manager for telling out right lies to the Council and Public. Failure to attempt to find a better qualified City Manager to provide Management of the City. Failure to Require General Plans and State Required Reports to be filed and current. Failure to act upon Citizens Concerns related to Safety and Code Violations.
Hilkey and Cortez are up for reelection in November so they can’t be recalled but the issues should be addressed in their campaign. Herman Hilkey has chosen to retire from the City Council. Jim Miller is new to the Council, and was not party to or associated with the past actions.
The Recall Petition has been distributed signatures are being collected. This means all of the supporters will be collecting signatures, and checking them twice. 1509 signatures plus are needed.
IF you have a desire to join this not so small group of people wanting to give the Citizens a Vote on the Continuance of the Services of Council Woman Ferre and Council Woman Garcia Please contact GrandTerraceNews@yahoo.com, and send your name, email and phone number so your efforts can be included in improving Grand Terrace and Providing Citizens a Voice and Choice. Good Governence for GT is what we are concerned with.
Make notes as you read. Try and ask specific questions related to the documents provided on the blog. See what non answers you'll get. Sure, GT is small time interest to some. For those of us who live here, we deserve the best governance of our community as possible.
What does that statistic mean. When compared to San Bernardino and Riverside, Grand Terrace has less Violent-Crime. The article in the Press did not detail the information on property crime.
The article did indicate that crime both violent and property type are under reported. We have heard public testimony at City Council Meetings of crimes not being reported as the citizens figure why bother when it will result in lengthy wait for an officer to respond. The City Council refuses to release the Call Log for Public Inspection of the types of calls into the Dispatch so no one can judge if there is an actual increase in calls into dispatch vs actual reports made, response times, and appropriate actions taken.
In the past the justification for not making this information available was it would look bad for the community and lower property values.
Grand Terrace Citizens have been treated to a year of crimes which include bank robbery, home intrusion or invasion, burglary, strong armed robbery, car jacking, physical assaults, arson, illegal fireworks, drug and alcohol abuse and use related crimes and more. Sure Grand Terrace may have a lower crime rate than San Bernardino... Is this the measure a society/community should use: We are better than, or not as bad as so and so, thus should be satisfied? Perhaps not.
Crime is nurtured by specific aspects of a community.
Increase the outlets where alcohol is sold or served for consumption: Crime Increases
Increase the number of places where transients and day laborers hangout: Crime Increases
Increase the number of single males: Crime Increases
Increase the number of hours 12 to 18 year olds are un-supervised or unemployed: Crime Increases. (Long Commutes of Parents to work contribute to under supervised youth.)
Lack of after-school programs for Youth: Crime Increases with the number of students.
No doubt there will be Council Members and City Management who will restate the Crime Statistics with pride and self satisfaction for a job well done. Question them as they do this as the statistics are flawed at best as is the logic of the statement we are good because someone is in worse condition that we are. It is kind of like a child saying Hey I got a D some one got an F so be proud of me.
The goal should be Crime Less or even Less Crime not Less Crime Than.
Grand Terrace certainly should report and make available ALL crime records, and information and encourage all citizens to report all crimes. False self satisfaction to promote high housing evaluations is a dangerous premise to promote.
One of the original purposes to this blog was to post the Arrests in Grand Terrace so that the Citizens and Council Members who wanted to know could find the data in a single place. This was the FIRST OFFENSIVE thing this Blog Did.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
REMEMBER YOU CAN HELP!
SIGN A RECALL PETITION
There are a few more weeks Left to collect signatures on the Recall Petitions. The effort is to give the Voters of Grand Terrace the Choice regarding the Recall of Council Member Ferre and Council Member Garcia.
Council Member Ferre who is also running for Mayor hopes to have her cake and eat it too. IF she should be recalled she could still hypothetically win the Mayors seat leaving a vacant Council Seat and avoiding the recall election all together.
HOWEVER, if she loses the Mayor election she will retain her Council Seat, and therefore the importance of giving the Voters the Choice to Recall her and Garcia are all the more important.
Please when the signature campaign expands and you are contacted. Please sign both the Recall Petition for Council Member Ferre and Council Member Garcia.
There is a minimum requirement of 1509 signatures required, but the Recall Signature Gathers hope to show overwhelming numbers of signatures. More important the voters have become more informed and not lead blindly by those who refuse to address on single issue to its conclusion.
Do consider those who oppose the Recall, are supporting Council Members who support the use of Eminent Domain in that they have had and not taken the action to protect your property rights and change the City Ordinance that Allows the Taking of Your Property to give it to a Developer. These are the Council Members being Recalled. These are the Council Members who have demonstrated an inability to properly supervise the functions of City Hall and the actions of the City Manager/ RDA Director. IF the Citizens want to continue to live in a town with this type of Governance, they can so state even IF there is a Recall, they could vote NO...
Some will say it isn't so bad... They should not be recalled replace them when their terms run out. Between now and then, it may be your house they want to include in a Development. Would you like to have years of threats of having your property taken? It is time this stops in GT. It is time the council members who refuse to protect ALL Citizen Property Rights must be voted out, and recalled because of the urgency and seriousness of the matter.
IT is that BAD... do we need a Recall?
You don't have to Prove a Crime to have a Recall
You don't have to Prove Malice
You have to have a situation of HIGH Concern that having the Elected Official Continue in Office will result in a serious detriment to the Community.
To Have a Recall....
You have to have the signatures required to put it on the Ballot
The Voters will Have a OPPORTUNITY to Decide if there is Reason to Change. From a Council that Supports the Use or Potential Use of Eminent Domain to Force the Sell of property for Private Development. Decide for your selves, Recall Proponents are giving you that opportunity. Please sign a Recall Petition and let the Recall be Voted on by the entire City.
c/o Documents and Records
12356 Michigan St., Grand Terrace, CA 923130-5602
Message Phone (909) 783-7902
■ Children ?
■ Home ?
■ Family's future ?
Please Return the Signed Petitions on or Before October 5th, 2006
THEY HAVE TOVERIFIEDD AND HANDEDOCTOBERR 16TH, 2006
THE Petition Puts the Question to the Voters Letting them Review and Decide the Outcome by Voting
REMEMBER TO: Provide your Signature and Printed Name in the space and provide the information requested in the form. THEN get the same from your neighbors. Then: Fill in the bottom of the petition "YOU are the Signature Verification Witness" and invest 39 cents in Grand Terrace and drop the Petition in the Return Mail Envelope where it will be included in the total. You may also drop it off at the Recall Office in the Stater Brothers Shopping Center. The Recall office is usually open 5:30 to 8:30 P.M. Friday and Saturday. Come by and meet the other fine folks who are working for a better community.
IF you need more information before you invest your 39¢ and 20 minutes. There are many issues to be considered. Now that you are here at the Blog... Please take your time and read. Please look at the Records and documents supporting the opinions and concerns from the documents obtained from City and County Records.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Upon reviewing the documents posted on this site and those that were made available to the City Council on Swertfeger Equipment I have a deep concern about the honesty of some in City Hall. Why on Earth would the City waive a $42,000 business fee to one individual? They are so concerned with revenue why would they not collect it from a million dollar business that is expanding in violation of the law.
What is the cost of the July fire that burned Blue Mountain and threatened homes all the way to Reche Canyon? I would think it much more than the Soccer League made on the sale of the fireworks that without a doubt started the fire. That $42,000 could have gone to youth actives or the sports teams.
The City cannot afford actives for the youth here but can afford to waive a $42,000 fee. What is the motivation here for allowing Swertfeger to not pay what was legally owed to the City? If the City did not get paid, then who did? Someone needs to wake up in law enforcement and initiate an investigation. Again, what is the motive for waiving this fee? This is not rocket science nor is it unheard of to buy a City official to avoid paying a required tax or fee.
The Public Corruption Unit of the FBI needs to be informed and a request made for them to step in here and investigate. A question, among many, that needs to be answered is who gave to whom the authority to waive such a fee? That person needs to address the City at a Council meeting and explain. This question, without a doubt, will be ignored as the other questions brought to the Council that they don't want answered.
Something really smells here. How many other businesses were waived the fees because as Mr. Swertferger stated at a Council meeting he has friends in Grand Terrace. Apparently he has some in City Hall also.
This is they type of question a Good City Council Member would ask and insist upon being answered and investigated.
So must we. We as private-property owners are given a "bundle of rights" - the right to sell, our discretion to mortgage, to rent, to lease, to give life estates to whom we want and much more. However, the path that San Bernardino is leading us on is a path that paves over the dreams, hard work and foresight of those who live here now.
If you ever bought a property, or intended to, in order to leave it to your children, you must be worried about the uses of eminent domain subscribed to by San Bernardino. Developers have been using the "threat of eminent domain" for too long. Never again should it be said, "If you do not sell at this price, we will take it through the city's right of eminent domain." Never again should we, as property owners, be forced to live under the threat of losing something we have spent our whole life to get. Never again should we spend sleepless nights and wonder if we will have a place to leave our children. The erosion of our property rights stops here with Proposition 90. I look forward to the day when we all can walk up to the doors of city hall and post our rights as land owners - rights we have spent most of our lives to achieve.
PAUL CHRISTOPHER ADAMS
It is important for ALL who Live in a City, the Measure being proposed is a protection from the COUNTY from using EMINENT DOMAIN to acquire property. It does not protect your property from a City trying to take your land, or to force you to sell to a particular developer.
The City of Grand Terrace Needs a Restriction on the Use of Eminent Domain equal to that of the County Measure, or to the Measure Provided to the Council by Cindi Bidney. It is time to make Property Rights a Right for All Citizens in Grand Terrace. It is not just to protect Jo Stringfield's Property. It is every property and business owner who should be protected.
Currently, Only Councilman Jim Miller has expressed a desire to Protect Property Rights for All Citizens in Grand Terrace. None of the other Council Members have voiced a desire to change the City Ordinance which allows Eminent Domain to be use. None of the Council Members have Directed the RDA Director/City Manager to NOT use the Threat of Eminent Domain to advance a Private Development.
The women on the council, repeat almost in unison... we didn't take Jo's House. BUT, these women did not change the Ordinance to Prohibit the same actions of the City Manager/RDA Director in the future.
King will face possible charges in Riverside County and San Bernardino County and Orange County as a result of bank robberies in Hemet, Moreno Valley, San Bernardino, Irvine and Grand Terrace, he said.
Let us hope this is the right man charged this time.
Most important in this is that all crimes should be recorded, reported and the information shared at all levels. A criminal who stops in Grand Terrace may move down the road and commit the same crime in another town as King apparently has. Minimizing the importance of reporting and taking action on such crimes as the Bank Robbery, Strong Armed theft, or the "home invasion scam" that was minimized as being an isolated crime of opportunity, only to find that the same individuals were active in Orange and San Diego County. Perhaps that individual could have been apprehended while they were on the Freeway if the CHP had been informed to be on the look out for a Truck with a broken Mirror on the driver's side.. BUT, no it was not a High Priority call and the sheriff did not respond for over a half hour. Let's hope that response time improves with the new officer hire.
It was nice to hear Councilwoman Garcia congratulate the child for winning the guitar for his reading and to encourage others to do the same. Now if we could just get her to follow her own advice. Had she read the information on the trucking company she wouldn't have had to ask questions of Mr. Schwab. Her questions proved she read not one word of the information provided from City records by the citizens that brought the problem before the Council. Ah yes, The trip to the League of California Cities and Councilwoman Ferre going to the seminar on RDA and how to deal with the roadblocks. I believe the roadblocks they are referring to is the initiative giving the voters the right to define how they want Eminent Domain taken from the hands of the developers and private companies like the League of Ca. Cities. Last month the League was lobbying the State lawmakers against a bill that would have defined blight to mean blight and not anyone's property that got in the way of a developer. This bill would make blight a definite definition and not a whim of City Councils and County Governments. The League and Councilwoman Cortes opposes it. So how much did the citizens pay for our Council to go to this League of Ca. Cities meeting to learn how to take your property away from you?
Tonight at the City Council meeting something questioning occurred. There was a gentleman from an agency supporting union wages and asked for the contract to be amended to include a certain article. He stepped away and the attorney asked if he had a copy, which he did. He proceeded to the attorney with it, conducted a conversation for a while with he and Schwab. All this was going on during the meeting. Ferre asked for his opinion and he said they would include the article to be stipulated in the contract.
I asked the attorney after the meeting, why procedure was broken and why there wasn't an inquiry from the council members as to the meaning. He said because they don't have a choice, aside from his views on union. Never really answering my question.
Eminent Domain Support of the County's Measure will not protect Citizens in Grand Terrace from the City of Grand Terrace using Eminent Domain. There needs to be a local Ordinance. The county Ordinance says the County will not use Eminent Domain... for the purpose of transferring private property to a private developer...... It does not say ALL cities in the County Must apply this same practice. It is nice to support the county's action. HOWEVER, it does not protect the PROPERTY RIGHTS OF GRAND TERRACE CITIZENS.
With all construction including those done on land formerly owned by the RDA, the labor regulations may be such that there are additional requirements on all contractors doing work on all or part of the developments.
THE CITY may find itself liable if the contractors that are allowed to work in this city are not employing legal workers covered by workman comp, and so forth. Businesses and Individual who hire contractors for any job should be sure of the insurance coverage, and right to work in the country of all the workers. IF the requirement is up front and investigated prior to construction permits are issued it would be the best prevention for a problem rather than trying to solve a problem after one happens.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Why should the taxpayers pay for the E.I.R. for the Senior Housing. The Corporation for Better Housing is going to have control of the property and buildings for the next 60 years. They will pay one dollar a year on the property and land with the lease Schwab gave them. Let the Corporation for Better Housing pay the $42,000 for the E.I.R. that should have been done in the first place before the City approved anything.
The Corporation for Better Housing calls themselves a non-profit but are listed as a charity with the Attorney Generals office and have not even filed their 2005 tax returns with the A.G.s office as of last month. Their 2004's show a "Consulting fee" in the multi hundred of thousands of dollars to Lynx Reality in Sherman Oaks the Corporation for Better Housing just happens to share the same address and phone number with. If you remember Ms. Silverstein stated no one at the Corp. makes more than $50,000 a year but their tax returns shows hundreds of thousands in "fee's and Commissions". Ms. Silverstein stated at the Community meeting that the Corporation for Better Housing would take $500,000 off the top of the $9,000,000 the City puts in and I would guess that they will take as much from the U.S. Government funds that puts in the Corp.'s part of the project. These Government funds require that the Senior Housing be section 8 housing. The Seniors should make sure and get it in writing from the Corp. that they will be eligible for the apartments. All other Corporation for Better Housing locations are for low to low, low incomes, known as section 8 or Government subsidized housing. You cannot have assets to quailfy and the waiting list for this type housing is now almost two years long.
I would think a list of employees from Lynx Reality should be compared with a list of employees from the Corp. This is a no open bid contract on the Senior Housing and Federal Law enforcement needs to look at them and the Cities Managers dealing with them and them with him. Why would there be no open bids when State law requires it. Especially on a nearly $20,000,000 that's (TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS) project. It just looks unseemly. It has the appearance of "fee's and commissions" being paid to people that don't work for the Corporation for Better Housing but might work a little closer to here.
If the Corporation can donate to Grand Terrace Days, which is a violation of the State charity laws, they should be able to "donate" to their own E.I.R. Also being listed as a "charity" would you not suspect that gives them a tax break. That appears to be the whole reason that the Corp. went into their construction business. The California State Assessors Assoc. has held meeting trying to figure a way to stop construction companies from connecting with churches to use them as a front to avoid paying taxes.
Mr. Schwab should place the new plans on the City website to confirm that the changes that the Corp. said they will make have actually been made. If they haven't it would not be the first time or the second or the third or fourth (infinite) that we have been lied to by the City. Twice Shy.
Schwab will still not confirm or deny that the Senior Housing is section 8 and that our Seniors will not qualify even when Councilman Miller said he wanted a report before anything further goes along on the project.
I think you are right, and I don't know why none of this is questionable for others reviewing the same information fragments.
Grand Terrace seniors still waiting
Ruling holds up center
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun "The judge said we didn't analyze the effect of the noise from the air-conditioning units and we didn't study the impact of the 120 residents who would be living there in the neighborhood," Schwab said. "We will do that, and this will get built. All this (lawsuit) is doing is delaying the project and increasing our cost."
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_4331885 Article Launched: 09/14/2006 12:00:00 AM PDT
In Brief 9-14-2006
Council to consider contract for roadwork
The City Council this evening will consider approving funds to repair parts of Mount Vernon Avenue.
City staff is recommending the council award a contract to Roquet Paving Inc. for $435,668 for pavement reconstruction on Mount Vernon between Barton Road and De Berry Street, and from Barton Road to the southern tip of the median at Grand Terrace Road.
Roquet Paving was the lowest bidder of three local firms that applied for the contract, officials said.
The council meets at 6 p.m. in Council Chambers in the Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road.
NOW here is a Competitive OPEN BID… and Real Needed Public WORK.. how nice. It can be done….
I learned today theat the City has approved the building plans for Miguels' Jr.. The plans are for a completely different location than approved in the CUP. The plans now show Miguels to the West of Jo's property. In addition, there has been no compliance with the requirements of the Barton Road Specific Plan or CEQA.
IN addition this property is RDA Owned, and there has been NO PUBLIC HEARING ON ITS Sale or Transfer as required by State Redevelopment Law.
This site was proposed once upon a time and many people objected to it being located infront of The Terrace, and putting "Drive Tru" traffic just off set from the existing stop light.. Miguel's owns or owned property closer to the Hair Benders and a Swap should have a Public Hearing and a CUP (Conditional Use Permit and design review prior to the transfer of Property or Pulling of Permits or granting of approvals.
Additionally, it appears that the City continues to be play fast and loose with their requirements for the trucking company on Michigan.
The last to items are NOT on the AGENDA but the PUBLIC should KNOW
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
I sent an e mail to the building department asking if a permit was required for a room addition, and if it was did they have a permit on file for the room addition done at 22115 Barton road.( gt pit stop), when I got no response I thanked them for the quick response(sic) and that e mail was rejected as spam
This does not supprize me. I advise you to get what ever answer you get, get it in Writing from the Planning Department. Do not depend on a oral approval. In the past such approvals have been reversed and the citizen made to be the "Bad Guy" in the process.
Inspite of what some think EVERY DOCUMENT except some needing to be expunged of Social Security Numbers and that kind of information, is a PUBLIC RECORD. IF there was a permit for gt pit stop building a room addition, it should be on file, and available for you to see, and or have a copy of.
YOU may have to put your request in a Formal Request for Information under the Freedom of Information Act. AND be prepaired to wait, and get a run around.
Sorry you have had an experience common to many citizens. All I can say is keep asking, put your request in writing, and cc a copy to EVERY council MEMBER.
It is no wonder that our Mayor does not like people laughing at the Council meetings. After reading today about AES , it is obvious that these people are way in above their head. It appears that they know absolutely nothing about running anything much less something as important as a City.
It is hard to believe that there is not anyone in this city that could do a better job. I will tell you right now that this city is in for some big problems in the future, and the current people will be gone. Imagine if these people had to protect us from terrorists. I am glad that the council meetings are not televised outside of Grand Terrace.
What an embarrassment.
Welcome new reader. I would like it if the meetings were on TV repeated instead of GT DAYS or the Child Care Repeat Video. Some folks aren't home when the meeting starts, or have a family activity to attend, and if it were on as often as the Repeated GT DAYS / Child Care more folks may be able to be informed, or shall we say aware.
Yes, the Current People will be leaving behind a Great big Debt, and Community Problems for the citizens who remain to suffer the affects and effects of the actions being taken Now.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DA REFUSES TO RELEASE INVESTIGATION INFORMATION ON TOM SCHWAB'S HOUSE DEAL
This is the Specific Code the DA Used to Refuse the freedom of Information Request. You Judge if it applies in the Case of the House being Purchased from the RDA by the City and then Provided on a Month to Month Stipulation, to Tom Schwab to INDUCE him to LIVE IN GRAND TERRACE. NOTE TOM SCHWAB's Contract does not require he lives in the house that is provided. IF he chose to rent it to a 3rd party and move to Laguna Beach HE would still "Own" or have rights to the HOUSE the CITY Allegedly Purchased.
Here are the continued Problems with the Transaction:
No Public Notice was given to Sell RDA Property, to the City.. No Public Hearing took Place.
No Public Notice was given to the Provision of the House to Mr. Schwab, and no opportunity for the Public to respond to the "Sell or transfer of the Public Property" to a Private Individual.
No record shows where the City Paid the RDA for the House. These documents were requested from the City Records, and not Provided. The Request for the Records of the DA's Investigation have been refused so IF the records were discovered during that Investigation they refuse to release them. HOWEVER it is more likely that the investigation was not much more than a phone call as indicated in the content of the First Letter Addressed to Mr. Schwab.
Apparently, there was a conversation between Mr. Schwab and the DA. The DA's Statement that the House was provided due to the REQUIREMENT of the City that Mr. Schwab lives in Grand Terrace the transaction did not represent a conflict of interest.
The House was not a Requirement it was an Inducement as stated in the Contract Terms and Conditions where and when the house was provided to Mr. Schwab.
The issues are not limited to that. The process of the Transfer of the Asset from the RDA to the City for the Purpose of providing the House to Mr. Schwab is of issue. Mr. Schwab is the Director of the RDA, and the City Manager, and the Recipient of the Benefit of the Transaction. The transaction is suspect as there was no public notice and it involves 2 separate agencies and start to finish transpired in such a short space of time from idea to closed escrow that there had to be collusion, and pre planning prior to the contract amendment, and acceptance of that house.
(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correction, law enforcement, or licensing purposes, except that state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 13951, unless the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or unless disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation. However, nothing in this division shall require the disclosure of that portion of those investigative files that reflect the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer. Customer lists provided to a state or local police agency by an alarm or security company at the request of the agency shall be construed to be records subject to this subdivision.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation:
(1) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual's physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.
(2) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name and age of the victim, the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved. The name of a victim of any crime defined by Section 220,261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289,422.6, 422.7, 422.75, or 646.9 of the Penal Code may be withheld at the victim's request, or at the request of the victim's parent or guardian if the victim is a minor. When a person is the victim of more than one crime, information disclosing that the person is a victim of a crime defined by Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264,264.1, 273a, 273d, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, or 646.9 of the Penal Code may be deleted at the request of the victim, or the victim's parent or guardian if the victim is a minor, in making the report of the crime, or of any crime or incident accompanying the crime, available to the public in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
08/18/2004 3 Substitution of Trustee
Reconveyance SCHWAB THOMAS (R)
GRAND TERRACE CITY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (E)
08/18/2004 3 Substitution of Trustee
Reconveyance GRAND TERRACE CITY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (E)
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (R)
GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEV AGENCY SO 100. B 07/12/1999 07/12/1999 08/08/2000 19990291878
MOYA, SANDRA J SO 100.B 04/23/1999 04/23/1999 07/11/1999 19990172870