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.