Wal-Mart recently submitted an application to the Patterson Community Development Department indicating they intend to bring a store to the city.
Big box rumors have been running rampant for years now, but this is the first official action any massive retailer has taken to locate in Patterson.
Details — like where the proposed store would go — are a little scarce right now, but at 4 p.m. I'll get a chance to review the application and the plans that were submitted with them. Expect details galore on the Web site tomorrow.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
City attorney: No decision on West Park appeal
George Logan, Patterson's city attorney, said the City Council made no decision during last night's closed session about whether to appeal a Fresno Superior Court judge's decision to throw out the city's lawsuit against West Park. And they might not decide anytime soon.
Logan said the city has 60 days to appeal after the judgment is entered — a formality that still has not been completed. He said it's likely the council will meet again in closed session, possibly in a month or so, before deciding anything.
As for the city's chances in an appeal, Logan was optimistic. He said the famed Save Tara case, used as precedent by both sides in the West Park case, was decided by the state Supreme Court because it failed in a trial court. That gives Logan some hope.
"Trial judges are just not as particular at enforcing environmental laws as appellate judges are," Logan said. "You get a better sense of justice in the appellate courts."
The council must also weigh the cost of moving forward with the case. In the revised budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year — which the council will review at its regular meeting Tuesday — the amount alotted for legal services nearly doubled from $140,000 to $275,000, the largest increase of any item in the budget.
"I think we'd have a very good chance on appeal, but the council will have to make that decision," Logan said.
UPDATE: Reporter John Saiz just spoke with Councilwoman Annette Smith, who wouldn't speak much on last night's discussion but did confirm that cost will be a factor in the council's decision on the case. She said the council has requested information on how much the suit has cost the city thus far, and that report could be available as early as next week.
Logan said the city has 60 days to appeal after the judgment is entered — a formality that still has not been completed. He said it's likely the council will meet again in closed session, possibly in a month or so, before deciding anything.
As for the city's chances in an appeal, Logan was optimistic. He said the famed Save Tara case, used as precedent by both sides in the West Park case, was decided by the state Supreme Court because it failed in a trial court. That gives Logan some hope.
"Trial judges are just not as particular at enforcing environmental laws as appellate judges are," Logan said. "You get a better sense of justice in the appellate courts."
The council must also weigh the cost of moving forward with the case. In the revised budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year — which the council will review at its regular meeting Tuesday — the amount alotted for legal services nearly doubled from $140,000 to $275,000, the largest increase of any item in the budget.
"I think we'd have a very good chance on appeal, but the council will have to make that decision," Logan said.
UPDATE: Reporter John Saiz just spoke with Councilwoman Annette Smith, who wouldn't speak much on last night's discussion but did confirm that cost will be a factor in the council's decision on the case. She said the council has requested information on how much the suit has cost the city thus far, and that report could be available as early as next week.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Council to weigh options in West Park case
The City Council will hold a special meeting in closed session at 6 p.m . Thursday to discuss the recent dismissal of the city's lawsuit against West Park. They could decide to appeal the ruling, or they could decide to cut their losses. Stay tuned.
If the city does not appeal the case, the next bit of drama for West Park would likely come this summer, when the draft environmental impact report is released for public consumption. I'm sure the council — along with the WS-PACE.org guys and many others — is eager to see what sort of mitigating measures developer Gerry Kamilos has in mind to handle the numerous concerns local residents have.
If the city does not appeal the case, the next bit of drama for West Park would likely come this summer, when the draft environmental impact report is released for public consumption. I'm sure the council — along with the WS-PACE.org guys and many others — is eager to see what sort of mitigating measures developer Gerry Kamilos has in mind to handle the numerous concerns local residents have.
Friday, January 9, 2009
City's suit against West Park dismissed
The city of Patterson's lawsuit against Stanislaus County and West Park has been dismissed before making it to trial, Patterson city attorney George Logan confirmed Friday morning.
I'm not sure how big of a victory this is for the county and developer Gerry Kamilos — because I don't get the feeling they ever thought they might lose, and they seemed confident all along that the suit was without merit — but it's a pretty big loss for the city in its attempts to stop this project completely. A court has now ruled that the county so far has done nothing wrong in its dealings with Kamilos. The next major hurdle for the project will be the environmental review that is currently ongoing.
Two questions are plaguing me at the moment, and I don't yet have an answer for either:
1) How much money did the city spend on this case, and was it at all worth it? Could any result have made it worth it? That might be an unfair question.
2) What, now, will become of WS-PACE.org's lawsuit against the county and developer — a lawsuit that, by my very cursory perusal, appeared quite similar to the city's?
Hopefully I'll have some answers to these questions soon. I'll post here when I do.
In the meantime, Saturday's paper needs to be put to bed. By the way, don't expect to see anything about this in Saturday's issue (we're past that deadline already). But definitely keep an eye out on the Web site and in Wednesday's paper.
12:05 p.m. Update: Becky Campo says the City Council will likely have a special closed session meeting early next week to determine their next action, if there is any. They could appeal the ruling, or they could set their focus on the upcoming environmental review, or they could do some combination of the two, I imagine. Campo doesn't consider this a huge loss, because even though the city didn't accomplish everything it hoped, it at least made its concerns heard loud and clear. Gerry Kamilos declined to comment for now, saying he wants to wait until he's read the full ruling before saying anything about it (possibly later today). Fair enough. WS-PACE.org President Ron Swift said his group's lawsuit is "sufficiently different" from the city's, but the group will meet with its attorney before deciding whether to go forward with its case. He did say they had been waiting to see what would happen with the city's case, and it appears as though the Stanislaus County court was waiting as well, as no hearings had been scheduled since the lawsuit was filed in September. More to come, but perhaps not today.
I'm not sure how big of a victory this is for the county and developer Gerry Kamilos — because I don't get the feeling they ever thought they might lose, and they seemed confident all along that the suit was without merit — but it's a pretty big loss for the city in its attempts to stop this project completely. A court has now ruled that the county so far has done nothing wrong in its dealings with Kamilos. The next major hurdle for the project will be the environmental review that is currently ongoing.
Two questions are plaguing me at the moment, and I don't yet have an answer for either:
1) How much money did the city spend on this case, and was it at all worth it? Could any result have made it worth it? That might be an unfair question.
2) What, now, will become of WS-PACE.org's lawsuit against the county and developer — a lawsuit that, by my very cursory perusal, appeared quite similar to the city's?
Hopefully I'll have some answers to these questions soon. I'll post here when I do.
In the meantime, Saturday's paper needs to be put to bed. By the way, don't expect to see anything about this in Saturday's issue (we're past that deadline already). But definitely keep an eye out on the Web site and in Wednesday's paper.
12:05 p.m. Update: Becky Campo says the City Council will likely have a special closed session meeting early next week to determine their next action, if there is any. They could appeal the ruling, or they could set their focus on the upcoming environmental review, or they could do some combination of the two, I imagine. Campo doesn't consider this a huge loss, because even though the city didn't accomplish everything it hoped, it at least made its concerns heard loud and clear. Gerry Kamilos declined to comment for now, saying he wants to wait until he's read the full ruling before saying anything about it (possibly later today). Fair enough. WS-PACE.org President Ron Swift said his group's lawsuit is "sufficiently different" from the city's, but the group will meet with its attorney before deciding whether to go forward with its case. He did say they had been waiting to see what would happen with the city's case, and it appears as though the Stanislaus County court was waiting as well, as no hearings had been scheduled since the lawsuit was filed in September. More to come, but perhaps not today.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The latest on West Park
Some things have happened since the last time we reported on the City of Patterson's lawsuit against the West Park development, but we're basically back where we started — i.e., waiting for a decision on the county's motion to dismiss the suit.
Last week, a Fresno County Superior Court judge denied a motion from the city to dismiss the current motion — if you're scoring at home, that's a denial of the motion to dismiss the motion to dismiss the case. So on Tuesday, we should get a ruling on the motion to dismiss the case. That's the ruling that was initially scheduled to be made on Oct. 16.
It looks like we're headed for a trial on Jan. 29, assuming the case doesn't get dismissed. It seems unlikely that the judge would throw out the case, given the recent state Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, but we won't know for sure on that until Tuesday. Stay tuned.
Last week, a Fresno County Superior Court judge denied a motion from the city to dismiss the current motion — if you're scoring at home, that's a denial of the motion to dismiss the motion to dismiss the case. So on Tuesday, we should get a ruling on the motion to dismiss the case. That's the ruling that was initially scheduled to be made on Oct. 16.
It looks like we're headed for a trial on Jan. 29, assuming the case doesn't get dismissed. It seems unlikely that the judge would throw out the case, given the recent state Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, but we won't know for sure on that until Tuesday. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Election update from Lee Lundrigan
Below is a press release sent out Monday by Lee Lundrigan, Stanislaus County clerk and registrar of voters. It certainly appears there are enough ballots out there to change the course of the Del Puerto Health Care District race multiple times. A full update will appear in Wednesday's Irrigator.
***************************************
***************************************
Stanislaus County Elections Update
The canvass of the Presidential General Eelction vote continues. Results from Friday's count of the 28,000 plus absentee / vote by mail ballots received on or just before Election Day have been posted on the www.stanvote.com website. Scanning of the names of Election Day voters located on the polling place rosters has been completed. The hand review of all ballots cast at the polls to identify qualified write-in candidates for U.S. President and for the 19th Congressional District is underway. Reconciliation of each of the 183 polling site rosters and materials is being processed and is expected to take several days.
Over 8,450 provisional ballots and 1,900 military, damaged, 7-day absentee, and reconcillation ballots remain to be reviewed and processed before they are ultimately counted. The office will be closed Tues. November 11th in observance of the Veterans Day holiday. The remainder of the canvass will continue until complete. California law requires certification of this election to be on or before December 2nd, which is 28-days following Election Day.
Lee Lundrigan, Clerk Recorder & Registrar of Voters
Saturday, November 8, 2008
More votes counted; Maring now leads Kessler
The Stanislaus County Clerk Recorder released the results of some 28,000 vote by mail ballots Friday night — results that were not included in the totals listed on Election Night. Patterson's results for mayor and City Council are unchanged, as is the outcome for Measure V. I believe some provisional ballots still need to be counted, but those will surely not overturn these three results.
Measure S inched just slightly closer to the 66.7 percent it needs to pass, but remained agonizingly short at 65.96 percent.
The real interesting race remains the one for the second and final Del Puerto Health Care District board seat. Challenger Anne Stokman easily won the first open seat. And after trailing for most of the night on Tuesday, incumbent Jeannette Kessler overtook fellow incumbent Ed Maring by 11 votes when the final precincts were counted.
Now, after the final vote by mail ballots have been tabulated, Maring's back on top — at least momentarily.
As of Friday night, Maring leads Kessler 2,391 to 2,378, meaning he gained 24 votes with the counting of the vote by mail ballots. Provisional ballots likely won't change much, but in a race this close, anything can happen. Stay tuned.
For full Stanislaus County election results, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
