First Reviews on the New Prelim EIR on Jacobsen Center

The Traffic Problems are understated and do not address the pedestrian and school traffic due to the proximity of Grand Terrace Elementary School.

The Added Pollution and noise is identified as an issue to be addressed.

The Study starts off without respect to history.

First of all this area was primarily agricultural lands and small ranches. So to say there is no impact on the Agricultural Land Use is a disregard for history and possible restoration of some level of sustainable Agricultural Practices in Grand Terrace. This may be the last open land available for Agriculture. This fact should not be discounted.

Second, there is a statement that indicates no significant impact on low income housing. Well the home owners who were forced off their property by the threat of Eminent Domain, and the loss of the Mobile Home Park and the residents may consider this a significant issue. There has been no replacement of these home units by Jacobsen. Homes available to all age groups not just Seniors.

Third: The assessment that the development will not have a significant impact on criminal activity and or demands on public safety. This is wrong. A field of crops and a few homes that existed prior to the development process compared to a Drive up ATM and Potential Bars and Restaurants and Stores with Parked cars and high foot traffic are an attractive venue for all sorts of crimes that did not exist prior to the planned development. The study does not Limit or suggest Limits on what type of businesses should be included respecting that there are homes and a school adjacent or near the property. This was discounted by saying there will be a block wall along the back side of the development. A 6 foot block wall may stop cars, but it does not stop noise, and other problems associated with the potential development.

Phase 5 is Jo Stringfield's Property. This is property that the City of Grand Terrace, the City Council at least has said they will not force into development, yet the Planning Department includes it in THEIR STUDY. What do you trust? Actions or Words? To say the current use is out of "Compliance" is unjustified. The Current Owner never asked for a Zone Change or a General Plan Change to force a different use of their property. No the Zone is out of Compliance with the Owner's Right to determine the best use of Private Personal Property.

IF area 5 is to be developed it should be done by the owner of the property not the owner of adjacent property. Or is this the Fascist City of Grand Terrace?

Why was this Preliminary Study done, without significant Public Input? Who Paid for this Study?