Arcadia Development Company owns 70 acres of land it can’t
develop until 2020.
Arcadia Development Company owns 70 acres of land it can’t develop until 2020.
And that’s just fine by a county judge, who decided Nov. 19 that while Arcadia is the lone loser in the density restriction written into the city’s growth control ordinance, the city made a reasonable decision to restrict it.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cain decided against ordering the city to lift its density restriction, which applies only to Arcadia’s property.
Arcadia’s 80 total acres, 10 of which are developed with about 25 homes, is located in east Morgan Hill. The property is roughly bound by Trail Drive to the east, Barrett Avenue to the south and Hill Road to the west. There’s housing north and east of the property; but rural lands south and west.
The city’s density restriction is intended to control growth and preserve open space. Arcadia’s property is within the contentious southeast quadrant area, the final fourth under consideration for city growth restrictions. The city has two studies pending to determine the environmental affects of various proposed projects there, from an artificial snow park to a Catholic private high school. Most of the land will remain zoned for agricultural uses.
Arcadia argued that the update created new cause for harm to them, since they were the lone property affected by a particular caveat written into Measure C’s predecessor, Measure P, Morgan Hill’s growth control ordinance.
This caveat stipulated that any properties annexed from the time signatures were circulated and the effective date of the 1990 measure would only be able to develop to the amount allowed by the county, not the city, with the withholding of city services like sewer and water as the enforcer.
In 1990, the development company had plans to build homes on their land.
Cain wrote in his statement that the city made an appropriate, considerate decision when it updated the growth control system with Measure C in 2004. Measure C extended the growth control system’s expiration date from 2010 to 2020, with a population cap set at 48,000.
Because Arcadia is connected on two sides by agricultural land with minimum 20-acre lot sizes, “… the Arcadia property is not a ‘spot zoning’ circumstance,” Cain wrote.
The city had already spent $100,000 fighting the court case, city officials say. When Arcadia first brought the case to the superior court, the city argued that Arcadia was well past the statute of limitations. The court agreed; but earlier this year an appeals court favored Arcadia, bringing the case to the Superior Court again.
Attorney Bart Hechtman, who represents Arcadia, could not be reached for comment Tuesday. City Manager Ed Tewes could not comment, because he had not yet seen the decision, he said in an e-mail Tuesday.
Arcadia has until Nov. 30 to respond.
Arcadia v. City timeline
1990: City annexes Arcadia’s property
1990: City adopts Measure P, the city’s current growth control ordinance, with a caveat that properties annexed during Measure P’s adoption would be treated as county land
2004: City adopts Measure C, Measure P’s update, keeping the caveat intact
May 2004: Arcadia files complaint with court
December 2004: Court rules in favor of the city
December 2008: Appeals court overturns ruling
Nov. 19, 2009: Judge releases decision siding with city
