Cautious county clamping down on fireworks
Jason Pesick, Staff Writer San Bernardino County Sun
Article Launched:06/30/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_6267455
..........
"We just don't need fireworks to contribute to the already disastrous season we could have in front of us," San Bernardino County Fire Chief Pat Dennen said at a news conference at the checkpoint Friday afternoon.
...............................
So far this year, officials have seized 46,000 pounds of fireworks. They picked up 32 tons for all of last year, Dennen said.
A number of communities are increasing their efforts to prevent fires in the foothills and mountains through the holiday.
Last year, the Pico Fire in Grand Terrace was started by fireworks, Dennen said. No structures were destroyed, but it took more than one agency and a great deal of money to put it out.
"
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
Perhaps a Quarantine of Grand Terrace is Needed
QUARANTINE THE CITIES WHO SALE FIREWORKS.
The sheriff is putting up road side searches for fireworks at the foot hill of the San Bernardino Mountains. The real solution would be to Put Up Road Blocks and Inspection Points at every road leaving a city that sells Fireworks.
Of course this would cause those cities to have traffic problems... There is no discrimination check every car leaving a city that is exporting the risk of fireworks. There is reasonable cause for the search.
The sheriff is putting up road side searches for fireworks at the foot hill of the San Bernardino Mountains. The real solution would be to Put Up Road Blocks and Inspection Points at every road leaving a city that sells Fireworks.
Of course this would cause those cities to have traffic problems... There is no discrimination check every car leaving a city that is exporting the risk of fireworks. There is reasonable cause for the search.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
ON LINE NEWS: Fireworks WARNING
Letters to the Editor
Stop fireworks sales
Article Launched: 06/28/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
We all know that San Bernardino has only had 6 inches of rain in the past year. We know that the brush, plants and grass on the hillsides north of the city are bone dry. Now, we have a batch of fireworks stores opened up in the north side of the city.
The fact that these stands are sponsored by service clubs, churches and charitable organizations doesn't excuse their presence, but it does reflect shamefully on these sponsors.
Over many years, I have talked to a lot of the people selling at these stands. Most don't want to be there. They would rather write a check to their organization than stand around in the hot sun answering questions from shoppers.
The "safe and sane" fireworks will injure many children, a lot of whom will wind up in our crowded emergency rooms.
I think all voters should let their mayor and their councilmen know that this must stop. Let's make this the last year San Bernardino sells fireworks.
WAYNE SCOTT, M.D. San Bernardino
DITTO for GRAND TERRACE..... GRAMPS
http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=3622244&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.1.1
San Bernardino -- Fireworks are causing a big concern as we move into the Fourth of July holiday. Firefighters are demonstrating the dangers of them.
Stop fireworks sales
Article Launched: 06/28/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
We all know that San Bernardino has only had 6 inches of rain in the past year. We know that the brush, plants and grass on the hillsides north of the city are bone dry. Now, we have a batch of fireworks stores opened up in the north side of the city.
The fact that these stands are sponsored by service clubs, churches and charitable organizations doesn't excuse their presence, but it does reflect shamefully on these sponsors.
Over many years, I have talked to a lot of the people selling at these stands. Most don't want to be there. They would rather write a check to their organization than stand around in the hot sun answering questions from shoppers.
The "safe and sane" fireworks will injure many children, a lot of whom will wind up in our crowded emergency rooms.
I think all voters should let their mayor and their councilmen know that this must stop. Let's make this the last year San Bernardino sells fireworks.
WAYNE SCOTT, M.D. San Bernardino
DITTO for GRAND TERRACE..... GRAMPS
http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=3622244&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.1.1
San Bernardino -- Fireworks are causing a big concern as we move into the Fourth of July holiday. Firefighters are demonstrating the dangers of them.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
From the Email InBox: Fireworks Logic
Dear Gramps,
I find it slightly ironic that this is posted on the Grand Terrace City website; This Fourth of July Put Safety First. It would be nice if the city put the safety of it's own citizens first all the time. Why only be safe on the Fourth of July? The city allows the sale and use of the fireworks for several days - not just one, so shouldn't they want us to be safe the entire time? Why do we only have a tipline for a few hours on the Fourth of July, why not for everyday that fireworks are permitted to be bought and sold?
Dear Email Writer:
Logic is not a strong suite of the actions of having Fireworks in Grand Terrace.
The Fire Department Position: We'd rather only deal with the Illegals.. a smaller problem than mixing Illegals and "Safe and Sane"
The Sheriff: It would be easier to enforce if the City allowed none, then all would be "Illegal".
2 of 5 Council Member said No.
1 said Yes with a Stipulation that the Teams try some other fund raiser... (Which they have not)
The council vote 3 to have Fireworks came with stipulations to the motion that should have been codified and they were not... so one could venture to say GT Code on Fireworks is in Limbo.
Let us hope that no one is burned out, no fires are started, no eye sight or limbs are lost to this folly. Let us hope that the tormented animals all get to their homes, and that the Issue will be put on the agenda again and the Logical Answer Prevails. Fireworks don't work...
This should be a state level issue not a local one, as it is the State of California who would battle a large fire, or have to pay medical costs for injury to uninsured people, not the City of Grand Terrace.
Gramps
I find it slightly ironic that this is posted on the Grand Terrace City website; This Fourth of July Put Safety First. It would be nice if the city put the safety of it's own citizens first all the time. Why only be safe on the Fourth of July? The city allows the sale and use of the fireworks for several days - not just one, so shouldn't they want us to be safe the entire time? Why do we only have a tipline for a few hours on the Fourth of July, why not for everyday that fireworks are permitted to be bought and sold?
Dear Email Writer:
Logic is not a strong suite of the actions of having Fireworks in Grand Terrace.
The Fire Department Position: We'd rather only deal with the Illegals.. a smaller problem than mixing Illegals and "Safe and Sane"
The Sheriff: It would be easier to enforce if the City allowed none, then all would be "Illegal".
2 of 5 Council Member said No.
1 said Yes with a Stipulation that the Teams try some other fund raiser... (Which they have not)
The council vote 3 to have Fireworks came with stipulations to the motion that should have been codified and they were not... so one could venture to say GT Code on Fireworks is in Limbo.
Let us hope that no one is burned out, no fires are started, no eye sight or limbs are lost to this folly. Let us hope that the tormented animals all get to their homes, and that the Issue will be put on the agenda again and the Logical Answer Prevails. Fireworks don't work...
This should be a state level issue not a local one, as it is the State of California who would battle a large fire, or have to pay medical costs for injury to uninsured people, not the City of Grand Terrace.
Gramps
School Board Takes Action: Against AES...
AS THE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED AND SIGNEDCOLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RESOLUTION
07-12
AUTHORIZES THE DISTRICT TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN PROVIDING FOR SAFE SCHOOLS IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE AREAS NEAR EXISTING AND PROPOSED SCHOOL SITES THROUGHOUT TIlE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Board of Education of the Colton Joint Unified School District will actively participate in the public review comment period of any proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as appropriate.
*
WHEREAS, all future projects proposed near any existing and proposed school sites by other entities and their potentially significant impacts will be closely monitored.
WHEREAS, all future projects proposed near any existing and proposed school sites by other entities and their potentially significant impacts will be closely monitored.
*
WHEREAS, operating power plants are known to decrease the air quality in their immediate vicinity.
*
WHEREAS, operating power plants are known to increase passenger and trucking traffic because of employment commutes and wastewater transport.
*
WHEREAS, operating power plants are known to cause pollution of on-site water wells.
*
WHEREAS, operating power plants need pressurized natural gas lines to operate the electricity generating machinery and by their nature, operating pressurized natural gas lines are known to pose hazardous conditions to their surrounding areas.
*
WHEREAS, operating power plants are known to increase the noise levels in their vicinity.
*
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Education, the District will make known, but not limited to the above five listed impacts, its concerns in oral and written comments regarding any proposed power plant project during the public review process and.
*
FURTHERMORE the District hereby opposes the activation and/or reactivation of any power plant near any existing or proposed school site.
*
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Education of the Colton Joint Unified School District on the 21st day of June 2007.
*Ayes: 6
Noes: 0
Absent: 1
Abstain: 0
Date: 07 21 2007
Frank A. Ibarra, President Marge Mendoza-Ware , Clerk
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO KNOW THE DETAILS AND INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CJUSD SCHOOL BOARD IT IS AVAILABLE ON THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSIONS WEB PAGE, AND IT IS IN FACT DOCUMENT PREPARED BY AES AS A PART OF THEIR APPLICATION PROCESS.
ROXANNE WILLIAMS NOR THIS HAVE CREATED FIGURES OR OVERSTATED THE PLANNED PROBLEMS AND POTENTIAL DANGERS OF AN ACTIVE POWER PLANT AS AES PLANS.
CLEARING THE LAND FOR HS3 MAY BE FOR CONSTRUCTION OR SALE IT IS NOT YET A GROUND BREAKING, THE CITY COUNCIL IS PUTTING THE HIGH SCHOOL 3 AT RISK BY THE LACK OF ATTENTION TO THE AES POWER PLANT CONCERNS
IF YOU WANT to know THE DETAILS CONTACT
"roxanne williams" <sciencesister@gmail.com>
****************************************************************************
The CJUSD School Board took an action against the AES POWER PLANT. It exercised its duty in issuing a statement against the construction of the AES Power Plant across the street from the planned High School #3.
The CJUSD has done something the City Council of Grand Terrace has not had the COURAGE to address. OH dare we forget it is City Manager Tom Schwab who will not put the issue on the Agenda for the Council to Officially Proclaim their Support or Non Support for the construction of a Power Plant across the street from the planned High School.
Recall AES "Supported" GT Days.... It that the price for non action by the City Council?
We saw what direction the wind blows with the Plastics Fire... Limited roads in and out of a campus, a Rail Road Line, and a Power Plant and A High School... It is time to ask High School or Power Plant.
From the Email InBox:
Many times contributors to this site have challenged the other Blog to look at documentation or to disprove documented information, which he criticized, instead of his attitude of the City can do no wrong.(Wife's employer) His lack of research of the AES plant and the School Boards decision not to support it, is the same we have seen from the inception of his personal opinion column. Opinion that is based on nothing more than opinion and never backed by documented facts. His website serves no useful public good. It is the echo chamber of Mr. Schwab's office. He should also apologize to the Grand Terrace City News. Unlike him, they check to see if there is documentation before they print a story. He should try it sometime. It all comes down to credibility. He has proven over and over he possesses nary a shred, even if you know his name.
From Gramps: He has apologized by writing a second post on the subject. The first post defaming Grand Terrace City News and Roxanne Williams has been removed.
City's Fireworks Sales Trailers Arrive:
Two Shipping Containers for Fireworks Sales have arrive and have been placed on RDA Land.
The City is Providing the Site for the Sale, The City is taking part of the Sales Price, The City is Encouraging the use of Fireworks. So why can't you use fireworks in a GREEN CITY PARK where it would be the LEAST Dangerous Place to use Fireworks?
Perhaps folks could enjoy the fireworks in the proximity of the homes of the City Manager and City Council Members and leave the rest of us in Peace. Take your fireworks to those who allow the sale and use of "Safe and Sane" Fireworks. Let them enjoy your "FUN", "Tradition:, and "Celebration".
23174 WESTWOOD ST
22187 DE BERRY ST
22997 JENSEN CT
22975 WREN ST
22996 PALM AVE
22687 LARK ST
22857 WREN ST
The City is Providing the Site for the Sale, The City is taking part of the Sales Price, The City is Encouraging the use of Fireworks. So why can't you use fireworks in a GREEN CITY PARK where it would be the LEAST Dangerous Place to use Fireworks?
Perhaps folks could enjoy the fireworks in the proximity of the homes of the City Manager and City Council Members and leave the rest of us in Peace. Take your fireworks to those who allow the sale and use of "Safe and Sane" Fireworks. Let them enjoy your "FUN", "Tradition:, and "Celebration".
23174 WESTWOOD ST
22187 DE BERRY ST
22997 JENSEN CT
22975 WREN ST
22996 PALM AVE
22687 LARK ST
22857 WREN ST
Thursday, June 21, 2007
FIREWORK PHONE NUMBERS
FIREWORKS PHONE NUMBERS
Call 911 for all emergencies (From Land LINE PHONE)
San Bernardino County Sheriff (909) 824-0680 (non-emergency)
Crime Prevention (909) 430-2224
Citizen’s Patrol (909) 430-2222
Illegal Firework HOTLINE
909-430-2201
staffed only on July 4th from 7pm to 12pm.
The city allows the sale and use of "Safe & Sane"
fireworks from June 28 to July 4,
The tipline is only for July 4th. 7pm to 12 midnight ONLY
Thank you.
Your Views - 06/27
11:13 PM PDT on Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Banish fireworks
Considering the history of fire and its devastation in the city of San Bernardino, I find it bizarre that city officials allow fireworks to be sold there. Being a longtime firefighter in the area, I can't tell you how many major fires I have fought in the foothills of San Bernardino. When a firestorm such as the Panorama Fire or the Old Fire hits San Bernardino, resources are in short supply and citizens have to fend for themselves. Southern California, particularly the Inland Empire, is a tinderbox waiting for an ignition source. Where is the leadership from our politicians, fire chiefs and firefighter unions on this public-safety issue?
The civic groups that sell fireworks as fundraisers should find some other way to raise money. Money spent by taxpayers fighting any fireworks-related fire in the mountains will far exceed any money made by a civic group.
Firefighters knock down a demonstration blaze in Banning. A legal sparkler started the fire.
So-called "safe and sane" fireworks -- which in my opinion are neither-- should be outlawed in the Inland Empire and, ultimately, throughout California. The short-term fun with fireworks is not worth the long-term heartache, financial burden and environmental disaster that come with the use of fireworks.
MARK D. MILLER
Yucaipa
10:00 PM PDT on Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The Press-Enterprise
A 12-year-old boy was cited for using illegal fireworks that sparked a fire that burned through a quarter-acre field and caused $100,000 in damages to an apartment unit in the 17000 block of San Bernardino Avenue in Fontana, a San Bernardino County Fire Department release said.
About 25 pounds of fireworks were confiscated from the boy's neighbor, who supplied the fireworks and was also cited, the release said. There were no injuries, but the damaged apartment unit was rendered uninhabitable, the release said. Two people lived in the unit.
Both the boy and his neighbor live in the apartment complex where the fire occurred, the release said.
--Massiel Ladrón De Guevara
The Rest of the STORY:
Fireworks blaze stirs firefighters' concerns
Stacia Glenn, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
Article Launched:06/27/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
An electric burst of orange and yellow lines shot into the afternoon sky with a whistling sound, resembling a bolt of lightning striking the grassy field.
The bottle rocket exploded in the air with a loud bang and cannonade of sparks. It would have tickled the fancy of any 12-year-old boy starting Fourth of July traditions a little early - if it weren't for the fire that followed.
The boy wasn't expecting a light breeze to carry sparks from his fireworks fun through the grass and toss them under the wooden porch of a nearby apartment, but that's what happened Monday afternoon.
He stood in a quarter-acre field near his house, remnants of bottle rockets, firecrackers and mortars strewn about, and watched flames lick at his neighbor's one-bedroom apartment on San Bernardino Avenue in Fontana.
No injuries were reported, but the blaze destroyed the porch and living room before firefighters got a handle on it.
This, fire officials said, is exactly why many firecrackers are illegal and most are dangerous.
"We want to protect our community and the people that live in it from devastating fires that occur as a direct result of fireworks," said Mike Horton, deputy San Bernardino County fire marshal.
"You look at the county's history of wildland fires and there is great financial and life safety impact that requires us to take some action."
County firefighters have battled nearly 500 fires over the last five years that were ignited by illegal fireworks.
In 2005, an estimated 10,800 people nationwide were treated around the Fourth of July for fireworks-related injuries, according to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 45 percent of the injuries were to children under 14.
Yet, children still play with fireworks. And it's adults who hand them over.
The boy's neighbor, whom officials declined to name, provided him with a supply of illegal fireworks. San Bernardino County firefighters found 25 pounds of fireworks in the man's home Tuesday morning.
He and the boy's parents were cited.
"Today's citations underscore our zero-tolerance policy regarding dangerous fireworks in San Bernardino County," Horton said. "We are aggressively locating and confiscating illegal fireworks & because they add an unnecessary hazard to an already dangerous fire season."
County fire officials, working with San Bernardino and Riverside county sheriff's deputies, have confiscated more than 53,000 pounds of dangerous fireworks worth $115,852.
It is not unusual for people to try smuggling illegal fireworks into the state from Nevada.
Aerial sky rockets, cherry bombs, mortars and other such explosive fireworks are illegal. But many cities in the Inland Empire allow so-called "safe and sane" fireworks.
"These have to be fireworks that don't shoot in the air; they don't blow up," said Frank Ojeda, a fire engineer in Colton. "You set them on the ground, they light and have some sparks and maybe some noise, and that's pretty much all they do."
FROM THE CITY WEB PAGE:
11:13 PM PDT on Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Banish fireworks
Considering the history of fire and its devastation in the city of San Bernardino, I find it bizarre that city officials allow fireworks to be sold there. Being a longtime firefighter in the area, I can't tell you how many major fires I have fought in the foothills of San Bernardino. When a firestorm such as the Panorama Fire or the Old Fire hits San Bernardino, resources are in short supply and citizens have to fend for themselves. Southern California, particularly the Inland Empire, is a tinderbox waiting for an ignition source. Where is the leadership from our politicians, fire chiefs and firefighter unions on this public-safety issue?
The civic groups that sell fireworks as fundraisers should find some other way to raise money. Money spent by taxpayers fighting any fireworks-related fire in the mountains will far exceed any money made by a civic group.
Firefighters knock down a demonstration blaze in Banning. A legal sparkler started the fire.
So-called "safe and sane" fireworks -- which in my opinion are neither-- should be outlawed in the Inland Empire and, ultimately, throughout California. The short-term fun with fireworks is not worth the long-term heartache, financial burden and environmental disaster that come with the use of fireworks.
MARK D. MILLER
Yucaipa
10:00 PM PDT on Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The Press-Enterprise
A 12-year-old boy was cited for using illegal fireworks that sparked a fire that burned through a quarter-acre field and caused $100,000 in damages to an apartment unit in the 17000 block of San Bernardino Avenue in Fontana, a San Bernardino County Fire Department release said.
About 25 pounds of fireworks were confiscated from the boy's neighbor, who supplied the fireworks and was also cited, the release said. There were no injuries, but the damaged apartment unit was rendered uninhabitable, the release said. Two people lived in the unit.
Both the boy and his neighbor live in the apartment complex where the fire occurred, the release said.
--Massiel Ladrón De Guevara
The Rest of the STORY:
Fireworks blaze stirs firefighters' concerns
Stacia Glenn, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
Article Launched:06/27/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
An electric burst of orange and yellow lines shot into the afternoon sky with a whistling sound, resembling a bolt of lightning striking the grassy field.
The bottle rocket exploded in the air with a loud bang and cannonade of sparks. It would have tickled the fancy of any 12-year-old boy starting Fourth of July traditions a little early - if it weren't for the fire that followed.
The boy wasn't expecting a light breeze to carry sparks from his fireworks fun through the grass and toss them under the wooden porch of a nearby apartment, but that's what happened Monday afternoon.
He stood in a quarter-acre field near his house, remnants of bottle rockets, firecrackers and mortars strewn about, and watched flames lick at his neighbor's one-bedroom apartment on San Bernardino Avenue in Fontana.
No injuries were reported, but the blaze destroyed the porch and living room before firefighters got a handle on it.
This, fire officials said, is exactly why many firecrackers are illegal and most are dangerous.
"We want to protect our community and the people that live in it from devastating fires that occur as a direct result of fireworks," said Mike Horton, deputy San Bernardino County fire marshal.
"You look at the county's history of wildland fires and there is great financial and life safety impact that requires us to take some action."
County firefighters have battled nearly 500 fires over the last five years that were ignited by illegal fireworks.
In 2005, an estimated 10,800 people nationwide were treated around the Fourth of July for fireworks-related injuries, according to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 45 percent of the injuries were to children under 14.
Yet, children still play with fireworks. And it's adults who hand them over.
The boy's neighbor, whom officials declined to name, provided him with a supply of illegal fireworks. San Bernardino County firefighters found 25 pounds of fireworks in the man's home Tuesday morning.
He and the boy's parents were cited.
"Today's citations underscore our zero-tolerance policy regarding dangerous fireworks in San Bernardino County," Horton said. "We are aggressively locating and confiscating illegal fireworks & because they add an unnecessary hazard to an already dangerous fire season."
County fire officials, working with San Bernardino and Riverside county sheriff's deputies, have confiscated more than 53,000 pounds of dangerous fireworks worth $115,852.
It is not unusual for people to try smuggling illegal fireworks into the state from Nevada.
Aerial sky rockets, cherry bombs, mortars and other such explosive fireworks are illegal. But many cities in the Inland Empire allow so-called "safe and sane" fireworks.
"These have to be fireworks that don't shoot in the air; they don't blow up," said Frank Ojeda, a fire engineer in Colton. "You set them on the ground, they light and have some sparks and maybe some noise, and that's pretty much all they do."
FROM THE CITY WEB PAGE:
This Fourth of July Put Safety First
The City of Grand Terrace has enacted new regulations To curb the use of illegal fireworks, while allowing its Residence to celebrate safely with state-approved ones. A TIPLINE will be staffed on July 4th from 7 pm to 12 midnight…Call 909 430-2201 to report the use of illegal fireworks.
FIREWORKS PREVENTION RESPONSE PLAN
The City will have 1 investigator assigned with the following code enforcement objectives:
The City will have 1 investigator assigned with the following code enforcement objectives:
1.Provide visible presence within the City (via pro-active patrols) for active accountability to existing laws and ordinances regarding fireworks use.
2.Provide aggressive enforcement of codes and ordinances through confiscation and citing of illegal fireworks use.
3.Provide aggressive enforcement of codes and ordinances through confiscation and citing of improper use of safe and sane fireworks.
RESPONSE PLAN
2.Provide aggressive enforcement of codes and ordinances through confiscation and citing of illegal fireworks use.
3.Provide aggressive enforcement of codes and ordinances through confiscation and citing of improper use of safe and sane fireworks.
RESPONSE PLAN
The City will have 2 engine companies assigned with a total response force of 8 personnel with the following objectives:
1.Provide visible presence within the City (via pro-active patrols) for active accountability to existing laws and ordinances regarding fireworks use.
2.Provide rapid identification of fire starts in high hazard brush/interface areas within the City.
3.Provide rapid extinguishment of all fire starts to prevent subsequent spread/escalation and keep property damage to a minimum.
2.Provide rapid identification of fire starts in high hazard brush/interface areas within the City.
3.Provide rapid extinguishment of all fire starts to prevent subsequent spread/escalation and keep property damage to a minimum.
Note: Reinforced response to working fires of any magnitude will be provided via additional County Fire Department engine companies and/or through the utilization of automatic aid or mutual aid resources.
Grand Terrace Residents -Are You Prepared?
A dangerous fire season could be on the horizon
A dangerous fire season could be on the horizon
Do you have sufficient defensible space around your home? Have you cleared your yard of debris? It could be a matter of life or death if a fire hits your area. with fire season upon us, San Bernardino County Fire urges all residents to follow these simple steps to help protect your property:
Create a defensible area, firebreaks that divert flames around property, by clearing weeds and dry grass at least 100 feet around your home. Property on sloped areas should be cleared 100 feet as well, as wind-fed flames can race up hills and mountainsides quickly.
Store flammable liquids in approved safety cans away from occupied buildings.
Keep propane tanks clear of vegetation.
Keep all combustibles, such as firewood, lawn furniture, picnic tables, etc., away from structures.
Clean rain gutters regularly to avoid leaf and needle accumulation.
Clear vegetation and other flammable materials from beneath decks or other wooden structures.
Remove tree limbs and vegetation that overhang the roof.
Remove all branches lower than 6 feet.
Dispose of stove or fireplace ashes and charcoal briquettes after soaking them in a metal pail of water for 24 hours.
Keep garden hose connected to faucet.
Review your home escape plan with your family & have a fire drill exercise.
Ensure address is clearly visible from the street.
Contact your local fire station at 825-0221 for further information and free property inspections.
Keep propane tanks clear of vegetation.
Keep all combustibles, such as firewood, lawn furniture, picnic tables, etc., away from structures.
Clean rain gutters regularly to avoid leaf and needle accumulation.
Clear vegetation and other flammable materials from beneath decks or other wooden structures.
Remove tree limbs and vegetation that overhang the roof.
Remove all branches lower than 6 feet.
Dispose of stove or fireplace ashes and charcoal briquettes after soaking them in a metal pail of water for 24 hours.
Keep garden hose connected to faucet.
Review your home escape plan with your family & have a fire drill exercise.
Ensure address is clearly visible from the street.
Contact your local fire station at 825-0221 for further information and free property inspections.
BE PREPARED
Defensible Space Saves Lives
San Bernardino County Fire Department wishes you a safe summer!
FIREWORK ALERT!!
Defensible Space Saves Lives
San Bernardino County Fire Department wishes you a safe summer!
FIREWORK ALERT!!
Possession of any type of fireworks, including Safe and Sane, in any unincorporated area of the county, is illegal. Fireworks will be confiscated and citations may be issued. In the event a fire occurs due to the unsafe use of fireworks, the individual may be criminally charged and responsible for restitution.
Safe and Sane fireworks are only allowed in the incorporated cities of Adelanto, Chino,Colton (specific areas only, contact 370-5100), Fontana (city area only), Grand Terrace, Rialto and San Bernardino (specific areas only, contact 884-7248).
A startling statistic from the National Fire Protection Association states that on a typical 4th of July, fireworks cause more fires in the U.S. than all other causes combined. But because most people encounter the risk of fireworks only once a year, many Americans do not realize how great that risk is. In preparation for the 4th of July celebration, San Bernardino County Fire wants to remind you of some safety tips:
Always use fireworks (safe and sane) with an adult present
Always read and follow label directions
Always have water (garden hose/bucket) and a fire extinguisher within arms reach
Always place fireworks on a firm, non-combustible surface
Never alter fireworks
Never re-light “dud” fireworks
Homemade fireworks are deadly. Never attempt to make your own device. Leave the making of fireworks to the experts.
Never point, throw or mishandle fireworks
A sparkler, usually considered safe, burns at a very high temperature and ignites clothing easily
Fireworks are not toys. They can cause deaths, blinding, and other severe injuries.
Always read and follow label directions
Always have water (garden hose/bucket) and a fire extinguisher within arms reach
Always place fireworks on a firm, non-combustible surface
Never alter fireworks
Never re-light “dud” fireworks
Homemade fireworks are deadly. Never attempt to make your own device. Leave the making of fireworks to the experts.
Never point, throw or mishandle fireworks
A sparkler, usually considered safe, burns at a very high temperature and ignites clothing easily
Fireworks are not toys. They can cause deaths, blinding, and other severe injuries.
Due to the severe fire season, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and County Fire encourages residents to partake in a locally sponsored 4th of July celebration and leave the firework displays to the experts.
For more information on firework safety, contact your local fire department.
Have a SAFE celebration!
Gramps says after you phone a complaint please watch for the responce, and report the time and nature of the call and responce time and responce to the blog grandterracenews@yahoo.com . Perhaps we will see if the "Increased Enforcement" is working.
NEWS and REVIEWS
Sex Crimes, Drugs, DUI, and Property Crimes Continue
The June Arrest Log is seeing Sex Crimes in addition to added Drug and DUI or Alcohol related Crimes in Grand Terrace. One was an apparent Prostitution Ring, where the Women Only were arrested. One was a case of statutory rape or sex with a minor. There have been several batteries on family and others.
Jose Garcia Alvarado: GT Resident with an outstanding warrant for a murder committed in the desert. UPDATE>>>>>>>
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_R_region14.3f66b82.html
Man arrested in High Desert slayings
A Grand Terrace resident was arrested Saturday in connection with the deaths of two people in the High Desert earlier this year, officials said.
Jose Garcia Alvarado, 37, was tracked to Pomona and arrested on two felony homicide warrants, said San Bernardino County sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Beavers.
He had been charged in the March 28 slaying of Juan Sotelo in Adelanto and the May 25 shooting of Francisco Sanchez-Lemus at a Victorville apartment complex.
Detectives found Alvarado in a car on Garey Avenue with a large quantity of drugs, according to a sheriff's news release. He was booked into West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga on suspicion of two counts of murder and witness intimidation.
On the day of his arrest, Beavers said that Alvarado had told an ex-girlfriend who had cooperated with investigators that he was on his way to Huntington Beach to kill her and her family.
--Paul LaRocco
plarocco@PE.com
Regional briefs 08/14/2007
Senior Center Planning Commission Meeting
June 21st Meeting:
Intent to Approve EIR for the BMSV…
Approval Given Questions Still Remain
Only thing on agenda for meeting of the G.T. Planning Commission for night of 21st was the new Senior Apartments in north portion of the city of G.T. The evening had a moderate attendance and folks kept dribbling in well after the other agenda items had been attended to. But, other than the applicants and the city, those in attendance were pre-conceived to be set in their ideas as to be "for" the proposed development or "against" it. Doubtful there was anyone in attendance who had not made up their mind beforehand.
Evening began with the City staff explaining the framework of the project, and then a couple of light questions by the P.C. Then the meeting was turned over to the applicant and a couple representatives were asked to stand before the podium. The representative on behalf of Corporation for Better Housing had expressed and showed examples of how similar projects have turned out in other communities like Bellflower, Wilmington, San Jose, Temecula and still other locations were presented. Representatives offered their specialized information from the Environmental Report on such subjects as before and after noise levels, traffic levels and landscaping revisions. The representatives on behalf of the application attempted to deflect interest by mentioning how each unit would have granite counter tops, extra closets, not too shaggy carpeting, etc. and went to great amount of time expressing such, but the public was not interested regarding the interior, they were concerned about the exterior.
After about 1/2 hour of this, the evening was opened up to Public comment. As mentioned, there were two points of view. Those who were for the project got up to the podium, spoke their viewpoint, and were then met with applause. Those who were NOT for the project got up to the podiums, spoke their viewpoint, and were then met with applause also. The only ones not receiving applause were the city staff and the Planning Commissioners. Virginia Hartford led those with an interest favorable to the project, and
Patricia Farley led those with opposite interest.
The public would speak, ask a question, or demand something, and the city staff or Planning Commissioners would remain silent for a minute or so, and then respond a couple minutes later. Although the 6.2 acre site is currently owned by the City of G.T. and is about 60% covered by the senior apartments, the other 2.6 acres is the be that of a park setting.
About 80% to 90% of the evening discussion pertained to that 60% area. Which ever way those in attendance, or not in attendance, have feelings about, or alternative views upon, it seems the city has once again walked in to a "Problem Project" which is unfortunate. Many in attendance wish such a project to be built, but just not in that location. A different location as mentioned in the EIR, where the General Plan Specifies on Barton Road, away from some of opposition. And thus the real question became should a Bigger Hammer be used to pound the project through to completion, or should there be a compromise developed on the chosen site?
Even with a recent approval by the court to proceed with the down scaled (revised) project, one point was brought up in that an appeal had been filed, and the project is not expected to proceed until this item is resolved.
As persons from the audience got up before the podium and talked, much of the discussion got divided. Many had a chance to go beyond the normal three minute time limit, and numerous times too, for there were a couple of repeats.
The main points of agreement were only the simple need for more affordable senior housing within the City Limits.
The main points of contention raised by the opposition essentially got down to a couple items. Even the members of the P.C. agreed with the opposition that certain items were not addressed in writing or pictures. Many of the items tie together in one way to another, and thus only in the mind of the speaker had some relationship.
1. The City staff mentioned how this project was going to incorporate new revisions to existing zoning and other city codes. It was brought up in that the State of California (Sacramento) had not approved such a development unless an equally sized private venture could also be done within the city. But this did not go over well with staff, for they had no such area in mind (and perhaps did not want a private venture to compete with the public one being discussed that evening). One such revision was the ratio of parking spaces per residence. The staff indicated that a ratio of 4 for 3 was appropriate in this instance. That is three parking spaces per four apartments. Generally referred to as a .75 ratio. New, and the only such development using such a ratio within the city limits. Comparison to other incorporated cities and the County of San Bernardino had also been discussed. No, no no, we already covered this. End of subject, lets move on to the vote.
2. The plans had been revised per staff recommendations to EXCLUDE any covered parking spaces. The city staff got left out of this discussion as this went back and forth as to a need for such via Commissioner Wilson, and the developer's representatives. It was pointed out that four months per year the ambient temperatures regularly exceed 90 degrees. Although this does not alter the ratio of parking spaces, it does alter the visible subject of the site. This became a topic in which persons coming before the podium would include into their expressions time after time. When a person made a comparison of acreage versus units as designed and approved in other near by cities, this fact was neatly omitted by the caveat that the was G.T. and things are not the same here as in other locations. No, no, no, staff already covered this. End of subject; let’s move on to the vote.
3. A few persons in the audience began to speak of the short term (during construction) and the long term noise impacts of the development with a cross reference to item two herein, new landscaping trees, concrete block walls, etc. A representative of the developer was present to discuss the noise levels, along with to receive the barbs of other environmental subjects. He stepped up to the podium a couple times, once at the direction of the P.C. to answer directly comments being made. It was pointed out that audio measurements had been done at the school when children arrive, and when they are picked up. Those levels are pretty low at present. The topic expanded regarding individual air conditioning units within each room and the noise levels therein created.
There was a statement of ambiguity by C.B.H. as to if the A/C was to be central in nature, roof mounted, or like a hotel on the outside wall. Yes, they do create a noise, but this combined with already ambient noise levels, a generous set-back to backyards to residences, more matched in than emphasized. This did not stop the topic of coming up time after time again that evening. Much as that noise from persons slamming the door to an automobile. No, no no, staff already covered this and is explained in the report. End of subject; let’s move on to the vote.
4. Landscaping also became a hot topic, in all of the ways associated with such, not only that skinny 15 gallon trees were specified by the City staff, but the applicant, members of the P.C. and others had already expressed bad experiences with these. The applicant was agreeable to revise to larger diameter trees, but this then lead to a situation of were at? Although little discussion was raised about such, the public park then became focused upon. The indicated park was pictured to be several pathways in amongst 15 gallon trees. Zero shade, or stopping off locations for a five foot tall, two inch diameter 15 gallon tree provides little shade, and since there is no place to sit down in the retrospective park, who cares. The P.C. rightfully asked for a complete revision to landscaping of the park area. Tied in to this discussion was the concrete block wall to be built around the perimeter. Should part of the exterior block walls have openings and then where should they be placed, for the plan does not detail. Then too there is a wall/fence to be built all along the street fronting the site, does this inhibit the public from using the Park, thus making the park only accessible to the housing residents? And as one local pointed out, if big trees are to be placed smack up against the perimeter wall are the current residents then expected to trim and maintain them? One resident pointed out how trees would ruin the winter and spring view of the San Bernardino Mountains currently possible. Much as of how a $25 tree will saw about $25,000 from value and asking price of residence in future. "No, no no, staff already covered this, didn't they?" End of subject; let’s move on to the vote.
The project representative then blubbered on how city staff had not given alternative views to such topics as raised during the evening to any of the noted subjects, but had instead mentioned over and over again how the project had once been approved in 2005, and that this two year old discussion and approval ought to hold. Placing a wall or wrought iron fence on all four sides to the public park, and making auto parking for families only available to those unused spaces within the senior center were dismissed. I think staff already covered everyone's concerns. End of subject; let’s move on to the vote.
It was also brought up by the applicant that a Public meeting concerning this project had additionally been scheduled back in January. Unfortunately he did not point out that it was cancelled also. This was emphatically expressed at the meeting by a few persons, but in the spirit of cooperation (and current escalating construction expenses), the intention to cooperate outweighed the results. A subsequent one was to be advertised (which it never did get), but two persons did somehow find out and attend. They were refused any input, for the project had "once been approved by staff, the P.C. (back in 2005) and by the
City council (in 2005)" and current on going revisions to the unapproved city general plan were in place and consistent with that. It had already been discussed -- by others. No, no no, staff can work this out later on. End of subject; let’s move on to the vote.
To the writer here, it was evident the majority of the emphasis of development thought was deflected upon the housing, not the public park for which each resident is expected to benefit from. For although this area is currently dirt and weeds, it was necessary for approval, right now it was valuable only for calculation purposes. Most comment made by persons at the podium regarding the public park were deflected, to be discussed later, but right now we need to concentrate and approve the senior center so that building can begin. The park is down the road a ways yet (End of subject, lets move on to the vote).
It looks at this time the City of G.T. City Council ought to kick back the Senior Center to the Planning Commission once again, not only due to the recently filed appeal, but to resolve the contentions and make the pictures more consistent with intentions. For now we have an ambiguity. The spoken word which at times does not get officially added to the minutes and agreements of the meeting, and to what the already drawn plans, pictures and presentations show. Patricia Farley pointed this omission has happened in the past, as did a Brentwood Street resident when it was pointed out the secret communication from Sacramento which was omitted for discussion (End of subject, lets move on to the vote).
One such Data Point is a significant change in the way the land is to be graded, (earth moving).
One thing that was shown via projector, to which was NEW, was they had a conceptual grading plan all ready prepared. This was not for public viewing at the public counter, but was there to be shown off just the same. Gary mentioned there was to be a twenty foot deep cut and embankment along the east property line (school), plus a retaining wall to boot. He made zero mention that the only entrance to the public park was to be down a steep slope, past the new Rec. hall, and not to ADA requirements. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. That was passed off when they mentioned the City Engineer was going to look over all plans then approve it all before going to council. As it was still early in the meeting, for no one had spoken yet, that sends up a flag to me and reads a pre-approved proposition.
CFBH wanted to divert the talk to be Flash on superficial aspects, some nickel and dime things like granite countertops, not expensive items like grading. Aim the conversation another direction. From what could be determine from their elevations and other cute pictures, the whole building was within a couple feet at the hip of the roofline to what was approved in 2005, the three story days. Simple, to save costs they just upped the pad heights, flattened out the structures. and said no one will notice.
This is either intentional retribution, a mistake, or an oversight by the P.C. for zero was said about this "Minor" revision. Later in the night there was a complaint expressed by Rep. from C.B.H. they had spent too much on grading already, and did not want to revise the general plans for the units to include a step in the roofline. I know it is cheaper to build a multi-plex over a flat graded parcel and take the barbs from the neighbors, than to keep low and build with minimal vertical heights. We are talking of adding $30,000 in extra grading with those huge slopes and very high rooflines, instead of about $100,000 in notching the roofs to keep low. I would expect a fight on this little matter from C.B.L. for immediately they will insist on "Can't afford it", Cost overruns, too expensive, etc. My thought then is either you chose the wrong site and should have bought into a flatter parcel, or you did not think ahead to incorporate such in to your design. If you get a bigger hammer, eventually they will pound down the neighbors. A three story tall building is now two stories, but near to same elevations. It can be done for it is easy.
It was public comment and demand, which lead to the revisions of the original concept of 2005. This scaled the development from a 160 unit three story project that had been considered minimum for economic expenses, to the 120 unit proposal which is considered minimum for economies of expenses. Perhaps public comment is good, otherwise the area would be under construction for 160 units, parking of much smaller quantity, and the scenic value to residents blocked by three story building. (End of subject, lets move on to the vote) I think that the P.C. may have been correct overall in their vote, but left a lot of things hanging which will be forgotten in one or two months, except by the residents of Brentwood street. Remember the intentions outweigh the results.
Use what you need of this, for the meeting exceeded two hours before coming to a preconceived vote. People were walking out of the chambers before the vote. This
P.C wasn't about to listen to the public. Wonder what is up for next P.C. meeting of the 5th?
NEWS on the Grand Terrace Wallace Family:
From Denverpost.com
denver & the west
Briefs: Fatigue may have led to fatal rollover
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 06/21/2007 12:56:24 AM MD
Mesa County - Fatigue may be a factor in a one-vehicle rollover on Interstate 70 that killed a 64-year-old Grand Terrace, Calif., man and seriously injured his wife, authorities said.
The crash occurred about 3:51 p.m. Wednesday when Wade Henry Wallace, while driving his white Toyota pickup, drifted off the edge of the roadway and over-corrected, causing the truck to roll numerous times, Colorado State Patrol officials said. He suffered serious head injuries and was dead at the scene.
His wife, Ruth Diane Wallace, was rushed by ambulance to St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction in serious condition, authorities said.
The June Arrest Log is seeing Sex Crimes in addition to added Drug and DUI or Alcohol related Crimes in Grand Terrace. One was an apparent Prostitution Ring, where the Women Only were arrested. One was a case of statutory rape or sex with a minor. There have been several batteries on family and others.
Jose Garcia Alvarado: GT Resident with an outstanding warrant for a murder committed in the desert. UPDATE>>>>>>>
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_R_region14.3f66b82.html
Man arrested in High Desert slayings
A Grand Terrace resident was arrested Saturday in connection with the deaths of two people in the High Desert earlier this year, officials said.
Jose Garcia Alvarado, 37, was tracked to Pomona and arrested on two felony homicide warrants, said San Bernardino County sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Beavers.
He had been charged in the March 28 slaying of Juan Sotelo in Adelanto and the May 25 shooting of Francisco Sanchez-Lemus at a Victorville apartment complex.
Detectives found Alvarado in a car on Garey Avenue with a large quantity of drugs, according to a sheriff's news release. He was booked into West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga on suspicion of two counts of murder and witness intimidation.
On the day of his arrest, Beavers said that Alvarado had told an ex-girlfriend who had cooperated with investigators that he was on his way to Huntington Beach to kill her and her family.
--Paul LaRocco
plarocco@PE.com
Regional briefs 08/14/2007
Senior Center Planning Commission Meeting
June 21st Meeting:
Intent to Approve EIR for the BMSV…
Approval Given Questions Still Remain
Only thing on agenda for meeting of the G.T. Planning Commission for night of 21st was the new Senior Apartments in north portion of the city of G.T. The evening had a moderate attendance and folks kept dribbling in well after the other agenda items had been attended to. But, other than the applicants and the city, those in attendance were pre-conceived to be set in their ideas as to be "for" the proposed development or "against" it. Doubtful there was anyone in attendance who had not made up their mind beforehand.
Evening began with the City staff explaining the framework of the project, and then a couple of light questions by the P.C. Then the meeting was turned over to the applicant and a couple representatives were asked to stand before the podium. The representative on behalf of Corporation for Better Housing had expressed and showed examples of how similar projects have turned out in other communities like Bellflower, Wilmington, San Jose, Temecula and still other locations were presented. Representatives offered their specialized information from the Environmental Report on such subjects as before and after noise levels, traffic levels and landscaping revisions. The representatives on behalf of the application attempted to deflect interest by mentioning how each unit would have granite counter tops, extra closets, not too shaggy carpeting, etc. and went to great amount of time expressing such, but the public was not interested regarding the interior, they were concerned about the exterior.
After about 1/2 hour of this, the evening was opened up to Public comment. As mentioned, there were two points of view. Those who were for the project got up to the podium, spoke their viewpoint, and were then met with applause. Those who were NOT for the project got up to the podiums, spoke their viewpoint, and were then met with applause also. The only ones not receiving applause were the city staff and the Planning Commissioners. Virginia Hartford led those with an interest favorable to the project, and
Patricia Farley led those with opposite interest.
The public would speak, ask a question, or demand something, and the city staff or Planning Commissioners would remain silent for a minute or so, and then respond a couple minutes later. Although the 6.2 acre site is currently owned by the City of G.T. and is about 60% covered by the senior apartments, the other 2.6 acres is the be that of a park setting.
About 80% to 90% of the evening discussion pertained to that 60% area. Which ever way those in attendance, or not in attendance, have feelings about, or alternative views upon, it seems the city has once again walked in to a "Problem Project" which is unfortunate. Many in attendance wish such a project to be built, but just not in that location. A different location as mentioned in the EIR, where the General Plan Specifies on Barton Road, away from some of opposition. And thus the real question became should a Bigger Hammer be used to pound the project through to completion, or should there be a compromise developed on the chosen site?
Even with a recent approval by the court to proceed with the down scaled (revised) project, one point was brought up in that an appeal had been filed, and the project is not expected to proceed until this item is resolved.
As persons from the audience got up before the podium and talked, much of the discussion got divided. Many had a chance to go beyond the normal three minute time limit, and numerous times too, for there were a couple of repeats.
The main points of agreement were only the simple need for more affordable senior housing within the City Limits.
The main points of contention raised by the opposition essentially got down to a couple items. Even the members of the P.C. agreed with the opposition that certain items were not addressed in writing or pictures. Many of the items tie together in one way to another, and thus only in the mind of the speaker had some relationship.
1. The City staff mentioned how this project was going to incorporate new revisions to existing zoning and other city codes. It was brought up in that the State of California (Sacramento) had not approved such a development unless an equally sized private venture could also be done within the city. But this did not go over well with staff, for they had no such area in mind (and perhaps did not want a private venture to compete with the public one being discussed that evening). One such revision was the ratio of parking spaces per residence. The staff indicated that a ratio of 4 for 3 was appropriate in this instance. That is three parking spaces per four apartments. Generally referred to as a .75 ratio. New, and the only such development using such a ratio within the city limits. Comparison to other incorporated cities and the County of San Bernardino had also been discussed. No, no no, we already covered this. End of subject, lets move on to the vote.
2. The plans had been revised per staff recommendations to EXCLUDE any covered parking spaces. The city staff got left out of this discussion as this went back and forth as to a need for such via Commissioner Wilson, and the developer's representatives. It was pointed out that four months per year the ambient temperatures regularly exceed 90 degrees. Although this does not alter the ratio of parking spaces, it does alter the visible subject of the site. This became a topic in which persons coming before the podium would include into their expressions time after time. When a person made a comparison of acreage versus units as designed and approved in other near by cities, this fact was neatly omitted by the caveat that the was G.T. and things are not the same here as in other locations. No, no, no, staff already covered this. End of subject; let’s move on to the vote.
3. A few persons in the audience began to speak of the short term (during construction) and the long term noise impacts of the development with a cross reference to item two herein, new landscaping trees, concrete block walls, etc. A representative of the developer was present to discuss the noise levels, along with to receive the barbs of other environmental subjects. He stepped up to the podium a couple times, once at the direction of the P.C. to answer directly comments being made. It was pointed out that audio measurements had been done at the school when children arrive, and when they are picked up. Those levels are pretty low at present. The topic expanded regarding individual air conditioning units within each room and the noise levels therein created.
There was a statement of ambiguity by C.B.H. as to if the A/C was to be central in nature, roof mounted, or like a hotel on the outside wall. Yes, they do create a noise, but this combined with already ambient noise levels, a generous set-back to backyards to residences, more matched in than emphasized. This did not stop the topic of coming up time after time again that evening. Much as that noise from persons slamming the door to an automobile. No, no no, staff already covered this and is explained in the report. End of subject; let’s move on to the vote.
4. Landscaping also became a hot topic, in all of the ways associated with such, not only that skinny 15 gallon trees were specified by the City staff, but the applicant, members of the P.C. and others had already expressed bad experiences with these. The applicant was agreeable to revise to larger diameter trees, but this then lead to a situation of were at? Although little discussion was raised about such, the public park then became focused upon. The indicated park was pictured to be several pathways in amongst 15 gallon trees. Zero shade, or stopping off locations for a five foot tall, two inch diameter 15 gallon tree provides little shade, and since there is no place to sit down in the retrospective park, who cares. The P.C. rightfully asked for a complete revision to landscaping of the park area. Tied in to this discussion was the concrete block wall to be built around the perimeter. Should part of the exterior block walls have openings and then where should they be placed, for the plan does not detail. Then too there is a wall/fence to be built all along the street fronting the site, does this inhibit the public from using the Park, thus making the park only accessible to the housing residents? And as one local pointed out, if big trees are to be placed smack up against the perimeter wall are the current residents then expected to trim and maintain them? One resident pointed out how trees would ruin the winter and spring view of the San Bernardino Mountains currently possible. Much as of how a $25 tree will saw about $25,000 from value and asking price of residence in future. "No, no no, staff already covered this, didn't they?" End of subject; let’s move on to the vote.
The project representative then blubbered on how city staff had not given alternative views to such topics as raised during the evening to any of the noted subjects, but had instead mentioned over and over again how the project had once been approved in 2005, and that this two year old discussion and approval ought to hold. Placing a wall or wrought iron fence on all four sides to the public park, and making auto parking for families only available to those unused spaces within the senior center were dismissed. I think staff already covered everyone's concerns. End of subject; let’s move on to the vote.
It was also brought up by the applicant that a Public meeting concerning this project had additionally been scheduled back in January. Unfortunately he did not point out that it was cancelled also. This was emphatically expressed at the meeting by a few persons, but in the spirit of cooperation (and current escalating construction expenses), the intention to cooperate outweighed the results. A subsequent one was to be advertised (which it never did get), but two persons did somehow find out and attend. They were refused any input, for the project had "once been approved by staff, the P.C. (back in 2005) and by the
City council (in 2005)" and current on going revisions to the unapproved city general plan were in place and consistent with that. It had already been discussed -- by others. No, no no, staff can work this out later on. End of subject; let’s move on to the vote.
To the writer here, it was evident the majority of the emphasis of development thought was deflected upon the housing, not the public park for which each resident is expected to benefit from. For although this area is currently dirt and weeds, it was necessary for approval, right now it was valuable only for calculation purposes. Most comment made by persons at the podium regarding the public park were deflected, to be discussed later, but right now we need to concentrate and approve the senior center so that building can begin. The park is down the road a ways yet (End of subject, lets move on to the vote).
It looks at this time the City of G.T. City Council ought to kick back the Senior Center to the Planning Commission once again, not only due to the recently filed appeal, but to resolve the contentions and make the pictures more consistent with intentions. For now we have an ambiguity. The spoken word which at times does not get officially added to the minutes and agreements of the meeting, and to what the already drawn plans, pictures and presentations show. Patricia Farley pointed this omission has happened in the past, as did a Brentwood Street resident when it was pointed out the secret communication from Sacramento which was omitted for discussion (End of subject, lets move on to the vote).
One such Data Point is a significant change in the way the land is to be graded, (earth moving).
One thing that was shown via projector, to which was NEW, was they had a conceptual grading plan all ready prepared. This was not for public viewing at the public counter, but was there to be shown off just the same. Gary mentioned there was to be a twenty foot deep cut and embankment along the east property line (school), plus a retaining wall to boot. He made zero mention that the only entrance to the public park was to be down a steep slope, past the new Rec. hall, and not to ADA requirements. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. That was passed off when they mentioned the City Engineer was going to look over all plans then approve it all before going to council. As it was still early in the meeting, for no one had spoken yet, that sends up a flag to me and reads a pre-approved proposition.
CFBH wanted to divert the talk to be Flash on superficial aspects, some nickel and dime things like granite countertops, not expensive items like grading. Aim the conversation another direction. From what could be determine from their elevations and other cute pictures, the whole building was within a couple feet at the hip of the roofline to what was approved in 2005, the three story days. Simple, to save costs they just upped the pad heights, flattened out the structures. and said no one will notice.
This is either intentional retribution, a mistake, or an oversight by the P.C. for zero was said about this "Minor" revision. Later in the night there was a complaint expressed by Rep. from C.B.H. they had spent too much on grading already, and did not want to revise the general plans for the units to include a step in the roofline. I know it is cheaper to build a multi-plex over a flat graded parcel and take the barbs from the neighbors, than to keep low and build with minimal vertical heights. We are talking of adding $30,000 in extra grading with those huge slopes and very high rooflines, instead of about $100,000 in notching the roofs to keep low. I would expect a fight on this little matter from C.B.L. for immediately they will insist on "Can't afford it", Cost overruns, too expensive, etc. My thought then is either you chose the wrong site and should have bought into a flatter parcel, or you did not think ahead to incorporate such in to your design. If you get a bigger hammer, eventually they will pound down the neighbors. A three story tall building is now two stories, but near to same elevations. It can be done for it is easy.
It was public comment and demand, which lead to the revisions of the original concept of 2005. This scaled the development from a 160 unit three story project that had been considered minimum for economic expenses, to the 120 unit proposal which is considered minimum for economies of expenses. Perhaps public comment is good, otherwise the area would be under construction for 160 units, parking of much smaller quantity, and the scenic value to residents blocked by three story building. (End of subject, lets move on to the vote) I think that the P.C. may have been correct overall in their vote, but left a lot of things hanging which will be forgotten in one or two months, except by the residents of Brentwood street. Remember the intentions outweigh the results.
Use what you need of this, for the meeting exceeded two hours before coming to a preconceived vote. People were walking out of the chambers before the vote. This
P.C wasn't about to listen to the public. Wonder what is up for next P.C. meeting of the 5th?
NEWS on the Grand Terrace Wallace Family:
From Denverpost.com
denver & the west
Briefs: Fatigue may have led to fatal rollover
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 06/21/2007 12:56:24 AM MD
Mesa County - Fatigue may be a factor in a one-vehicle rollover on Interstate 70 that killed a 64-year-old Grand Terrace, Calif., man and seriously injured his wife, authorities said.
The crash occurred about 3:51 p.m. Wednesday when Wade Henry Wallace, while driving his white Toyota pickup, drifted off the edge of the roadway and over-corrected, causing the truck to roll numerous times, Colorado State Patrol officials said. He suffered serious head injuries and was dead at the scene.
His wife, Ruth Diane Wallace, was rushed by ambulance to St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction in serious condition, authorities said.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
<<<<<>>>>>
Weather Service issues fire-danger warning
Tuesday's high temperatures and low humidity prompted the National Weather Service to issue a red flag warning for the San Bernardino National Forest and areas of the Cleveland National Forest in Riverside County.
The fire danger warning extends through Thursday morning, but there is an even chance it could be extended through the end of this week.
Red flag warning underscores the potential for extreme fire conditions.
Inland temperatures are forecast to approach record highs through the end of this week and into next.
Tuesday's high temperatures and low humidity prompted the National Weather Service to issue a red flag warning for the San Bernardino National Forest and areas of the Cleveland National Forest in Riverside County.
The fire danger warning extends through Thursday morning, but there is an even chance it could be extended through the end of this week.
Red flag warning underscores the potential for extreme fire conditions.
Inland temperatures are forecast to approach record highs through the end of this week and into next.
City Hall Still Block's Grandpa's Email Questions:
I tried to ask what the FIREWORK HOTLINE PHONE NUMBER is for this year..
I sent an email to Jim Miller, and Steve Berry at the City's Email the Email Came back BLOCKED...
These were not Bulk Mail but single Email's asking a Legitimate Question that NOT Available on the CITY's Web Page.
This is a question asked by 18 blog readers so far.
IS the CITY AFRAID that Some One INSIDE the City will Speak or Write to Gramps... We know they read the blog...
Please remember that if you call 911 do it from a land line... 911 calls from cell phones will get you the CHP..
I sent an email to Jim Miller, and Steve Berry at the City's Email the Email Came back BLOCKED...
These were not Bulk Mail but single Email's asking a Legitimate Question that NOT Available on the CITY's Web Page.
This is a question asked by 18 blog readers so far.
IS the CITY AFRAID that Some One INSIDE the City will Speak or Write to Gramps... We know they read the blog...
Please remember that if you call 911 do it from a land line... 911 calls from cell phones will get you the CHP..
FIREWORKS CONCERNS: From the Email InBox
Dear Gramps,
With the 4th of July approaching and this being one of the driest rain seasons on record, it's more important than ever to get information out about the dangers of fireworks.
20070618_sbcfire_firework_alert_flyer.pdf (application/pdf Object)
Accidents caused by fireworks/America 2006
Missile Ranger The dangers of fireworks
USFA Releases the Dangers of Fireworks Report
CPSC Warns Consumers of Fireworks Dangers this 4th of July Season
Call 911 for all emergencies.
San Bernardino County Sheriff (909) 824-0680 (non-emergency)
Crime Prevention (909) 430-2224
Citizen’s Patrol (909) 430-2222
Firework HOTLINE? NOT YET POSTED>>>>>
In todays (June 21, 2007) Grand Terrace City News there is an ad from the city which does have the
tipline number 909-430-2201
staffed only on July 4th from 7pm to 12pm.
The city allows the sale and use of "Safe & Sane" fireworks from June 28 to July 4, but the tipline is only for July 4th.
Thank you.
Gramps says after you phone a complaint please watch for the responce, and report the time and nature of the call and responce time and responce to the blog grandterracenews@yahoo.com . Perhaps we will see if the "Increased Enforcement" is working.
With the 4th of July approaching and this being one of the driest rain seasons on record, it's more important than ever to get information out about the dangers of fireworks.
20070618_sbcfire_firework_alert_flyer.pdf (application/pdf Object)
Accidents caused by fireworks/America 2006
Missile Ranger The dangers of fireworks
USFA Releases the Dangers of Fireworks Report
CPSC Warns Consumers of Fireworks Dangers this 4th of July Season
Call 911 for all emergencies.
San Bernardino County Sheriff (909) 824-0680 (non-emergency)
Crime Prevention (909) 430-2224
Citizen’s Patrol (909) 430-2222
Firework HOTLINE? NOT YET POSTED>>>>>
In todays (June 21, 2007) Grand Terrace City News there is an ad from the city which does have the
tipline number 909-430-2201
staffed only on July 4th from 7pm to 12pm.
The city allows the sale and use of "Safe & Sane" fireworks from June 28 to July 4, but the tipline is only for July 4th.
Thank you.
Gramps says after you phone a complaint please watch for the responce, and report the time and nature of the call and responce time and responce to the blog grandterracenews@yahoo.com . Perhaps we will see if the "Increased Enforcement" is working.
PUBLIC IS ASKED TO HELP
GRAND TERRACE: On the lookout
GRAND TERRACE - You need to be vigilant about possible pot farms cropping up in the city.
That's what the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department is asking for after seizures of millions of dollars worth of marijuana in raids on Inland Empire homes in recent weeks.
Be on the lookout for suspicious-looking homes where all windows are blocked out, continuous humming noises come from inside the home and people come and go at odd hours.
Contact the sheriff's department at (909) 824-0680 if you suspect such activity.
OPINION:
There is a connection between the arrests for use and sale of controlled substances, and the distribution chain of the substance. There is a connection to petty theft, domestic violence, and graffiti to the use of mind altering substances including drugs and alcohol.
As a community we should not allow our family members or neighbors to consume drugs. Getting them help may be getting them arrested first. We should not tolerate public use of drugs. We should be vigilant about pot growing houses, houses that have under age drinking, and loud parties with drunks driving home. Good social norms begin in the home.
GRAND TERRACE - You need to be vigilant about possible pot farms cropping up in the city.
That's what the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department is asking for after seizures of millions of dollars worth of marijuana in raids on Inland Empire homes in recent weeks.
Be on the lookout for suspicious-looking homes where all windows are blocked out, continuous humming noises come from inside the home and people come and go at odd hours.
Contact the sheriff's department at (909) 824-0680 if you suspect such activity.
OPINION:
There is a connection between the arrests for use and sale of controlled substances, and the distribution chain of the substance. There is a connection to petty theft, domestic violence, and graffiti to the use of mind altering substances including drugs and alcohol.
As a community we should not allow our family members or neighbors to consume drugs. Getting them help may be getting them arrested first. We should not tolerate public use of drugs. We should be vigilant about pot growing houses, houses that have under age drinking, and loud parties with drunks driving home. Good social norms begin in the home.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Eminent Domain: Protection by Default?
San Bernardino County scrambles to protect power of eminent domain
07:15 AM PDT on Tuesday, June 19, 2007
By DUANE W. GANGThe Press-Enterprise
Survey: Should local governments have the power to take land through eminent domain and turn it over to private developers?
San Bernardino County is moving to pass new laws to protect its ability to use the power of eminent domain to acquire property. Other cities and counties across the state are doing the same.
To meet the requirements of a state law approved last year, local redevelopment agencies must outline their programs to use the often controversial land-acquisition tool. If not done by July 1, the agencies could lose the power of eminent domain.
San Bernardino County supervisors take up ordinances today, while the city of San Bernardino passed similar measures Monday.
Kathy Thomas, head of the county's redevelopment agency, was unavailable Monday for comment.
But county spokesman David Wert stressed that passage of ordinances for the Speedway, Cedar Glen and Mission Boulevard redevelopment areas does not mean the county has plans to use eminent domain to acquire land.
"It's controversial when ... the government goes in and takes a person's home and forces them to relocate when they don't want to," Wert said.
"The redevelopment agency has never done anything like that," he said. "When the redevelopment agency has used eminent domain in the past, it is to acquire portions of people's property to put in place infrastructure improvements."
Eminent domain allows a government to take property without an owner's consent as long as a fair market price is paid.
The proper use of eminent domain has become a more heated topic of debate since a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that the city of New London, Conn., could use eminent domain to take private land and turn it over to another private entity if it would result in a more economically beneficial use.
A local voter-approved change in San Bernardino County's charter, known as Measure O, prohibits the county from using eminent domain to turn land over to another private entity. But the measure, approved in November, does not apply to the redevelopment agency, a separate legal entity that supervisors oversee.
Wert said the ordinances do not contain any specific properties targeted for acquisition. And he said Measure O, placed on the ballot by supervisors, shows how reluctant current supervisors are to use their eminent domain power.
Wert said county officials believe if no action is taken by July 1, the redevelopment agency would no longer be allowed to use eminent domain.
"It is not prudent to slam the door on that by not filing a plan," he said.
Each of the county ordinances up for a vote contain time limits on the use of eminent domain, ranging to 2016.
In Brief in the Press
Truck rollover kills Grand Terrace man
10:00 PM PDT on Monday, June 18, 2007
A 21-year-old man was killed Saturday morning when the pickup truck he was riding in veered off a road north of Moreno Valley.Joshua John Hogendoorn, of Grand Terrace was in the truck with three other people on Reche Canyon Road when the truck left the road and rolled several times, according to a Riverside County coroner's office report.
Authorities said Hogendoorn was not wearing a seat belt and was ejected during the crash, just south of Reche Vista Drive. The driver of the truck and two passengers suffered minor to moderate injuries and were taken to a hospital. No information was available about the driver was available.
--John Asbury
jasbury@PE.com
07:15 AM PDT on Tuesday, June 19, 2007
By DUANE W. GANGThe Press-Enterprise
Survey: Should local governments have the power to take land through eminent domain and turn it over to private developers?
San Bernardino County is moving to pass new laws to protect its ability to use the power of eminent domain to acquire property. Other cities and counties across the state are doing the same.
To meet the requirements of a state law approved last year, local redevelopment agencies must outline their programs to use the often controversial land-acquisition tool. If not done by July 1, the agencies could lose the power of eminent domain.
San Bernardino County supervisors take up ordinances today, while the city of San Bernardino passed similar measures Monday.
Kathy Thomas, head of the county's redevelopment agency, was unavailable Monday for comment.
But county spokesman David Wert stressed that passage of ordinances for the Speedway, Cedar Glen and Mission Boulevard redevelopment areas does not mean the county has plans to use eminent domain to acquire land.
"It's controversial when ... the government goes in and takes a person's home and forces them to relocate when they don't want to," Wert said.
"The redevelopment agency has never done anything like that," he said. "When the redevelopment agency has used eminent domain in the past, it is to acquire portions of people's property to put in place infrastructure improvements."
Eminent domain allows a government to take property without an owner's consent as long as a fair market price is paid.
The proper use of eminent domain has become a more heated topic of debate since a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that the city of New London, Conn., could use eminent domain to take private land and turn it over to another private entity if it would result in a more economically beneficial use.
A local voter-approved change in San Bernardino County's charter, known as Measure O, prohibits the county from using eminent domain to turn land over to another private entity. But the measure, approved in November, does not apply to the redevelopment agency, a separate legal entity that supervisors oversee.
Wert said the ordinances do not contain any specific properties targeted for acquisition. And he said Measure O, placed on the ballot by supervisors, shows how reluctant current supervisors are to use their eminent domain power.
Wert said county officials believe if no action is taken by July 1, the redevelopment agency would no longer be allowed to use eminent domain.
"It is not prudent to slam the door on that by not filing a plan," he said.
Each of the county ordinances up for a vote contain time limits on the use of eminent domain, ranging to 2016.
In Brief in the Press
Truck rollover kills Grand Terrace man
10:00 PM PDT on Monday, June 18, 2007
A 21-year-old man was killed Saturday morning when the pickup truck he was riding in veered off a road north of Moreno Valley.Joshua John Hogendoorn, of Grand Terrace was in the truck with three other people on Reche Canyon Road when the truck left the road and rolled several times, according to a Riverside County coroner's office report.
Authorities said Hogendoorn was not wearing a seat belt and was ejected during the crash, just south of Reche Vista Drive. The driver of the truck and two passengers suffered minor to moderate injuries and were taken to a hospital. No information was available about the driver was available.
--John Asbury
jasbury@PE.com
Kelo and Grand Terrace... When will ED REFORM Be on the AGENDA
This Saturday, June 23, 2007, marks the second anniversary of theKelo ruling.
The backlash against the Kelo ruling was swift and nearly unanimous. Public opinion polls consistently show that more than 80 percent of Americans disapprove of using eminent domain for private gain,as is going on in National City. (Or threatened in Grand Terrace)
Already 41 states, including California,have reformed their statutes to some degree to afford property ownersgreater protection against the wrongful seizure of their property. The two state supreme courts that have squarely considered the Kelo question unequivocally rejected the use of eminent domain for economic development.
The California Supreme Court has not taken a case in three decades addressing statutory and constitutional limitations on redevelopment. Withso many Californians, many of them economically disadvantaged and minority,facing gross eminent domain abuse, the time is ripe for the California Supreme Court to consider this important issue and rein in this awesomepower of government.
# # #Christina WalshCastle Coalition Coordinator
The backlash against the Kelo ruling was swift and nearly unanimous. Public opinion polls consistently show that more than 80 percent of Americans disapprove of using eminent domain for private gain,as is going on in National City. (Or threatened in Grand Terrace)
Already 41 states, including California,have reformed their statutes to some degree to afford property ownersgreater protection against the wrongful seizure of their property. The two state supreme courts that have squarely considered the Kelo question unequivocally rejected the use of eminent domain for economic development.
The California Supreme Court has not taken a case in three decades addressing statutory and constitutional limitations on redevelopment. Withso many Californians, many of them economically disadvantaged and minority,facing gross eminent domain abuse, the time is ripe for the California Supreme Court to consider this important issue and rein in this awesomepower of government.
# # #Christina WalshCastle Coalition Coordinator
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Along Our Border: GT NW End...
Conservancy abandons funding for regional park
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer San Bernardino County Sun
Article Launched:06/14/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
COLTON - A key player in the drive to build the county's first regional park in more than 25 years has pulled out of the project.
The Wildlands Conservancy, an Oak Glen-based nonprofit public benefit corporation, will not offer any financial support for the park because of a dispute with the city.
Without the group's participation, the future of the park appears bleak, county officials said.
The conservancy's decision comes a week after a contentious City Council meeting at which the group's executive director asked the council to embrace the roughly 100-acre park at its proposed site along the Santa Ana River.
But Mayor Kelly Chastain and Councilman John Mitchell refused to give their full endorsement.
They said the city needed to explore relocation of the park and look into other economic development opportunites for the property where the park was proposed.
That prompted David Myers, the conservancy's executive director, to pull the plug on his group's involvement.
"Since the City Council's discussion to explore another location put the $400,000 we donated for the Master Plan at risk of being wasted, (the conservancy) has decided that it is best for our organization to formally withdraw future funding for this project," Myers wrote Monday in a letter to county Supervisor Josie Gonzales.
"(The conservancy) will spend these private funds on a youth facility at Fairmount Park in the city of Riverside, where the mayor and city council members support the project."
Myers said he still hopes the regional park comes to fruition. But county parks officials say that is unlikely without the conservancy's financial backing.
In addition to contributing the $400,000 to develop a park Master Plan, the conservancy spent $320,000 to buy the first 17 acres for the park. The group donated the land to the county.
If the park is not built, the county must transfer ownership of the land back to the conservancy. If that happens, the conservancy will sell the land and use the proceeds on other projects, Myers said.
Myers said the group also had agreed to buy about 50 acres of land owned by the Riverside Public Utilities Department for the park.
County officials said it would be very difficult to build an adequate regional park if the 50 acres running through the center of the property are excluded.
The conservancy also was instrumental in securing $10 million in state park bond money for the county that was slated to be spent on the Colton regional park.
If the park is relocated and new plans have to be drawn up, the resulting delays will force the county to shift the money to other projects that are farther along in the development process, county officials said.
Gonzales, whose fifth supervisorial district includes Colton, said she was "very disappointed" that the partnership with the conservancy has "dissolved."
But she held out hope that the park can be saved.
"It all depends on the city of Colton," Gonzales said Wednesday. "The city of Colton has to first of all want the project. When you want something, you fight for it and you find ways to make it happen. If that is on the city's agenda as a priority, I am willing to work with them."
Chastain said she was "perplexed and confused" by the conservancy's decision.
"We never said we didn't want the regional park to be in Colton," she said. "We are just exploring our options to see what's in the best interest of our residents."
Chastain said she is trying to set up a meeting for the parties to resolve their differences and hopefully revive the project.
"I feel like the Wildlands Conservancy is jumping the gun before we have a chance to get to the table and talk sensibly about it," she said.
Sixth District Councilman Isaac Suchil, who represents the area where the park is proposed, said the loss of the park would be devastating to the city's efforts to boost its economy and provide recreational opportunities.
"If we lose this park, we'll end up paying for it for years to come," Suchil said.
Contact writer Stephen Wall at (909) 386-3916 or via
e-mail at stephen.wall@sbsun.com.
ADDED THOUGHT:
The Property on the NW Corner of Grand Terrace, part of which was slated to be Manhole Builders should be Designated as Park with access to the Bike Trail and the County Park if not extended into the Park itself.
County Parks offer opportunity for business to provide services to park users. Park users would also visit our local stores and restaurants.
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer San Bernardino County Sun
Article Launched:06/14/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
COLTON - A key player in the drive to build the county's first regional park in more than 25 years has pulled out of the project.
The Wildlands Conservancy, an Oak Glen-based nonprofit public benefit corporation, will not offer any financial support for the park because of a dispute with the city.
Without the group's participation, the future of the park appears bleak, county officials said.
The conservancy's decision comes a week after a contentious City Council meeting at which the group's executive director asked the council to embrace the roughly 100-acre park at its proposed site along the Santa Ana River.
But Mayor Kelly Chastain and Councilman John Mitchell refused to give their full endorsement.
They said the city needed to explore relocation of the park and look into other economic development opportunites for the property where the park was proposed.
That prompted David Myers, the conservancy's executive director, to pull the plug on his group's involvement.
"Since the City Council's discussion to explore another location put the $400,000 we donated for the Master Plan at risk of being wasted, (the conservancy) has decided that it is best for our organization to formally withdraw future funding for this project," Myers wrote Monday in a letter to county Supervisor Josie Gonzales.
"(The conservancy) will spend these private funds on a youth facility at Fairmount Park in the city of Riverside, where the mayor and city council members support the project."
Myers said he still hopes the regional park comes to fruition. But county parks officials say that is unlikely without the conservancy's financial backing.
In addition to contributing the $400,000 to develop a park Master Plan, the conservancy spent $320,000 to buy the first 17 acres for the park. The group donated the land to the county.
If the park is not built, the county must transfer ownership of the land back to the conservancy. If that happens, the conservancy will sell the land and use the proceeds on other projects, Myers said.
Myers said the group also had agreed to buy about 50 acres of land owned by the Riverside Public Utilities Department for the park.
County officials said it would be very difficult to build an adequate regional park if the 50 acres running through the center of the property are excluded.
The conservancy also was instrumental in securing $10 million in state park bond money for the county that was slated to be spent on the Colton regional park.
If the park is relocated and new plans have to be drawn up, the resulting delays will force the county to shift the money to other projects that are farther along in the development process, county officials said.
Gonzales, whose fifth supervisorial district includes Colton, said she was "very disappointed" that the partnership with the conservancy has "dissolved."
But she held out hope that the park can be saved.
"It all depends on the city of Colton," Gonzales said Wednesday. "The city of Colton has to first of all want the project. When you want something, you fight for it and you find ways to make it happen. If that is on the city's agenda as a priority, I am willing to work with them."
Chastain said she was "perplexed and confused" by the conservancy's decision.
"We never said we didn't want the regional park to be in Colton," she said. "We are just exploring our options to see what's in the best interest of our residents."
Chastain said she is trying to set up a meeting for the parties to resolve their differences and hopefully revive the project.
"I feel like the Wildlands Conservancy is jumping the gun before we have a chance to get to the table and talk sensibly about it," she said.
Sixth District Councilman Isaac Suchil, who represents the area where the park is proposed, said the loss of the park would be devastating to the city's efforts to boost its economy and provide recreational opportunities.
"If we lose this park, we'll end up paying for it for years to come," Suchil said.
Contact writer Stephen Wall at (909) 386-3916 or via
e-mail at stephen.wall@sbsun.com.
ADDED THOUGHT:
The Property on the NW Corner of Grand Terrace, part of which was slated to be Manhole Builders should be Designated as Park with access to the Bike Trail and the County Park if not extended into the Park itself.
County Parks offer opportunity for business to provide services to park users. Park users would also visit our local stores and restaurants.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Cant Talk Now:?:
The City Council has been frustrating the Citizens by not being able to address issues not on the agenda, or express an opinion or take action if it is "Not On the Agenda".
However, Prior to the Public Meeting Mayor Ferre indicates she has taken a position in support of the Blue Mt. Senior Villa's and getting on with the construction.
Has she got an opinon on AES? Oh, no we can't discuss that as it is not on the agenda...
When the Public can't get answers to items on the agenda. When the Public can't get items on the agenda so they can be discussed and resolved. The Public is correct in asking is the government of the people or ON the People.
Support or not the BMSV. The process, the lose ends needing to be fixed... the redesign, and the change in the City's General Plan so the BMSV and the EIR will fit and then could be supported in court is procedurally backward. Let Joe Citizen try to do the same thing and see how receptive the Council and City Management will be.
However, Prior to the Public Meeting Mayor Ferre indicates she has taken a position in support of the Blue Mt. Senior Villa's and getting on with the construction.
Has she got an opinon on AES? Oh, no we can't discuss that as it is not on the agenda...
When the Public can't get answers to items on the agenda. When the Public can't get items on the agenda so they can be discussed and resolved. The Public is correct in asking is the government of the people or ON the People.
Support or not the BMSV. The process, the lose ends needing to be fixed... the redesign, and the change in the City's General Plan so the BMSV and the EIR will fit and then could be supported in court is procedurally backward. Let Joe Citizen try to do the same thing and see how receptive the Council and City Management will be.
In the News: JUNE 21 BMSV EIR PUBLIC MEETING
G.T. senior-housing project set to move forward
Completion of study paves way for project review by city panel
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 06/15/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_6144805
GRAND TERRACE - After more than a year of delays, plans for a new senior housing project are finally moving forward.
Construction of the 120-unit apartment complex and 7,000-square-foot senior center was postponed after a group of residents filed a lawsuit challenging the City Council's approval of the project in September 2005.
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge John Wade subsequently required the city to conduct a comprehensive environmental study to evaluate noise, traffic and other potential impacts.
The project, known as the Blue Mountain Senior Villas, is planned near the corner of Mount Vernon Avenue and Grand Terrace Road.
The environmental-impact report was completed in April. The project is expected to be heard by the Planning Commission on June 21.
If the commission recommends approval, the plans likely will be considered by the council in July.
City officials hope to begin construction in August and open the complex a year later.
City Manager Tom Schwab said the environmental study and legal fees associated with the lawsuit totaled about $200,000. The cost was split between the city's Redevelopment Agency and the Corporation for Better Housing, the nonprofit developer of the project.
The $19 million project will be paid for with public and private funds.
About $9 million will come from the Redevelopment Agency. The remainder will be financed with tax credits and bond money borrowed by the developer.
Schwab is confident all the hurdles to the project have been overcome.
"We addressed all the issues that needed to be addressed," Schwab said. "We think our (environmental-impact report) is pretty solid. If we have to take it to court, we can defend it."
In response to residents' concerns, city officials decided to make the entire complex two stories. Part of the building originally was slated to be three floors.
Despite the changes to the project, some neighbors remain opposed.
"A parking lot will be 10 feet from my property line," said Barbara Berliner, a 55-year-old Brentwood Street resident who lives directly behind the project site. "You can have 53 cars going behind your home any time of the day and night with car alarms, doors slamming and idling."
Berliner also said the senior complex should be built in another part of town.
"This doesn't belong in a residential area," Berliner said. "It belongs downtown where people can walk."
JoAnn Johnson, the senior center's volunteer director, disagreed with the assertion that parking would be a problem.
"The people who are going to be living there are not the people who are going to be going in and out," Johnson said. "A lot of them won't have cars. When they do come and go, they normally will avoid busy times of the day."
Mayor Maryetta Ferre said she is anxious for the project to get built.
"I think it's time for us to take care of all of the loose ends that needed to be taken care of and move forward on it," Ferre said.
Contact writer Stephen Wall at (909) 386-3916 or via e-mail at stephen.wall@sbsun.com.
Completion of study paves way for project review by city panel
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 06/15/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_6144805
GRAND TERRACE - After more than a year of delays, plans for a new senior housing project are finally moving forward.
Construction of the 120-unit apartment complex and 7,000-square-foot senior center was postponed after a group of residents filed a lawsuit challenging the City Council's approval of the project in September 2005.
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge John Wade subsequently required the city to conduct a comprehensive environmental study to evaluate noise, traffic and other potential impacts.
The project, known as the Blue Mountain Senior Villas, is planned near the corner of Mount Vernon Avenue and Grand Terrace Road.
The environmental-impact report was completed in April. The project is expected to be heard by the Planning Commission on June 21.
If the commission recommends approval, the plans likely will be considered by the council in July.
City officials hope to begin construction in August and open the complex a year later.
City Manager Tom Schwab said the environmental study and legal fees associated with the lawsuit totaled about $200,000. The cost was split between the city's Redevelopment Agency and the Corporation for Better Housing, the nonprofit developer of the project.
The $19 million project will be paid for with public and private funds.
About $9 million will come from the Redevelopment Agency. The remainder will be financed with tax credits and bond money borrowed by the developer.
Schwab is confident all the hurdles to the project have been overcome.
"We addressed all the issues that needed to be addressed," Schwab said. "We think our (environmental-impact report) is pretty solid. If we have to take it to court, we can defend it."
In response to residents' concerns, city officials decided to make the entire complex two stories. Part of the building originally was slated to be three floors.
Despite the changes to the project, some neighbors remain opposed.
"A parking lot will be 10 feet from my property line," said Barbara Berliner, a 55-year-old Brentwood Street resident who lives directly behind the project site. "You can have 53 cars going behind your home any time of the day and night with car alarms, doors slamming and idling."
Berliner also said the senior complex should be built in another part of town.
"This doesn't belong in a residential area," Berliner said. "It belongs downtown where people can walk."
JoAnn Johnson, the senior center's volunteer director, disagreed with the assertion that parking would be a problem.
"The people who are going to be living there are not the people who are going to be going in and out," Johnson said. "A lot of them won't have cars. When they do come and go, they normally will avoid busy times of the day."
Mayor Maryetta Ferre said she is anxious for the project to get built.
"I think it's time for us to take care of all of the loose ends that needed to be taken care of and move forward on it," Ferre said.
Contact writer Stephen Wall at (909) 386-3916 or via e-mail at stephen.wall@sbsun.com.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Crime and Public Safety 6-14-2007
Article Launched: 06/14/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
San Bernardino Sun:
COLTON Slaying suspect arrested after chase
A 19-year-old Grand Terrace man wanted on suspicion of killing another man outside a party in April was arrested Tuesday.
Andrew Ramirez ran from Colton police when they spotted him near the corner of 6th and Congress streets. He was captured after a short foot chase and booked into jail on suspicion of homicide.
Police suspect Ramirez shot Michael McLeod, 19, of Colton, when he was leaving a party with a group of people in the 600 block of West L Street in Colton on April 20. McLeod was shot in the head and died at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, police said.
ALERT:
Jose Garcia Alavarado GT Resident is still at large. Assumed Armed and Dangerous. Warrant Outstanding: Charge Murder... See Picture Below in the Arrest Report Post
Article Launched: 06/14/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
San Bernardino Sun:
COLTON Slaying suspect arrested after chase
A 19-year-old Grand Terrace man wanted on suspicion of killing another man outside a party in April was arrested Tuesday.
Andrew Ramirez ran from Colton police when they spotted him near the corner of 6th and Congress streets. He was captured after a short foot chase and booked into jail on suspicion of homicide.
Police suspect Ramirez shot Michael McLeod, 19, of Colton, when he was leaving a party with a group of people in the 600 block of West L Street in Colton on April 20. McLeod was shot in the head and died at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, police said.
ALERT:
Jose Garcia Alavarado GT Resident is still at large. Assumed Armed and Dangerous. Warrant Outstanding: Charge Murder... See Picture Below in the Arrest Report Post
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Eminent Domain An ISSUE For Grand Terrace.
Friends:
Please Read the following report:
http://www.castlecoalition.org/pdf/publications/Perspectives-Pringle.pdf
This week, the Castle Coalition released three exciting new projects:
50 State Report Card
The Castle Coalition examined and graded eminent domain laws for each ofthe 50 states over the past two years - since the Kelo decision allowing eminent domain for private gain. "This report finds that your right to own your home free from the specter of eminent domain abuse depends on which state you live in," said Steven Anderson, director of the Castle Coalition. "States in the Northeast as well as California remain some of the biggest abusers of eminent domain and legislators in those states have so far refused to pass meaningful eminent domain reform despite the public's overwhelming desire to be protected from eminent domain for private gain."
The report is available at: www.CastleCoalition.org/publications/report_card .
Activist DVD: "Not for Sale: A Comprehensive Guide to Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse""Not for Sale: A Comprehensive Guide to Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse is a live-action DVD and companion to the Castle Coalition's popular Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guide.
The two can be purchased together for $3.95 at www.ij.org/freedommarket .
Featuring interviews with property owners andactivists from across the nation who have successfully battled eminent domain abuse, "Not for Sale" provides tips, tactics and practical advice for anyone waging their own grassroots battle to save their home or small business. The fast-paced one-hour DVD employs cutting-edge graphics and illustrations along with interviews to explain to viewers how to gather information, build a coalition and engage in local activism. The DVD instructs homeowners on how to hold a rally, create a website, work toward legislative reform and file a Freedom of Information Act request, among other topics.
New Perspectives Study: Development Without Eminent Domain: Foundation ofFreedom Inspires Urban Growth Big city mayors looking to spur economic development without abusing eminent domain should look to Anaheim, Calif., and a new report released today by Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle. Development Without Eminent Domain:Foundation of Freedom Inspires Urban Growth is the second in a series of independently authored reports published by the Institute for Justice that examines the issue of eminent domain from the perspective of experts acrossthe nation. Pringle's report explains how Anaheim's leadership brought economic vibrancy to their city without resorting to any takings of private property. It also explores the successes and failures of other cities around the nation in economic redevelopment. Development Without EminentDomain can be downloaded at:
http://www.castlecoalition.org/publications/Perspectives-pringle .
Please let me know if you have any questions. As always, we encourage youto forward this e-mail to your friends so they can join the fight againsteminent domain abuse!
Best,
Christina Walsh
Castle Coalition Coordinator
Institute for Justice
901 N. Glebe Road,
Suite 900Arlington,
VA 22203(703) 682-9320
http://www.ij.orgwww.castlecoalition.org/
P.S. HELP THE CASTLE COALITION GROW! Forward this message to your friends.They can sign-up here: http://www.castlecoalition.org/join/index.html
Please Read the following report:
http://www.castlecoalition.org/pdf/publications/Perspectives-Pringle.pdf
This week, the Castle Coalition released three exciting new projects:
50 State Report Card
The Castle Coalition examined and graded eminent domain laws for each ofthe 50 states over the past two years - since the Kelo decision allowing eminent domain for private gain. "This report finds that your right to own your home free from the specter of eminent domain abuse depends on which state you live in," said Steven Anderson, director of the Castle Coalition. "States in the Northeast as well as California remain some of the biggest abusers of eminent domain and legislators in those states have so far refused to pass meaningful eminent domain reform despite the public's overwhelming desire to be protected from eminent domain for private gain."
The report is available at: www.CastleCoalition.org/publications/report_card .
Activist DVD: "Not for Sale: A Comprehensive Guide to Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse""Not for Sale: A Comprehensive Guide to Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse is a live-action DVD and companion to the Castle Coalition's popular Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guide.
The two can be purchased together for $3.95 at www.ij.org/freedommarket .
Featuring interviews with property owners andactivists from across the nation who have successfully battled eminent domain abuse, "Not for Sale" provides tips, tactics and practical advice for anyone waging their own grassroots battle to save their home or small business. The fast-paced one-hour DVD employs cutting-edge graphics and illustrations along with interviews to explain to viewers how to gather information, build a coalition and engage in local activism. The DVD instructs homeowners on how to hold a rally, create a website, work toward legislative reform and file a Freedom of Information Act request, among other topics.
New Perspectives Study: Development Without Eminent Domain: Foundation ofFreedom Inspires Urban Growth Big city mayors looking to spur economic development without abusing eminent domain should look to Anaheim, Calif., and a new report released today by Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle. Development Without Eminent Domain:Foundation of Freedom Inspires Urban Growth is the second in a series of independently authored reports published by the Institute for Justice that examines the issue of eminent domain from the perspective of experts acrossthe nation. Pringle's report explains how Anaheim's leadership brought economic vibrancy to their city without resorting to any takings of private property. It also explores the successes and failures of other cities around the nation in economic redevelopment. Development Without EminentDomain can be downloaded at:
http://www.castlecoalition.org/publications/Perspectives-pringle .
Please let me know if you have any questions. As always, we encourage youto forward this e-mail to your friends so they can join the fight againsteminent domain abuse!
Best,
Christina Walsh
Castle Coalition Coordinator
Institute for Justice
901 N. Glebe Road,
Suite 900Arlington,
VA 22203(703) 682-9320
http://www.ij.orgwww.castlecoalition.org/
P.S. HELP THE CASTLE COALITION GROW! Forward this message to your friends.They can sign-up here: http://www.castlecoalition.org/join/index.html
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
41 Minutes City Council Meeting a REVIEW
From the Email InBox:
Not verbatim..... What was Said at City Council Meeting...
Council person Garcia:
Thanked Firemen for the Pancake Breakfast. Asked the fire department spokesperson to say a few words about fire safety - with the 4th of July coming up. (Kind of ironic - since she voted against banning the fireworks). The spokesperson said that there are four levels of drought and right now we are in the 3rd level (Note to city: It's not rocket science - it's dry out, don't allow fireworks).
During the time the spokesperson was talking, the city manager and city attorney were having their own conversation and not paying any attention to what was being said.
The Mayor said something to the effect that fire safety was not just a concern during the month of July (really? Maybe she felt she had to say something to defend her position - voting against banning the fireworks).
LeAnn thought Grand Terrace Days went great (or something like that). She would like everyone to attend the upcoming Chamber Luncheon because the CEO of Miguels will be there. She said something about a hike up Blue Mountain and mentioned the graffiti on JB's. She also mentioned something about investment and infrastructure and capital improvement.
Council person Cortes:
Talked about some seminar or meeting she went to. She thought GT days was a lot fun. She mentioned the Chamber Installation Dinner - June 21st. And she wished all the Daddy's a happy Father's Day.
Council person Miller:
He thought GT days went very well and thinks Steve Berry should commended. Brought up the graffiti on the railroad overpasses. Talked about DHL flight pattern out of March (Norton maybe?) changing. Concerned about the noise factor.
Council person Buchanan:
Also brought up the Chamber Installation Dinner - June 21st at Shandin Hills Golf Club - R.S.V.P. by June 8th. He thought a great job was done on the Parade and stated "No one works as hard as Steve".
Mayor Ferre:
She had a great time at GT days and hope everyone else did. Asked about the lights being installed on Barton and Honey Hills. Asked about the cleared property across from the Stater Bros warehouse on Barton Rd. She was told that was the Fawcett Property (? spelling) that the city needs to purchase to expand the bridge. The property was sold to a developer who has cleared the property. She was also told that it shouldn't be a problem for the city to buy this property from the developer (as we all know, if the developer doesn't want to sell it, the city can just take the property by imminent domain, so no problem).
No mention of AES - but then AES did contribute to GT Days, so it's not likely that the city will take a stand against them is it?
No thought of canceling the sale and use of fireworks since Southern California is experiencing one of the worse droughts in almost a hundred years.
From the Email InBox:
Next Council Meeting June 26 most likely will not be held because there is "Nothing On the Agenda". However it will not be officially canceled until 72 hours prior to the meeting. So don't all go on vacation thinking you don't have to pay attention to what may pop up on an agenda.
The City Council/City Manager Tom Schwab have refused to put on the agenda:
Eminent Domain Use Restrictions and Limits
AES Proclamation
Investigation as to the Payment for the Car Purchased For City Manager's Use and then "Sold" without Public Notice to Steve Berry, with no paper trail for the final transaction being made available.
The City Council Sang the Praises for the GT Days Event.
They said that Asst City Manager Steve Berry's Staff and Steve spent MANY HOURS. The prudent question should be: How Many Hours, at what cost, how much was spent for a one day party, regardless of where the contributions or funds came from. Is there a better use of resources and manpower? The Old West was not All Gun Slingers and Dance Hall Girls... Where were the artisans, skills and trades?
How much did it cost to put out the last major fires in Grand Terrace? Who paid for it?
For folks who are "Concerned" about Community the Mayor not knowing that the "cleared land near the Stater Brothers Offices, was the Grand Terrace Tractor Yard, where a person could have looked at Historical Farm Equipment, and enjoy a bit of history. The disregard for the historical value of that property and collection is telling and may be the very attitude that soured the prior owner with regard to selling a portion for improving the bridge situation. The city lost a possible attraction or unique feature that could have brought more folks to GT in a good way.
A road or a Bridge is PUBLIC USE... IF there is money for the building of the BRIDGE and the Purchase of the Land, Eminent Domain is an appropriate use. The Problem is that this is not in the City of Grand Terrace, it is COLTON, and there is no benefit to Colton to improve the bridge or make the land purchase. What is the plan, a land swap, trade Terra Loma for all the Colton land East of La Cadena except for the Stater's Property? We have seen how the Terra Loma folks are treated by the GT City Council.
Things we all agree with are
Fire House Pancakes were yummmy...
Rail Road Bridge is less than artful...
TJ's Graffiti....
215 traffic is a problem for the entire STATE: San Bag needs to get its act together on this MAJOR POINT... and Grand Terrace City Needs to get it done for REGIONAL Reasons not for City Reasons.
The Public did not attend the City Council Meeting is a demonstration of the Public Displeasure of not being heard or having any input to the items on the Agenda.
Not verbatim..... What was Said at City Council Meeting...
Council person Garcia:
Thanked Firemen for the Pancake Breakfast. Asked the fire department spokesperson to say a few words about fire safety - with the 4th of July coming up. (Kind of ironic - since she voted against banning the fireworks). The spokesperson said that there are four levels of drought and right now we are in the 3rd level (Note to city: It's not rocket science - it's dry out, don't allow fireworks).
During the time the spokesperson was talking, the city manager and city attorney were having their own conversation and not paying any attention to what was being said.
The Mayor said something to the effect that fire safety was not just a concern during the month of July (really? Maybe she felt she had to say something to defend her position - voting against banning the fireworks).
LeAnn thought Grand Terrace Days went great (or something like that). She would like everyone to attend the upcoming Chamber Luncheon because the CEO of Miguels will be there. She said something about a hike up Blue Mountain and mentioned the graffiti on JB's. She also mentioned something about investment and infrastructure and capital improvement.
Council person Cortes:
Talked about some seminar or meeting she went to. She thought GT days was a lot fun. She mentioned the Chamber Installation Dinner - June 21st. And she wished all the Daddy's a happy Father's Day.
Council person Miller:
He thought GT days went very well and thinks Steve Berry should commended. Brought up the graffiti on the railroad overpasses. Talked about DHL flight pattern out of March (Norton maybe?) changing. Concerned about the noise factor.
Council person Buchanan:
Also brought up the Chamber Installation Dinner - June 21st at Shandin Hills Golf Club - R.S.V.P. by June 8th. He thought a great job was done on the Parade and stated "No one works as hard as Steve".
Mayor Ferre:
She had a great time at GT days and hope everyone else did. Asked about the lights being installed on Barton and Honey Hills. Asked about the cleared property across from the Stater Bros warehouse on Barton Rd. She was told that was the Fawcett Property (? spelling) that the city needs to purchase to expand the bridge. The property was sold to a developer who has cleared the property. She was also told that it shouldn't be a problem for the city to buy this property from the developer (as we all know, if the developer doesn't want to sell it, the city can just take the property by imminent domain, so no problem).
No mention of AES - but then AES did contribute to GT Days, so it's not likely that the city will take a stand against them is it?
No thought of canceling the sale and use of fireworks since Southern California is experiencing one of the worse droughts in almost a hundred years.
From the Email InBox:
Next Council Meeting June 26 most likely will not be held because there is "Nothing On the Agenda". However it will not be officially canceled until 72 hours prior to the meeting. So don't all go on vacation thinking you don't have to pay attention to what may pop up on an agenda.
The City Council/City Manager Tom Schwab have refused to put on the agenda:
Eminent Domain Use Restrictions and Limits
AES Proclamation
Investigation as to the Payment for the Car Purchased For City Manager's Use and then "Sold" without Public Notice to Steve Berry, with no paper trail for the final transaction being made available.
The City Council Sang the Praises for the GT Days Event.
They said that Asst City Manager Steve Berry's Staff and Steve spent MANY HOURS. The prudent question should be: How Many Hours, at what cost, how much was spent for a one day party, regardless of where the contributions or funds came from. Is there a better use of resources and manpower? The Old West was not All Gun Slingers and Dance Hall Girls... Where were the artisans, skills and trades?
How much did it cost to put out the last major fires in Grand Terrace? Who paid for it?
For folks who are "Concerned" about Community the Mayor not knowing that the "cleared land near the Stater Brothers Offices, was the Grand Terrace Tractor Yard, where a person could have looked at Historical Farm Equipment, and enjoy a bit of history. The disregard for the historical value of that property and collection is telling and may be the very attitude that soured the prior owner with regard to selling a portion for improving the bridge situation. The city lost a possible attraction or unique feature that could have brought more folks to GT in a good way.
A road or a Bridge is PUBLIC USE... IF there is money for the building of the BRIDGE and the Purchase of the Land, Eminent Domain is an appropriate use. The Problem is that this is not in the City of Grand Terrace, it is COLTON, and there is no benefit to Colton to improve the bridge or make the land purchase. What is the plan, a land swap, trade Terra Loma for all the Colton land East of La Cadena except for the Stater's Property? We have seen how the Terra Loma folks are treated by the GT City Council.
Things we all agree with are
Fire House Pancakes were yummmy...
Rail Road Bridge is less than artful...
TJ's Graffiti....
215 traffic is a problem for the entire STATE: San Bag needs to get its act together on this MAJOR POINT... and Grand Terrace City Needs to get it done for REGIONAL Reasons not for City Reasons.
The Public did not attend the City Council Meeting is a demonstration of the Public Displeasure of not being heard or having any input to the items on the Agenda.
From the Email InBox: FIREWORKS COMMING SOON
Gramps:
You left off the Council's Failure to Codify the Changes to the Fireworks Code, and or address the fact that we are in a record drought, the Sports Teams Refuse to try other fund raising, and the County of San Bernardino and State of California will foot part of the bill IF there is a Fire in Grand Terrace, just so the local Sports teams can pay the City for the Use of the Parks and Lights.
You left off the Council's Failure to Codify the Changes to the Fireworks Code, and or address the fact that we are in a record drought, the Sports Teams Refuse to try other fund raising, and the County of San Bernardino and State of California will foot part of the bill IF there is a Fire in Grand Terrace, just so the local Sports teams can pay the City for the Use of the Parks and Lights.
City Council Meeting TONIGHT: Agenda Available
Not on the Agenda:
AES/High School and Air Quality for All in Grand Terrace,
Eminent Domain Limits on RDA and City's Use
Town Center/Square Plan as Required by the Development Agreement
Report on Court Cases
Financial Report of GT Days
Posting on the Web the Check Register
Murder Suspect: Jose Garcia Alvarado ALERT...
Crimes in the area of Parks and Schools: DRUGS
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 12, 2007
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PM
22795 Barton Road
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.
* Call to Order -
* Invocation - Pastor Rick Doucette, Calvary, The Brook Church
* Pledge of Allegiance -
* Roll Call -
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 6 PM
1. Approval of 05-22-2007 Minutes
2. Annual Statement of Investment Policy
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - None
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 June 12, 2007
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 05-22-2007 Minutes
D. Annual Statement of Investment Policy
E. Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Appropriations Limit
F. State COPS Grant FY 2007-2008 Allocation
G. Notice of Completion Newport Road CDBG Project (Roquet Paving)
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. Historical & Cultural Activities Committee
a. Minutes of May 7, 2007
2. Emergency Operations Committee
a. Minutes of May 1, 2007
A. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Transfer Refuse Agreement USA Waste of California DBA Waste Management of the Inland Empire to Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc.
9. CLOSED SESSION - None
ADJOURN
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2007 AT 6:00 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.
AES/High School and Air Quality for All in Grand Terrace,
Eminent Domain Limits on RDA and City's Use
Town Center/Square Plan as Required by the Development Agreement
Report on Court Cases
Financial Report of GT Days
Posting on the Web the Check Register
Murder Suspect: Jose Garcia Alvarado ALERT...
Crimes in the area of Parks and Schools: DRUGS
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 12, 2007
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PM
22795 Barton Road
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.
* Call to Order -
* Invocation - Pastor Rick Doucette, Calvary, The Brook Church
* Pledge of Allegiance -
* Roll Call -
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 6 PM
1. Approval of 05-22-2007 Minutes
2. Annual Statement of Investment Policy
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - None
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 June 12, 2007
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 05-22-2007 Minutes
D. Annual Statement of Investment Policy
E. Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Appropriations Limit
F. State COPS Grant FY 2007-2008 Allocation
G. Notice of Completion Newport Road CDBG Project (Roquet Paving)
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. Historical & Cultural Activities Committee
a. Minutes of May 7, 2007
2. Emergency Operations Committee
a. Minutes of May 1, 2007
A. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Transfer Refuse Agreement USA Waste of California DBA Waste Management of the Inland Empire to Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc.
9. CLOSED SESSION - None
ADJOURN
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2007 AT 6:00 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.
Monday, June 11, 2007
From the Email InBox: GT Days
Hey Grandpa,
My family and I attended the Grand Terrace Days parade and fair. I go because I love running into friends. I do wish Steve Berry would put a little more interest in planning these events, or turn it over to someone that has a true interest.
I say that because every year I hear the laughter and derogatory comments about how stupid the parade is. This year, in the barber shop we talked about the insult to cowboys and the citizens with the cheapest felt cowboy hats they could find and the old-ladies line dancing. This was truly an insult to my heritage. But the city shouldn't attempt things they don't understand. I really felt they found these people at some bar.
I did enjoy the country music at the park though. And the dunking tank and bungee jump thing. Snow cones and Mexican food is always a big hit.
I was glad to see it wasn't a Mayor, or City Council grand stand day. Was there a Jacobsen sighting?
I also wanted to make mention that the Mayor's light reflection flowers are dead now. I think they lasted two weeks.
Also from the Email InBox:
Has any one noticed the obvious name not on the Grand Terrace days sponsors ?
Does this mean that Jacobson is finished with Grand Terrace or does it mean that
the city now knows what conflict of interest is ?
Also from the Email InBox:
Gramps: Why don't the businesses and developers give contributions to the Sports Teams, the Lion's Club, the Woman's Club, to the School District or Individual Schools rather than giving to the City's Party fund... GT Days, Halloween Haunt, and the Historical Committee? Could it be that the City Council and City Management has power over the contributor's plans? Gee... IF you want to be clear of suspicion it would be easy to contribute to the community and NOT even have a whiff of a conflict of interest. BUT NO... that is not how things are done in Grand Terrace, or in San Bernardino County.
It is prudent to ask the conflict question when ever you see the correlation between "Donation" and "City Council Action Pending".
AES, Corporation for Better Housing, Jacobsen, and now Shopoff , (they are the folks building up Spring Valley and our traffic). All make donations when they have plans to be approved. Connect the dots... A good citizen or a clean contribution has no payback down the road.
For the city to use city staff to collect donations and then spend them on a one or two day event is also a poor management of a limited resource of contributions. These contributions could be solicited and matched with Block Grant Funds for real year round public service projects if the city was of the mind to provide services for youth and teens for example.
My family and I attended the Grand Terrace Days parade and fair. I go because I love running into friends. I do wish Steve Berry would put a little more interest in planning these events, or turn it over to someone that has a true interest.
I say that because every year I hear the laughter and derogatory comments about how stupid the parade is. This year, in the barber shop we talked about the insult to cowboys and the citizens with the cheapest felt cowboy hats they could find and the old-ladies line dancing. This was truly an insult to my heritage. But the city shouldn't attempt things they don't understand. I really felt they found these people at some bar.
I did enjoy the country music at the park though. And the dunking tank and bungee jump thing. Snow cones and Mexican food is always a big hit.
I was glad to see it wasn't a Mayor, or City Council grand stand day. Was there a Jacobsen sighting?
I also wanted to make mention that the Mayor's light reflection flowers are dead now. I think they lasted two weeks.
Also from the Email InBox:
Has any one noticed the obvious name not on the Grand Terrace days sponsors ?
Does this mean that Jacobson is finished with Grand Terrace or does it mean that
the city now knows what conflict of interest is ?
Also from the Email InBox:
Gramps: Why don't the businesses and developers give contributions to the Sports Teams, the Lion's Club, the Woman's Club, to the School District or Individual Schools rather than giving to the City's Party fund... GT Days, Halloween Haunt, and the Historical Committee? Could it be that the City Council and City Management has power over the contributor's plans? Gee... IF you want to be clear of suspicion it would be easy to contribute to the community and NOT even have a whiff of a conflict of interest. BUT NO... that is not how things are done in Grand Terrace, or in San Bernardino County.
It is prudent to ask the conflict question when ever you see the correlation between "Donation" and "City Council Action Pending".
AES, Corporation for Better Housing, Jacobsen, and now Shopoff , (they are the folks building up Spring Valley and our traffic). All make donations when they have plans to be approved. Connect the dots... A good citizen or a clean contribution has no payback down the road.
For the city to use city staff to collect donations and then spend them on a one or two day event is also a poor management of a limited resource of contributions. These contributions could be solicited and matched with Block Grant Funds for real year round public service projects if the city was of the mind to provide services for youth and teens for example.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
GT InTheNews: Green or Yellow?
GRAND TERRACE Festival Goes Green
GRAND TERRACE - The Grand Terrace Days Parade and Festival is going green.
Thanks to a donation from American Lighting Supply Co. of San Diego, the first 300 visitors to the city booth at Saturday's festival will receive a free compact fluorescent lamp.
Compact fluorescent lamps last 10 times longer and save more than $45 of energy over the life of the bulb compared to a regular incandescent bulb.
The city is developing a comprehensive energy policy that includes a "green" element to its updated General Plan.
The parade starts at 9:30 a.m. at the corner of Barton Road and Canal Street with San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod as the grand marshal and the San Bernardino County Rangers leading the parade.
The festival runs from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at Rollins Park, at the corner of Mount Vernon Avenue and DeBerry Street.
For more information, visit http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/.
Gramps Let Us Review:
GT Goes Green or is GT Yellow?
How nice that the City allows a Commercial Interest to Give away 300 Light Bulbs and take credit for going GREEN? No that is Yellow Politics and or Yellow Journalism.
The City should not be considered Green for the following reasons.
1: Codes Encourage Maximum Water Use for Lawns and Landscaping
2: Codes Prohibit or Discourage the use of Solar and Wind Power Supplies Owned by Home and Business Owners on the basis of "Ascetic Issues", and does not require SCE to buy back surplus energy generated. Code Requires you to be hooked to the Power Grid.
3: City Pays 200.00 per month for Auto Use by Council Members. In this town they could have an official Electric LEV or NEV. There is no need for Council Members to travel out of the City using NON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
4: The city allows dust fields owned by Edison and there is NO Effort to convert these a green use, either a field of natural short grass, neighborhood farm, or Orchard of Oxygen Producing Trees.
5: The City has not Reduced the Maximum Speed in Town to 35 MPH to discourage Rapid Acceleration between starts and stops, and allow the Use of LEVs, NEVs to access all quarters of GT. The Speed Limit on Mt. Vernon and Barton Road was established PRIOR to there being Stop Signs and Stop Lights at every Intersection. THE DRIVING CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED so THE SPEED LIMIT SHOULD CHANGE.
6: All lights in City Hall should be Energy Efficient:
7: The Thermostat at City Hall should be set at 85 degrees for Summer and 72 degrees in Winter.
8: The City Should have a collection point for USED Florescent Light Bulbs so they can be recycled.
9: The City Should have a collection point for Batteries, and Electronics. (Now that Salvation Army is recycling Electronics perhaps they could put up a collection point again.)
10: The City's Maintenance Staff should be using recharging Electric Equipment and hand tools, and the Recharging should be done with Solar PV Electricity.
11: Street Lights, and Park Lights Park Snack Bars should all be Solar Powered.
12: Pool Filter should be powered with Solar Panels.
13: Solar Ovens should be installed in all parks...
14: City Bicycle Racks with Solar Powered charge stations for Ebikes
15: Public Restrooms at Bike Rest Spots...
16: Use of Goats for Weed Abatement on the Mountain and Hills
17: Use of Fruit Bearing Trees that Produce both Food and Shade for the water used.
18: Discontinue the Sale of Fireworks and allowing their Use. Fireworks are NOT GREEN in ANY WAY.
Then.... perhaps the City could be considered Going Green....
From the EMail Inbox:
19: Code Required Green Building: Solar PV Electricity, Green Roofs, Green Materials, Landscape, in all CITY PARTICIPATION CONSTRUCTION./ DEVELOPMENT like Blue Mt. Senior Villas, Town Square, and ANY RDA involved development.
20: Code Clarification regarding Riding Bikes on the limited sidewalks, and Building Safe Pedestrian paths/trails, and sidewalks between schools and businesses and housing.
21: Develop Gage Canal Bike and Pedestrian Path and Dog Park.
22: Re-Establish California Walnut Trees, and other nut trees that will grow with minimal watering.
GRAND TERRACE - The Grand Terrace Days Parade and Festival is going green.
Thanks to a donation from American Lighting Supply Co. of San Diego, the first 300 visitors to the city booth at Saturday's festival will receive a free compact fluorescent lamp.
Compact fluorescent lamps last 10 times longer and save more than $45 of energy over the life of the bulb compared to a regular incandescent bulb.
The city is developing a comprehensive energy policy that includes a "green" element to its updated General Plan.
The parade starts at 9:30 a.m. at the corner of Barton Road and Canal Street with San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod as the grand marshal and the San Bernardino County Rangers leading the parade.
The festival runs from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at Rollins Park, at the corner of Mount Vernon Avenue and DeBerry Street.
For more information, visit http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/.
Gramps Let Us Review:
GT Goes Green or is GT Yellow?
How nice that the City allows a Commercial Interest to Give away 300 Light Bulbs and take credit for going GREEN? No that is Yellow Politics and or Yellow Journalism.
The City should not be considered Green for the following reasons.
1: Codes Encourage Maximum Water Use for Lawns and Landscaping
2: Codes Prohibit or Discourage the use of Solar and Wind Power Supplies Owned by Home and Business Owners on the basis of "Ascetic Issues", and does not require SCE to buy back surplus energy generated. Code Requires you to be hooked to the Power Grid.
3: City Pays 200.00 per month for Auto Use by Council Members. In this town they could have an official Electric LEV or NEV. There is no need for Council Members to travel out of the City using NON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
4: The city allows dust fields owned by Edison and there is NO Effort to convert these a green use, either a field of natural short grass, neighborhood farm, or Orchard of Oxygen Producing Trees.
5: The City has not Reduced the Maximum Speed in Town to 35 MPH to discourage Rapid Acceleration between starts and stops, and allow the Use of LEVs, NEVs to access all quarters of GT. The Speed Limit on Mt. Vernon and Barton Road was established PRIOR to there being Stop Signs and Stop Lights at every Intersection. THE DRIVING CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED so THE SPEED LIMIT SHOULD CHANGE.
6: All lights in City Hall should be Energy Efficient:
7: The Thermostat at City Hall should be set at 85 degrees for Summer and 72 degrees in Winter.
8: The City Should have a collection point for USED Florescent Light Bulbs so they can be recycled.
9: The City Should have a collection point for Batteries, and Electronics. (Now that Salvation Army is recycling Electronics perhaps they could put up a collection point again.)
10: The City's Maintenance Staff should be using recharging Electric Equipment and hand tools, and the Recharging should be done with Solar PV Electricity.
11: Street Lights, and Park Lights Park Snack Bars should all be Solar Powered.
12: Pool Filter should be powered with Solar Panels.
13: Solar Ovens should be installed in all parks...
14: City Bicycle Racks with Solar Powered charge stations for Ebikes
15: Public Restrooms at Bike Rest Spots...
16: Use of Goats for Weed Abatement on the Mountain and Hills
17: Use of Fruit Bearing Trees that Produce both Food and Shade for the water used.
18: Discontinue the Sale of Fireworks and allowing their Use. Fireworks are NOT GREEN in ANY WAY.
Then.... perhaps the City could be considered Going Green....
From the EMail Inbox:
19: Code Required Green Building: Solar PV Electricity, Green Roofs, Green Materials, Landscape, in all CITY PARTICIPATION CONSTRUCTION./ DEVELOPMENT like Blue Mt. Senior Villas, Town Square, and ANY RDA involved development.
20: Code Clarification regarding Riding Bikes on the limited sidewalks, and Building Safe Pedestrian paths/trails, and sidewalks between schools and businesses and housing.
21: Develop Gage Canal Bike and Pedestrian Path and Dog Park.
22: Re-Establish California Walnut Trees, and other nut trees that will grow with minimal watering.
From the EMail InBOX:
GREEN GT? iF GT WAS GREEN IT WILL NOT GO FORWARD WITH AES POWER PLANT>>> BUT THIS CITY COUNCIL WILL NOT PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA. THIS CITY COUNCIL WILL NOT PASS A PROCLAMATION AGAINST THE PROPOSED AES POWER PLANT.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Summer is Cool at the GT Library...
This summer reading programs for those ages (birth to 18 years old)
Read a book and begin earning incentives from June 1, 2007 to August 19, 2007. If prizes are not enough then we seek to entertain! Programs are paid for by the Grand Terrace Friends of the Library, Kiss a Cow Campaign, and the San Bernardino County Library!
Programs:
Abbitt the Average:Magician June 6 at 4pm
Jim Gilbert's Cartoon Factory June 13 at 4pm
Nick Cantaldo: Local Legends & Myths June 20 at 2pm
Swazzle Puppeteers June 27 at 6:30pm
Parrot Tales July 11 at 4pm
Moonridge Zoo July 18 at 4pm
Karen Rae Kraut July 25 at 4pm F
ingerprinting, SB CO Sheriff's Dept August 1 4pm
Panning for Gold with Valley Prospectors August 8 4pm
Cartoon Factory August 15 4pm
End of Program Party (contact the library for details!)
Grand Terrace Branch Library
22795A Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92313 (909) 783-0147
Read a book and begin earning incentives from June 1, 2007 to August 19, 2007. If prizes are not enough then we seek to entertain! Programs are paid for by the Grand Terrace Friends of the Library, Kiss a Cow Campaign, and the San Bernardino County Library!
Programs:
Abbitt the Average:Magician June 6 at 4pm
Jim Gilbert's Cartoon Factory June 13 at 4pm
Nick Cantaldo: Local Legends & Myths June 20 at 2pm
Swazzle Puppeteers June 27 at 6:30pm
Parrot Tales July 11 at 4pm
Moonridge Zoo July 18 at 4pm
Karen Rae Kraut July 25 at 4pm F
ingerprinting, SB CO Sheriff's Dept August 1 4pm
Panning for Gold with Valley Prospectors August 8 4pm
Cartoon Factory August 15 4pm
End of Program Party (contact the library for details!)
Grand Terrace Branch Library
22795A Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92313 (909) 783-0147
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)