30 People Attended:
Parking Planning and Density of Apartment Units Concerns Raised.
Public concern that Visitors to Senior Center and Park and Proposed Resident Parking areas are insufficient, for intended use, and does not blend with the low density housing of adjoining property, and the zoning of the property prior to City Council Creating a Zone for the Specific Purpose of accommodating the BMSV.
Who would qualify or what the qualifications would be to live in the housing was questioned, Orriginal City Statements and promotion suggested the intended residents were “Our Seniors”, “Family Members”, “Low and Middle Income” were the qualifications for the apartments. Funding Obtained by Corporation For Better Housing, requires the housing to be for the specific income class of Low Low Income, or what is commonly refered to Section 8 Housing. Regarless of who administers or manages the housing the question is how many of the “Interested Grand Terrace Seniors or the Family Members” would qualify for the housing opportunity with this Income Qualification being part of the requirement? Gramps is not so sure this is an environmental question but others are.
Some are concerned that the Senior Center and Housing will house a population of folks that will not complement the fact that there is a Elementary School right next door. Some folks are concerned that the Residents of the BMSV will out number the Senior Center’s Current Active Membership and the Seniors currently being provided with activities will have lost their Senior Center. The 200 or so active Senior Center Users are Grand Terrace Residents, and they help keep track of eachother’s health, and the center provides them with a lunch and social opportunity which may not be taken advantage of if the BMSV residents overwhelm the planned new facility or if there is insufficient parking for the Visitor to the Senior Center and Park.
The Comments collected will be included in the Proposed Envionmental Impact Report, and will be available for Public Review for 45 days and then a Final report is prepaired and will go before Planning Commission or City Council for Certification.
Because, this is a report required by Judge John P. Wade one will assume the Judge will also be reviewing the Report and the Mitigation Efforts taken to answer the concerns raised at this public meeting and all those brought forward to the issue via the court hearing..
While this report is being done, the City of Grand Terrace and the Corporation For Better Hosing has filed an Appeal of the Judge John P. Wade Decision. For some reason they are seeking a remedy past the completion of the EIR, which publicly Mr. Tom Schwab dismisses as a 45,000.00 formality that is “no big deal”. IF it is no big deal, or If there are no problems with the land use, density, traffic, and noise issues, why not just fulfill the lower courts requirement, and not add the cost of an appeal?
For those who may ask why din’t the public say these things before the plans were approved. They were, where were you?
Miguel's is Secondary Party in Suit: Primary Case is against City Redevelopment Agency.
To Mr. Jaime Vilches:
This country is not based on Majority Rule. We have a Code of Laws and Regulations which are applied or should be applied equally amongst its citizens. This protects the Minority population from the tyranny of the Majority even right here in Grand Terrace, or should be.
Well I hope in Grand Terrace the Minority has an input, a voice, and a right to seek legal action to protect its interest.
When the Planning Commission and the City Council approved the Miguel's project. There were concerns voiced by the public. Concerns including but not limited to the limited parking, traffic flow, having a drive thru, trash, and the design not being unified as required by the Barton Road Specific Plan. The problem is that Miguel's has moved 4 times, and this plan depends on the surrounding Plan, which has not been approved... Jacobsen Plan B for the Town Center.
Where were you?
Miguel's is the unfortunate party who has been the City Redevelopment Agency's ping pong ball. The law suit is not against Miguel' as a primary Respondent. The suit is about the Redevelopment Agency and City not applying the Code of Laws and Regulations uniformly and having compliance prior to the issue of Approvals and Permits.
The law suit may have a seemingly minor issue included such as too much stucco as a design element, but that is an example of a problem not the entire problem being heard in court.
The Barton Road Specific Plan Design Elements were forced upon Business and Property Owners for years. Causing many owners to either not be able to improve their businesses, or sell to interested parties as the development cost to the plan would be cost prohibitive. Now when Jacobsen and the City Redevelopment threatened all the property owners with the deal sell me your property or Eminent Domain Might Be used, they buckled and sold under duress, and without the advantage of a free and open market..
The Potential Buyers of the property faced the Design Requirements of the Barton Road Specific Plan, in addition to County, State, and Federal building equipments.
The Plan requires a Unified Development and that would include Jacobsen's Plan B. We have not seen Plan B. There is the added rub. No Jacobsen Plan B, no Town Center Grading Permits.
I don't like the money spend either. I think the city should conduct itself in such away that it can not be subjected to being sued. When documents are requested from the city they should provide them. When permits for grading, or a specific plan contains requirements for one the requirements should not be waived on a case by case whim.
Miguel's has been put in this situation as a result of the City Management not the Citizens who brought the legal action. Miguel's is not being built on land Owned by Miguel's it is land that the title has yet to be fully transferred from the combined holdings of the Redevelopment Agency, and Jacobsen Family holdings, in a swap for land Miguel's company owns. It would seem the Trio of players should be required to submit PLAN B, prior to development goes forward. Or at least have the foot print and design elements approved in tandem.
A Drive Thru is not a Pedestrian Friendly Design, and was up to this point not allowed in Grand Terrace. Jacobsen Familybroke Thruu DriveThrur ban withThrue Drive Thu Drug Store. Miguel's added the feature, and because the Council approved the Drive Thru for Miguel/s and no doubt other fast food Jacobsen will bring, there will be more drive thru's on Barton Rd. Dmitri's restaurant who had been denied this feature. Demiti's eventually got approval for a Drive Thru and their location IS exactly appropriate for a Drive Thru as it is off the freeway, and has limited pedestrian traffic, and is not part of the Barton Rd Specific Plan. Yet they had been denied several time.
So where were you when the Citizens Brought their unanswered concerns to the Planning Commission and City Council? To what depth have you dipped your tortilla chip into the salsa of the policy and practices of development in Grand Terrace?
Your participation is welcome. What is not welcome is your suggestion that a Minority Voice and Action should be discounted, or not heard, not given the full protection of the Laws of the Land, and should surrender to the Will of the Mass Majority.
I have to add, I have lived in Grand Terrace longer than Miguel's has been in town, and have never eaten there. I went in side, looked at the food, smelled it, looked at the menu and left 3 times. I am not for or against Miguel's, I am for a clean development process and procedure, for Miguel's, and all people in Grand Terrace. Miguel's is not the problem and is not the Primary Respondent to the Suit being heard. Let's not mislead the public by diverting attention away from the cause of action being the Management of City Manager Tom Schwab, Doug Jacobsen Family Holdings, and Jack Brown and the lack of insistence of the City Council and City Attorney that shortcuts not be taken by any developer.
If a code or plan is bad, change it across the board, not one project at a time.
Try this thought on. If I were to pay Jo String Field lets say a Billion Dollars, and shfinallyly said yes she wanted to sell the land to me she couldn't. If I went to the City with a Building of a design that did not conform specific Barton Road Specificic Plan would I'd be allowed to build? No, as a matter of fact I think that Jo would still be under the obligation to inform me she can't sell her land to anyonor developmentnt City Redevelopment Agency, or to a buyer they approve, as she has been served with a document warning her of their intent to use Eminent Domain in order ot obtain her property and she was told not to sell, rent or improve her property in the event , (IF) the city desired to go forward with Eminent Domain Proceedings.
To the best of my knowledge, the City Council has said they have not use Eminent Domain. They have not said they WILL NOT, use Eminent Domain tforciblyly take a piece of property from one owner to another owner. The City has not sent a letter giving he full enjoyment power of property rights on Jo Stringfield , by declarationon or decree they have not given, her any assurances that they will not at a future time on a whim restart their efforts to force her to sell her land to them or to a single buyer.
IF a regulation is required of me, it is a requirement for all, that is fair and interfere does not interferear with free trade, and commerce.
Grand Pa Terrace
Grand Terrace
Residents lose round in fight over restaurant
GRAND TERRACE: They have argued that a fast-food eatery would violate city guidelines. 10:00 PM PST on Thursday, January 4, 2007
By JULIE FARRENThe Press-Enterprise
GRAND TERRACE - A citizens group lost its bid for a temporary restraining order to stop Miguel's Jr. from building a new fast-food restaurant on Barton Road this week.
San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge John P. Wade on Wednesday denied that request but set a Feb. 21 court date for a hearing on a preliminary injunction request.
A group called Citizens for Responsible and Open Government filed a lawsuit last November to stop Miguel's Jr. from building on Barton Road between Michigan Avenue and Canal Street. The restaurant wants to move from the Stater Bros. shopping center.
Lawyer Raymond Johnson, of Temecula, said the citizens group opposes the stucco design and says the drive-through window and driveway violate the Barton Road Specific Plan guidelines, which call for a minimum setback of 25 feet from the
street. Johnson said the restaurant's proposed parking would be on the property line.City Manager Thomas Schwab said the restaurant's plans were approved by the Planning Commission and comply with the specific plan. Schwab said he questioned the environmental impact of a stucco design.
The grading and building permits have been issued, Schwab said, and the restaurant could open within three months.
Reach Julie Farren at 909-806-3079 or jfarren@PE.com
