Could Walt Stanckiewitz been more transparent regarding the amendments he proposed?
In getting ready for the City Council Meeting Walt Stanckiewits watched the prior meetings on the subject of the Development Agreement and other prior agreements leading up to the Development Agreement. He also reviewed the most recent Planning Commission Minutes to try to be informed as to why there were two no votes regarding the Approval. He asked the question, how could the concerns of Planning Commissioners voting no be addressed in a way that is fair to the city and the developers.
He had this discussion with CITY STAFF in the Planning Department. The two amendments were written, one to give back to the city the two lots on the east side of the Development, and to put a must build date on the 1.2 Million RDA/City inducements provided to Stater Brothers and Jacobsen. He did not ask for the Fee Waivers to be adjusted.
Was this transparent? Well, let's start off by pointing out that Walt is prohibited to discuss with the other Council Members an issue that is on the agenda prior to the meeting. This would be in violation of the Brown Act in some way. He does have the right to question staff, and make requests of staff to take the negotiation action taken to resolve the preliminary foot work needed in making an amendment to the Development Agreement. The proper disclosure of the amendment proposed is at the City Council Meeting. It may be nice if an Amendment package for City Council Members and the Public is available prior to the meeting say 24 hours prior. These added documents would represent paragraphs or sentences not bulk reading. BUT, to do this is up to the STAFF not Mr. Stanckiewitz.
It would have been appropriate for Ms Garcia or Ms Ferre to make amendments if they desired any. Both Garcia and Ferre have made amendments to ordinances after talking with the affected people. What is important and transparent about this process is that Stanckiewitz said who he spoke with, on the staff. He identified the process of his decision making, and he proposed a change that would have been memorialized in writing and legally enforceable.
Unlike the deal making in the past that was not documented and failed to be in the best interest of the city. The proposed changes to the Staff Provided Development Agreement were to be included in writing, and agreed upon by the City and the Developers.
Do I think the amendments should have gone further. YES. The Parks Fees should have been collected on the Stater's/Jacobsen Development. The justification to waive them is not sound in my opinion. In addition to then turn around and demand the fee from an individual house builder is patently unfair and unequal treatment under the law. I hold Ferre, Garcia and Stankiewitz responsible for this unfair application of Fees as they all were party to the same conclusion.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Well folks that was an interesting RDA City Council Meeting:
Not in order of events
The Check Register was questioned by D Hurst. The reply was her questions will be answered by staff, then the register was approved by Ferre, Garcia and Stanckiewitz, Cortes absent.
The Base Ball Field was approved
The Senior Kitchen was approved (The Architect should not be hired for another estimate)
Hilkey's change in Council Benefit Not Approved (reason for the request- avoid paying taxes)
LeeAnn Garcia asked that the fund to pay for these and future items like this be given showing the current balance of the fund and the impact the expenditure will have on the specific fund.
Note, one of the justifications for spending RDA Money on the Base Ball Field was that no other funds were available.
After long debate over procedure and a Stanckiewitz proposed amendment the Development Agreement between the City and Jacobsen/Stater's was approved as staff presented without the amendments providing a greater level of assurance of performance, and a statement of agreement that the two most easterly plots will be removed from the Development Project, as the current General Plan shows those lots as a PUBLIC PARK. Ms Garcia's objection was that Stanckiewitz made this motion after having met with staff who contacted both parties and got tentative approval if the Development Agreement was so amended.
When Ms. Garcia abstained from voting, the representatives from Jacobsen and Stater's left the council meeting. A Development Agreement is needed in the process to obtain financing to move forward. Ms. Garcia put the development at risk because she had an issue with Mr. Stanckiewitz doing a complete job in preparation for the meeting and attempting to ask and answer problems that were not addressed in the Development Agreement as written by staff. He did not exceed his rights or responsibilities as a Council Member in his investigation of the agenda item and the proposal of an amendment to the Staff Written Agreement.
Ms. Garcia who often adds a phrase here or there in other ordinances or motions or staff recommendations was not objecting to the amendments, she was objecting that the source was Mr Stanckiewitz. Eventually she voted to approve the staff written agreement with a provision that the staff put in writing the agreed 2 additional stipulations to be approved of prior to the second reading and final approval of the Development Agreement December 14th. Now it is going to be interesting to see if the Permits are Pulled for the start of earth moving next week or will Jacobsen/Staters get cold feet due to Ms. Garcia's angst about the Stanckiewitz amendments that Stanckiewitz proposed to staff and staff got pre meeting approval of by the Developers Jacobsen/Staters. Most frustrating for them must be the fact that in their presentations prior to the vote on the Development Agreement both Staters/Jacobsen representatives agreed to the added conditions, but Ms. Garcia rejected the new information.
Gramps was in the opinion that the Documents provided to council did not address the reality of the justification for the Development Fee Waivers included in the Development Agreement. The added detail about how the drainage would be handled helped justify some of the fee waiver. However, the waiver for additional sewage lines, and the park fee waiver seems to be still under justified. To compare the Commercial Use with Residential use does not seem like sound planning or economics. The park fee explanation that Commercial Use does not increase Park Use is improper justification for a waiver. The fee is not assessed because you will or won't use a park, it is assessed because parks need to be built. Added congestion along Barton Road removes empty fields and large lots that children and dare I say it adults used to play in. The conversion of this property will or should increase the need for additional park space.
Why on earth is it ok to waive Park Development Fees for Staters/Jacobsen when the home builder on the same agenda was told no. The City Council can't adjust downward or waive the fees for a private builder of a single home, it would be a slippery slope, cause a default justification to remove or lower all park fees.
Following that tortured logic, Mr Stanckiewitz gets disapproval from Gramps. Don't Waive Fees for Staters if you don't waive them for an individual home builder. Or is it now policy of the slippery slope the policy of the City of Grand Terrace to waive all Development Fees for all Commercial Development? The Park Fees if collected for the Jacobsen/Staters Project could have offset a significant part of the Base Ball Field or the Phase 1 of the Dog Park, or Phase 1 of the Blue Mt. Park.
Mr. Stanckiewitz an individual house builder, should not be suffering under a burden greater than a large commercial developer. That is not justice. Mark tonight as your first strike on the issue of Development Fees being applied in a just and fair way by the city council. Make that a base hit for being ready to amend the Development Agreement to include the proposed park, and the 5 year performance deadline tied to the 1.2 million dollars of city/rda giveaways.
So for all those who think Stanckiewitz is not going to be held to criticism your now proven wrong. Perhaps the home builder should have asked for a full fee waiver like Staters/Jacobsen did. The council has already set the slope, it is all or nothing in regard to fees.
Note to Mr Doug Wilson. Thank you for speaking to the City Council in regards to the issue you had as an individual on the Planning Commission regarding the proposed Development Agreement. This is exactly how the Planning Commission should communicate with the City Council. It is important to give them and the public a heads up to problems you see. Thanks
Mr. Stanckiewitz's past statements should have given Ms Garcia the impression that he was for the completion of the Jacobsen Development. He made several such statements prior to the Miller Arrest. He only went mute on the development until he was assured that he would not be in a situation of a conflict of interest. Given recent events a logical step to take. No one paying attention to the council actions should have been surprised that he approved the Development Agreement. I am disappointed that he allowed the Park Development Fees to be waived for Jacobsen/Staters, and not the individual home builder. I'll say it again, that is not good fair governance. I also have to fault Ferre and Garcia for not being fair with Park Fees.
The meeting closed in remembrance of Joann Carlstrom. Her passing was due to aggressive Cancer. Grand Terrace has a high rate of cancer so folks with all respect to those who have fallen to this disease in its many forms please checked for early signs. The county hospital hosts free screenings every quarter. If you don't have insurance please go to a free screening.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
GRAND TERRACE: Council awards contract for ball field
The Grand Terrace City Council has hit a home run with Little League officials, voting this week to award a contract for construction of a new baseball field northwest of Pico Park.
"I realize you are being asked to clean up somebody else's mess, but it's time" to get moving on construction of a new ball field, former Grand Terrace Little League president Ken Boardman told the council Tuesday night.
Boardman and other Little League officials had been critical of the city's 2006 sale of land to the Colton Joint Unified School District for the construction of a new high school that included two of the league's three ball fields.
Little League participation dropped sharply when youngsters had to play their home games in Colton, Bloomington and Loma Linda. But careful scheduling and the promise of new fields boosted the number of participants this past season, Boardman said.
The council awarded a $372,179.50 contract to Bakersfield-based Rock Bottom Inc. to construct the new field just north of the new Grand Terrace High School and catty corner from an existing ball field in Pico Park.
The award is contingent on the school district agreeing to allow players, coaches and fans to cross a corner of the school grounds to get to the new ball field.
The council agreed to install a water fountain at the entrance to the field and to install electrical conduit under a walkway. When Little League organizers raise enough money to install lighting, the city will construct lighting fixtures in the walkway as well.
Reach Darrell R. Santschi at 951-368-9484 or dsantschi@PE.com
REMINDER:
There is a City Council and RDA Meeting Tuesday... go early to fill out your request to speak forms. Lots on the agenda including the Waiver of Development Fees for Jacobsen's Development and one for a single home builder, see who gets their request for a waiver. See if Doug Wilson brings to the attention the financial risk of approving the fee waiver the Planning Comission passed without his and Addington's vote. The WHY is important for the City Council Members to consider prior to their approval.
In addition the lack of proper oversight and inspection of plans may contribute to added financial burden for the city when things go wrong or aren't engineered properly. Our Planning Commission does not inspect the plans in that detail, and the current in house method of checks has not worked in the past. Have these plans been run through say the County as a back up check?
Were Citizens Concerns really delt with in the best possible way? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QfBs8e87r0&feature=related
Herman Hilkey asking for an insurance benefit to be changed to a medical benefit seems a bit of double dipping. He is employed by a School District that pays his medical insurance. Is he presenting his co-pay bills for reimbursement. Or is he just asking for the lump sum he feels he is owed? If he is asking for a lump sum he feels he is owed and he has not actually spent that amount in co-pays that excess of money should either not be paid or be considered taxable income.
Are citizens able to sign up with the Grand Terrace City Medical Insurance Plan? Are local Small Businesses and or their employees offered an option to join in the plan at the same level of service and cost to the City Council members? For some businesses and individuals this would be helpful.
Steve Berry and COBRA appear again on the check ledger. This too shall pass in time.
The city gave Stater's 1.6 Million, and there is no Calculation of the value of the Developer Fees being waived. The Mega Staters and what else will be there? If it were a LOWES it may well be like the 2 that have only 60 days left and they will be big empty buildings, one in Highland and one in Antelope Valley. RDA development..... look at Colton K Mart anytime the answer is all cities compete by giving inducements and waiving fees, with the promise of future added sales tax and increased property value. Artificially stimulated Development results in Inflated Unsustainable Property Values, and failing business. Caution GT, Caution.
