CEDC vs. SP: Judge will rule later on Plaza Amistad lawsuit
By Peggy Kelly
Santa Paula News
Published: September 12, 2008
Although he claimed he was still leaning toward the city’s side, a Ventura County Superior Court judge said Wednesday that a final decision in the Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation lawsuit against the City of Santa Paula will still have to wait.
By Peggy Kelly
Santa Paula Times
Although he claimed he was still leaning toward the city’s side, a Ventura County Superior Court judge said Wednesday that a final decision in the Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation lawsuit against the City of Santa Paula will still have to wait. A decision in the lawsuit, filed by the affordable housing developer late last year following the August 2007 rejection of the Plaza Amistad project by a City Council 3-2 vote, was delayed when Superior Court Judge Frederick Bysshe said he would take the matter under submission.
Last month Bysshe had issued a preliminary that signaled a ruling in the city’s favor following the May 16 hearing when he took the matter under advisement. Wednesday’s hearing centered on city zoning requirements, housing law, state mandated housing elements and the burden of proof, which CEDC attorneys claim are the basis of what should be a judgment in the company’s favor.
The issues of low-income housing are those that “confront society generally, and specifically California,” noted Bysshe, who outlined a history of providing housing to lower income households. Although he cited numerous merits of the proposed 150-unit Plaza Amistad, the Council was within its rights to reject the project.
Although Bysshe said he supports CEDC’s efforts to enhance community, “As a judge I have to determine whether the city was within its rights to make the decision it did.... The court’s view at this point” is that CEDC carries the burden of proof to show the city acted in a capricious manner and beyond their rights in rejecting the proposed development.
Bysshe said he denied CEDC’s petition, and Cabrillo attorney Barbara Macri-Ortiz asked the court for permission to submit a missing page from a letter written to Cabrillo - and supporting their claims - from the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Santa Paula Assistant City Attorney John Cotti objected, not only to the one-page submission, but also to the entire letter - filed with the court on August 29 - being entered into the record.
Macri-Ortiz noted that the HCD is “very active, not just in reviewing Housing Elements,” but in creating law governing housing. Bysshe is facing an “unfair task, there is no case law to guide you,” the reason, she added, that CEDC submitted the HCD letter. “We wanted to help you reconcile the law.”
After more argument Cotti voiced his objections, noting the issue was taking too long and straying from the subject. Later Cotti noted that “For over a year” CEDC “has inundated the court” with briefs and other material related to the case, and Cotti asked if the court wished him to address any specific issue. Burden of proof said Bysshe.
There is no instance in state law that mandates that cities must allow developments that do not comply with zoning. In addition, a city is only mandated to show the state that it has zoned areas where projects can be built. “We’re not in the development business,” and the city cannot “force developers to come to Santa Paula and build.”
State mandated housing production numbers (known as RHNA) are a “guideline, not mandatory,” that most cities have failed to attain. And in spite of arguments, Cotti said the city ultimately “can impose our development standards... they can build a project that complies,” such as existing Santa Paula-based CEDC developments.
After more arguments from the city’s and CEDC’s attorneys, Bysshe said he would take the matter under submission. The presentations, he noted, “were excellent and I appreciate the importance of the matter.”
|
