INTENDED DECISION: Mandurrago, John et al. v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al. (M102802)

ABSTRACT: In Monterey County Superior Court Judge Lydia Villarreal’a Intended Decision, Judge Villarreal determined that the Plaza del Mar Project “does not meet the definition of a housing development project under the Housing Act” and “the Court need not address Petitioners’ other contentions at this time.” Therefore, Petitioners’ request for relief was denied. Selected excerpts from the Intended Decision, as follows:

Standard of Review
The Court’s review is limited to ascertaining whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law of the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. This standard governs the review of Carmel’s compliance with CEQA, the Housing Accountability Act and the Density Bonuses and Other Incentives statute.

(A). CEQA issues
(1). Res judicata and collateral estoppel

The City’s CEQA Findings and evidence describe in sufficient detail the significance of the Burde building and explain the reasons underlying the City’s conclusion that the Burde building is “architecturally and visually distinctive” and that its loss “would constitute a significant impact on visual quality,” and the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the City’s findings.

(B). Housing Act issues
(1). Compliance with the Housing Act

The Court finds that this Project to date, (1) does not limit the commercial uses on the first floor to neighborhood commercial uses that service primarily residents of the neighborhood; and (2) visitors/vacationers residing in neighboring lodging are not City residents and would be using the Project’s underground parking.

The Court finds that the Project at this juncture, does not meet the definition of a housing development project under the Housing Act.

Disposition

The foregoing discussion and findings are dispositive and the Court need not address Petitioners’ other contentions at this time.

Petitioners’ request for relief is denied as set forth above. The Court directs the attorney for the City to prepare an appropriate judgment consistent with this ruling, present it to all counsel for approval as to form, and return it to this court for signature.

Dated: 7/21/10

HON. LYDIA VILLARREAL
Judge of the Superior Court


INTENDED DECISION 07 21 10 _00202003_