A visiting judge has been selected to hear a case Thursday to
decide whether the Growth Control Initiative remains on the March
ballot.
Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge Robert Yontz will take the place
of two local judges who disqualified themselves, according to Court
Executive Officer Alex Calvo.
A visiting judge has been selected to hear a case Thursday to decide whether the Growth Control Initiative remains on the March ballot.
Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge Robert Yontz will take the place of two local judges who disqualified themselves, according to Court Executive Officer Alex Calvo.
The hearing, scheduled for 2 p.m. Thursday at the San Benito County Courthouse, had been postponed to that day and time immediately after Judge Steven Sanders announced his disqualification at the initial hearing Oct. 29. Sanders attributed his recusal to the potential for members of the public to perceive bias because he was the county counsel from 1988-2001.
“We’re just anxious to make sure we get this case heard and resolved as quickly and efficiently as we possibly can,” Calvo said.
Calvo and the court requested a set of preferred judges to the Judicial Council of California, members of which made the final call. The Council generally selects either a retired judge or one from a surrounding county, Calvo said.
The court stressed in its request an urgency for the case to be heard soon.
“We told them we needed somebody quickly,” he said.
Yontz was appointed to the Santa Cruz Superior Court in 1994. Before that, he was in private practice as a lawyer for 25 years, according to Roy Blaine, the assistant executive officer of the Santa Cruz Superior Court.
There are two parties challenging the Growth Control Initiative, or Measure G, on the election ballot. One, a lawsuit filed Oct. 1 by county resident Rebecca McGovern, protests the legality of a signature referendum that placed it there. McGovern claims the referendum lacked state-mandated language, and that the Board of Supervisors’ initial passing of the initiative as an ordinance should be re-enacted.
The anti-initiative citizens group that organized the signature referendum is defending the case.
The other challenge is coming from a group of residents calling themselves Los Valientes, which contends all five county supervisors illegally helped draft the initiative by violating the state’s open meetings law, the Brown Act. The county has hired an outside attorney to defend the Board and its alleged actions.
McGovern said she was pleased with the accelerated pace of the Judicial Council’s decision. She is not concerned, she said, with the new judge having only one week to prepare.
“I certainly expect that he will be (ready), or else he’ll delay the court date,” she said. “I can only respect his judgment.”
The parties involved all felt comfortable with the out-of-town judge having a week to peruse the six-inch stack of documents. The judge, according to Calvo, was already somewhat familiar with the case. Yontz was out of his chambers Friday and could not be reached for comment.
“I think he could be ready,” said Trent Orr, a lawyer with Earthjustice, the environmental firm representing McGovern. “It’s hard for me to predict. He may say he wants the weekend (after Thursday) to review.”
Orr added it is hard to predict what “twists and turns” could occur before Thursday. He specifically mentioned Los Valientes’ lawyer Michael Pekin.
“We’re just waiting to see what the next set of Pekin pleadings look like,” Orr said.
Pekin said he planned to file an official Brown Act complaint and a “motion to intervene” with the court Monday because the other parties had complained he had not followed proper procedure.
“If they want technicality, let’s give them technicality,” Pekin said.
San Benito County’s other judge, Harry Tobias, immediately removed himself when the McGovern lawsuit was filed Oct. 1 because his brother, Tom, the anti-initiative group chairman, is involved in the suit.
The Growth Control Initiative is a proposed amendment to the county’s General Plan. Tobias’ group argues it unfairly restricts landowners’ ability to sell their agricultural tracts of land; they dispute the public should have the final say in March. Initiative proponents believe it will rightly preserve the county’s agricultural heritage and includes the means for suitable compensation to farmers.
