Judge kills one lawsuit against county

SJB-area development plan will go back to Planning
Commission
A developers’ lawsuit filed against the county has been dropped
and both sides are claiming victory.
The county says that Hollister Ranches LLC finally understands
that the county never actually denied the company’s application for
a gated community near the intersection of highways 101 and
129.
But Hollister Ranches says the county finally realizes that the
wording in a March resolution made by the Board of Supervisors was
erroneous because it killed their development application rather
than send it back to the planning commission for review, which is
what supervisors intended.
SJB-area development plan will go back to Planning Commission

A developers’ lawsuit filed against the county has been dropped and both sides are claiming victory.

The county says that Hollister Ranches LLC finally understands that the county never actually denied the company’s application for a gated community near the intersection of highways 101 and 129.

But Hollister Ranches says the county finally realizes that the wording in a March resolution made by the Board of Supervisors was erroneous because it killed their development application rather than send it back to the planning commission for review, which is what supervisors intended.

Now both sides are insulting the other’s intelligence.

“There were at least a couple of letters written from the county in third-grade English so they would understand what we meant,” said Planning Director Rob Mendiola.

“It’s true someone can’t read, but it wasn’t us,” said L.A. attorney Bob McMurry on behalf of his clients, developers Mark Johnson and Greg Weiler.

McMurry said visiting Judge Frank J. Creede Jr. of Fresno saw that the problem was a simple misunderstanding stemming from semantics. But County Attorney Darren Bogíe said the judge ruled in the county’s favor.

On Sept. 6 the judge dismissed the suit. His stipulation assured the developers that their application was still good, but that they needed to send their new tentative map back for review by the planning commission.

“They agreed that their lawsuit didn’t have any merit,” said Bogíe. “It’s definitely a victory for the county. It affirms the county’s administrative process, and that the intent of the Board of Supervisors was actually lawful and upheld by the court.”

McMurry’s reaction was slightly different: “Finally! For Gods sake, people, does anybody up there listen?”

After telling the county “10 times,” according to McMurry, that the wording in the resolution was incorrect, Hollister Ranches LLC filed a suit against Mendiola in late April. It was shortly after Mendiola had been slapped with a $56 million lawsuit from Award Homes for allegedly delaying the West of Fairview development application annexation process.

Hollister Ranches contended it was having trouble getting plans reviewed and approved by the planning commission. County planners said the reason the application got bogged was because of last-minute changes the developers made on project maps. After making a change a few days before a hearing with the planning commission, the county said there wasn’t enough time to study it.

In a phone interview McMurry said the changes were made on the advice of planning department officials, who, he said, told the developers that taking a strip mall out of the plan would give the project a better chance of approval.

The planning commission denied the application, however, a decision appealed to the board of supervisors. The board sent it back to the planning commission for review of the late changes. The board believed the planning department and the commission hadn’t had enough time to review the new project minus the strip mall.

Mark Johnson and Greg Weiler originally envisioned a 42-home community behind a hotel, a restaurant, three fast food restaurants, a gas station and a shopping center. In the middle of the 195 hilly acres they wanted to preserve a 25-acre natural sanctuary for tiger salamanders, which would be encircled by pricier, large lot homes and 10 affordable apartments.

Facing a 1 percent growth cap, the developers kept changing their tentative map with the county’s planning department – whittling down the project piecemeal.

When they went back to the planning commission, the developers paid a new application fee of $6,000, which they contended they shouldn’t have been charged. As part of the September settlement, they will get $4,300 refunded to them. The county will keep $1,700 for processing the application.

Developers now have to submit their new map to the planning department by Oct. 16. The planning commission is scheduled to review it on Dec. 18.