Judge rules in favor of St. Francis project

BY ERIC LINDBERG
DAILY SOUND STAFF WRITER

A Superior Court judge sided with the City of Santa Barbara’s decision to approve the construction of workforce and market-rate condos at the site of St. Francis Hospital, rejecting a lawsuit filed by neighbors concerned about increased density and environmental impacts.
Hospital officials applauded Judge Thomas P. Anderle’s ruling against St. Francis Friends and Neighbors, a group that formed after Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital announced its intention in 2003 to build 115 units on about six acres at 601 E. Micheltorena St., including 81 “affordable” units for hospital employees.

“This is a very important project for health care workers and for the community,” Ron Werft, president and CEO of Cottage Health System, said in a prepared statement. “We are pleased with the court’s ruling, and we are looking forward to proceeding.”
In a tentative decision issued Tuesday morning, Judge Anderle ruled against the lawsuit’s claim that the city violated zoning ordinances by approving bonus density housing and modifications to yard, lot and setback requirements requested by the project.
City zoning ordinances currently allow a total of 73 units to be built on the St. Francis project site, but through the bonus density process, an additional 42 units were approved, which are tagged as affordable to upper-middle and middle income families.
St. Francis Friends and Neighbors argued in its lawsuit that the ordinance does not permit approval of bonus units for upper-middle income families. However, Judge Anderle ruled that the municipal code does allow for increased density in that case.
“The specific provisions unequivocally provide for density bonus when units affordable to upper-middle income households are included in the project,” he wrote. “…The record reflects that 81 of the 115 units are to be affordable for middle and upper-middle income households. The city properly approved the density bonus.”
The lawsuit also contended that modifications to yard, lot and setback requirements cannot be based on accommodating affordable housing for upper-middle income families.
Judge Anderle cited sections of the municipal code stating that modifications are permitted if “necessary to secure an appropriate improvement” to a property. He said the city had properly determined the benefit of a project with a large percentage of affordable housing merited those modifications.
“[Cottage Hospital] employees found converting the existing building into housing unappealing — they work in a hospital, they don’t want to live in one,” Judge Anderle wrote. “Consequently, more small bungalows were necessary and, hence, the need for greater density among a greater number of smaller buildings.”
He also rejected the contention that the density is not necessary, as the hospital owns adjacent property that could be developed.
“Petitioner has cited no authority for the proposition that the city must consider other lots under common ownership in making a necessity determination, particularly when those adjacent lots are located in a different zone,” he said.
St. Francis Friends and Neighbors also argued that the project is poorly planned and will cause negative environmental impacts, including traffic congestion, ambient noise levels and air pollution.
Its lawsuit contented that the findings of the project’s Environmental Impact Report related to those issues are inconsistent with the zoning ordinance’s statement of intention to promote good planning and prevent negative impacts.
“It is a stretch to say that this requires the city to approve only projects with zero significant environmental impacts regardless of other positive attributes a project may have for the city’s public health (hospital employee housing), and general welfare with economic and social advantages (affordable workforce housing),” Judge Anderle wrote in response to that contention. “This argument is without merit.”
Jim Westby, president of St. Francis Friends and Neighbors, said the group is obviously disappointed with the ruling.
“We thought we had a fair case,” he said. “We thought we were going to be awarded something out of the petition, but he denied everything. …We’re trying to protect our city and our neighborhoods and it’s kind of a letdown.”
The neighborhood group had appealed the Planning Commission’s approval of the project to the Santa Barbara City Council, which ultimately denied that appeal in December 2006. The group filed the subsequent lawsuit challenging that decision in March 2007.
Westby said the group’s attorneys are still looking over Judge Anderle’s ruling and no decision has been made on whether they will take any further action.
City Attorney Steve Wiley said while the ruling can be appealed to a higher court, it is unlikely it would be overturned. Although the project still requires final Architectural Board of Review approval, Wiley said it could move forward within the next few months.