COLUSA, CA (MPG) – The Colusa City Council and developers of the hous- ing project near the airport will not have to admit any wrongdoing that led to the Colusa County Board of
Supervisors filing a lawsuit to stop the project nearly two years ago.
The Board of Supervisors last month agreed to dismiss the litigation if the developer makesminor project amendments.
The Jan. 25, 2022 law- suit, heard in Sacramento County Superior Court on a change of venue, claimed the City Council and city staff put the coun- ty’s only airport at risk when they skipped import- ant procedural processes that allowed the developer to eliminate high-den- sity housing to increase the number of single family homes, from 84 to 181, following the 2015 annexation of Colusa Industrial Properties into the Colusa
city limits.
However, Colusa County faced an uphill battle with the lawsuit from the start because the statute of lim- itations had long expired on CEQA violations, had they occurred, and the
lawsuit was brought after construction and sale of homes began.
The negotiated settlement agreement reached between the Colusa County Board of Supervisors, the Colusa City Council, Colusa Industrial Properties, Colusa Estates, and Blue Heron Ridge states it is a compromise of still disputed claims and there is no prevailing party.
The Colusa City Council and developers deny any violation in the law in approving the project – and they deny the County’s lawsuit lacked merit, the agreement acknowledges.
However, the City Council did agreed to hold Colusa County harmless for any liabilities and costs in any way related to the city not enforcing mitigation measures that were adopted to offset the impacts of the development, and CIP agreed to apply for General Plan and Rezoning for some of the lots and will leave three lots that were of concern to the Airport Land Use Commission as open space.
Each party also agreed to pay for their own attorney fees, which allows the two agencies and the develop- ers to extricate themselves from the dispute to avoid the on-going cost of
litigation.
The County spent $118,310 in public funds to bring the lawsuit. The City of Colusa spent $9,228 to defend it.
The biggest takeaway from the lawsuit is a more cooperative arrangement between city and county officials going forward to avoid further disputes with respect to processing projects in the airport zone of influence.
The City Council and Board of Supervisors have agreed to develop and implement a strict and quick conflict resolution process.
“Where conflicts arise due to differences in opinion between City and Council staff, the City Manager and City Planner shall meet with the County Administrative Officer and Community Development Director within 20 calendar days to attempt to resolve those differences,” the agreement states.
If differing opinions continue between city and county staff, the parties agreed to bring in two representatives each from the City Council and Board of Supervisors within 30 days to help resolve the dispute.
Should the dispute continue, each party agreed to have the matter referred to a mutu-
ally acceptable third-party with expertise in the subject matter. The cost for outside res-
olution would be split equally between the city and county, although the third-party rec-
ommendation would be non-binding.
The project applicant shall be a part of any meetings, the settlement states.
Although any party would still be free to file a lawsuit, county officials said they hoped a lawsuit would not be necessary in the future to resolve disputes over proposed development project near
the airport.