Board Member Dennis Mitchem stated in the release that the city could use the money that Plaza Amistad would bring. “The City has a great opportunity to significantly improve the town’s local economy, as the result of the project’s $55 million economic impact on the City. Since there are no other developments on the horizon for the City in the near term, moving forward with this project is a wise economic decision for some very important reasons,” including about $3 million to the city in impact fees and benefits to the school districts. In addition, Mitchem stated, the project would also “boost local labor because CEDC would employ local construction contractors to build the homes.”Bobkiewicz said the Council would “continue to look for solutions that work for Santa Paula, not just CEDC. It’s sad at this time of the year and sad for people who really need help.”The CEDC press release notes that, during its nearly 29-year history, “CEDC has never before been compelled to file a lawsuit against any of Ventura County’s 11 jurisdictions,” and Bobkiewicz said he hopes that other jurisdictions are paying attention to the latest round of legal action. “My hope is others in Ventura County - other nonprofits and other cities -are watching these” actions “very carefully, so the next time they need affordable housing” they’ll be aware of what has happened to Santa Paula.The new lawsuits, noted Bobkiewicz, are a “disservice to CEDC and a disservice to our community.... Everybody loses, and that’s very sad.”According to the press release, CEDC has filed a new 150-unit family rental project under density bonus law, a different set of local and state laws than governed the first project. State density bonus law, notes the release, compels local jurisdictions to make concessions and modifications in order to allow for the construction of affordable housing projects.The Planning Commission will consider the new project probably in February.
CEDC to appeal Plaza Amistad court ruling, file discrimination suit
December 10, 2008
Santa Paula News
The page was turned on the latest chapter of Plaza Amistad with Friday’s announcement that Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) would appeal the November ruling that upheld the City Council’s August 2007 rejection of the 150-unit housing development.
By Peggy KellySanta Paula TimesThe page was turned on the latest chapter of Plaza Amistad with Friday’s announcement that Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) would appeal the November ruling that upheld the City Council’s August 2007 rejection of the 150-unit housing development. In addition, CEDC has filed a suit alleging discrimination seeking monetary damages.According to a written statement from CEDC Director Tom Malley, a former City of Ventura planning commissioner and attorney, the lawsuit is seeking monetary damages “because, as a result of the city’s decision to deny the project, CEDC has suffered financial losses. In addition, Santa Paula’s working families are being denied access to the decent homes this development would provide to the community for reasons that violate state housing discrimination laws.”“Once again, we’re saddened to see that CEDC’s focus in Santa Paula is spending more time focusing on lawsuits instead of people in real need,” said City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz. “At this time, when more and more people are in need, they just consistently look to the courts to push affordable housing in a way” that Bobkiewicz said reflects CEDC belief that they have the only solution.Plaza Amistad was first brought to the Council as an almost evenly split development of low-income family apartments and market rate townhouses, planned for a six-plus-acre parcel located on West Santa Barbara Street near Dean Drive. Cabrillo’s request for zoning variations was denied by a split Council vote, based on safety and density concerns.According to the CEDC press release, the appeal is based on a state law that requires the city to make certain findings when it decides to deny an affordable housing project.“Cabrillo contends that because the Court found that the City denied the affordable housing project, and the City failed to make any findings, the Court should have found that the City violated its mandatory duty under the law to make the proper findings. CEDC also contends that the City should have approved the project because, based on all the evidence, the City could not have made any one of the five findings the law requires in order to deny an affordable housing project.”
