6. Descriptions of the specific facts of the alleged violations Councilmember Chuck Conder has consistently stated that he supports and cannot vote against the developer of the Lewis Group's West Campus Upper Plateau proposal to the March Joint Powers Authority (JPA). He is a representative from the City of Riverside and a voting member of the March JPA Commission, but his statements show that he has pre-judged his vote, depriving the public of a fair and unbiased decision-maker.
According to the General Plan, the West Campus Upper Plateau is designated with business park zoning. The proposed specific plan seeks to alter the zoning to include industrial use. According to Golden v. Overland Park (1978): “A city, in enacting a general zoning ordinance, or a planning commission, in exercising its primary and principal function under K.S.A. 12-704 in adopting and in annually reviewing a comprehensive plan for development of a city, is exercising strictly legislative functions. When, however, the focus shifts from the entire city to one specific tract of land for which a zoning change is urged, the function becomes more quasi-judicial than legislative. “ (Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1978/48-793-1.html) As a voting member of the Commission, Councilmember Conder is held to a strict standard of conduct. Referring to Petrovich Development Co., LLC v. City of Sacramento (2020), Best, Best, & Kreiger write:
“The now precedent-setting decision in California affirms that when acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, councilmembers cannot have a personal conflict of interest, cannot have prejudged the facts and must remain free of prejudice against any of the parties. A councilmember’s failure to recuse his or herself could invalidate the decision and expose the public entity, and the legislator, to potential legal challenges.”
(Source:
https://www.bbklaw.com/news-events/insights/2020/authored-articles/09/city-officials-must-be-neutr al-and-unbiased)
As shown above, there is an established legal precedent intended to protect the public’s due process rights to a fair and unbiased decision-maker. As my evidence shows, Councilmember Conder has, over the course of this past year, said repeatedly that he “stands with the developers” and that he “cannot vote no” on this project. He has also repeated several inaccurate and misleading statements to the public as to why he “cannot vote no.” The evidence establishes a pattern of behavior that would lead a reasonable person to believe he has pre-judged the proposal and will be voting in favor of the proposed development. By pre-judging, he is violating established case law in the State of California and neglecting his foundational duty as a voting representative of the City of Riverside on the JPA Commission. He should therefore be recused from this decision and step down from the March JPA Commission.
September 2021
In September 2021, the developers came to a small community gathering to make a presentation. It was not widely advertised to the public and less than 30 people attended. Lt. Steve Goodson attended the meeting in his role as the Riverside Police Department Area Commander. Councilmember Conder introduced the community meeting, which featured the developer’s presentation of the West Campus Upper Plateau Project. Councilmember Conder told the residents at that time that he realized some people might not like warehouses but that this project was going to go forward regardless. His words left Lt. Goodson with the impression that this project had already been approved and that residents were powerless to fight it.
November 19, 2021
In the attached email on 11/19/2021 Conder writes to the developer: "We are here to support you as you work with the public” as if his job is to represent the developer rather than the people. He then goes on to say, “I am 100% behind you and will be there by your side." This email was written even before most of the community had an opportunity to learn about or comment on the project.
February 24, 2022
The Lewis Group held a public meeting via Zoom on 2/24/2022 and presented the proposed land use for the West Campus Upper Plateau. This is the first time many residents heard about the plans to include industrial warehouses. Below is a clip of Councilmember Conder who attended via Zoom.
The Councilmember speaks effusively about the developer and how they are “doing a fine job” and “doing everything can to be the good neighbors they need to be.” To conclude, he says - "I'm very proud to stand with them.”(see proudtostand mp4 file) Late April or early May 2022
In late April or early May of 2022, Pete Elliott met with Councilmember Conder individually to discuss the project and invite him to the 5/18/2022 Riverside Neighbors Opposing Warehouses (R-NOW) Community Meeting. At that time, Councilmember Conder told Mr. Elliott that the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) constrains his vote, a misleading statement he later repeats in the May 18 and September 7 meeting videos. At that time, Mr. Elliott advised the Councilmember to double check this understanding of the DDA with legal counsel, as this interpretation sounded inaccurate to Mr. Elliott.
May 18, 2022
On 5/18/2022, Councilmember Conder attended an R-NOW community meeting with over a hundred concerned local residents. In addition to claiming he cannot vote no, he made a series of misleading statements to the public.
a) He calls the Inland Empire "a logistics center. That's what we are" and says "I’m not going to vote no where I can't vote no." (see cannotvoteno mp4 file) b) He again claims he is powerless and cannot vote no "unless they violate the DDA" as if the DDA gives the developer complete authority to build anything that does not explicitly violate the DDA’s terms (see wehavenoauthority mp4 file).
c) He claims the developer “owns the land” and they have invested $40 million into it. In reality, the March JPA owns the land, and the Councilmember serves on the Commission that approves or denies plans for its use. Only if he and other Commissioners approve their proposal does the developer purchase the property. (see developerownsland1 and developerownsland2 mp4 files)
d) Furthermore, in a shocking abdication of his duty to represent his constituents, he states – ‘how many of you live in Orangecrest and Mission Grove?... Go home and plow your houses down because I didn't want you here.’ (see plowyourhouses mp4 file) After the meeting Mr. Elliott walked Councilmember Conder out of the room and pressed him on his claim that the developer owns the land. At that time, the Councilmember conceded to Mr. Elliott that the developer does not actually own the land, directly contradicting what he had just told the public.
It is concerning that an elected official would continually repeat false and misleading statements that he has no choice but to vote in favor of the proposed development and that the developer owns the land. His statements put me in the awkward positon of having to write community members and directly contradict our Councilmember to ensure that they had accurate information on the project. A copy of the document I wrote to the community is attached as evidence (see Five Misconceptions pdf).
August 18, 2022
On 8/18/2022, Councilmember Chuck Conder attended a public community meeting put on by the developer at the March Air Museum. When my neighbor Abdallah Karim, a resident in Ward 4, attempted to talk to him and ask him questions, the Executive Director from the March Joint Powers Authority, Dr. Grace Martin, intervened and tried to prevent him from doing so, encouraging him to “fill out a comment card” instead. Mr. Karim stated that he was trying to ask a question to his own Councilmember, the person who is supposed to represent him, to which Dr. Martin replied, “He’s my Commissioner. He’s not answering any public comment right now.” Per Mr. Karim, Councilmember Conder then turned to Dr. Martin and said, “there’s no point with these people. Just don’t even argue with them,” referring to my neighbor. This is another example of blatant disregard for his own constituents and further evidence that he has abandoned his primary role as an elected representative in his role at the March JPA.
After the developer's community meeting, Councilmember Chuck Conder debriefed with three employees of the Lewis Group, literally "standing with the developers," as he said he was proud to do at the community meeting on 2/24/2022. They spoke for over twenty minutes. (See August 18 meeting mp4 file narrated by Gaby Mendez).
September 7, 2022
At the City Council meeting on 9/7, in response to community members bringing the above evidence to his attention, Councilmember Conder vehemently denied having pre-judged the proposal.
However, he repeated that “I will not vote against the law” and referred again to the DDA as a legal document that prohibits him from voting against the proposed development (see againstthelaw video clip). Later in the meeting, the City Attorney clarified that the DDA empowers the Commission to have “oversight on land development,” and, contrary to how Councilmember Conder characterizes it, “the DDA does not control how a councilmember votes” (see cityattorney video clip).
The evidence above shows a consistent pattern of voiced support for the developer and a series of false and misleading statements on why he cannot or will not consider a no vote on this project. In fact, his statements indicate that he believes that the law prevents him from voting no. Either he fundamentally misunderstands his fundamental duty as a voting member of the Commission, or he is purposefully misleading his constituents that he must vote in favor of the proposed development.
Either way, it constrains his vote and shows pre-judgment in violation of established case law.
Therefore, in light of these repeated violations, Councilmember Condor should be replaced on the March JPA Commission.
Attachments:
● 11/19/2021 email chain with Chuck Conder, a representative from the Lewis Group, and March JPA employees (pdf attachment)
● Misconceptions document written to clarify misleading statements Councilmember Conder gave to the public on 5/18/2022 (pdf attachment).
● Video clips:
○ Proudtostand
○ Cannotvoteno
○ Wehavenoauthority
○ Developerownsland1
○ Developerownsland2
○ Plowyourhouses
○ August 18 meeting
○ Againstthelaw
○ cityattorney
7. Names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses, if known, of each person the complainant intends to call as a witness at the hearing Steve Goodson
Pete Elliott
Jerry Shearer
Michael McCarthy
Abdallah Karim
Five Misconceptions about the West Upper Plateau Proposal Misconception #1: The project will happen and the JPA commission is powerless to stop it.
The truth is that there is a process that the JPA commission and builder will follow to propose and study the project's viability, which includes a public comment period. Once that period is completed, the JPA commission then votes on whether to approve the project with or without modification to the builder's plan. Each person on the commission has a vote, and at the end of the process, if a majority of members vote against the project, then the builder will need to alter the project to address JPA concerns or decide to walk away and not develop the land. ● For a list of JPA commission members, click here.
● To read the DDA Conder referenced last night, click here.
Misconception #2: The Lewis Group owns the land. They have spent $40M on the project site and they will not walk away from their investment, therefore they will build on that land no matter what.
The March JPA owns the land. The truth is that the Lewis Group has exclusive rights to propose development projects based on approved land use zoning for all of March JPAs territory. In the case of the West Campus Upper Plateau, the Lewis Group, a southern California development company, has worked with the JPA to rezone this site shifting from open space, to mixed business (medical and manufacturing businesses), to industrial warehouses. During this process of proposing development plans, Lewis Group contributed investment money to improve the local infrastructure and viability of these projects, but the amount is significantly less than $40M. They will only invest that amount of money if they purchase the land upon approval.
Misconception #3 Industrial warehouses are the best use of the land because it can only have low-density development on it.
While it is true that the site for the proposed development is zoned by the Airport Land Use Commission as C2 or C1, which requires low-density building, this does not mean industrial warehouses are our only option. In fact, many of the surrounding neighborhoods are zoned exactly the same way. So, for instance, if the developer were to build single-family residential homes in that space, it would still meet criteria for “low-density development.” Open space, solar farms, and business parks could also fit this description. The March Air Force may have preferences for how that land is used, but industrial warehouses are not our only option, and the March JPA has final say as to what is built.
Misconception #4 This has been the plan for 30 years.
While it’s true that the March JPA has been around since 1993, the first the public heard about industrial zoning in the area was on the public notice for the February 24 meeting of this year. Prior to that, many ideas had been pitched for the space. Some early plans show the JPA leaving the space untouched, others show it zoned for business parks.
None of them showed warehouses or industrial zoning.
In fact, according to their own General Plan from 2010, our area was slated for “an appropriate land use mix to emphasize the interaction between Office, Business Park and Park, Recreation and Open Space.” No industrial is mentioned. It also says that the area is to “provide large quantities of high paying jobs (such as corporate offices).” (2.2.24.b,d), That same document says that the JPA is to “protect the interests of adjacent residents, property owners, and local jurisdictions” (2.2.24.f) and to “develop a land use plan…that is compatible with existing surrounding land uses which are adjacent to the project areas” (2.2.25). To read the document, clickhere.* *Update: The March JPA has since removed the document referenced and has listed their older General Plan from the 1990’s which does not include our specific area. You can find that here.
Misconception #5 The upcoming Environmental Impact Report will fully address our concerns related to traffic, air pollution, noise, soil studies etc.
This is partially true. The EIR, set to be released in October, must address all of the above concerns. However, the experts hired to study the environmental impacts will be paid by the developers, and therefore, cannot be counted on to portray a full, unbiased picture. Anyone living near a recently-built warehouse will tell you the theoretical environmental impacts and the day-to-day reality are very different. Upon the EIR’s release, there will be 45 days for the public to comment. When it is released, we need to be ready to scrutinize the document and share our concerns. That will be a key time to make our voices heard.