|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The East Palo Alto Sanitary District suffered a court defeat on Aug. 30, when a San Mateo County Superior Court judge tossed out its attempt to reverse a July vote that had set the stage for the district’s dissolution.
The decision by Judge Roger Picquet to reject the district’s appeal boosts an effort by the city of East Palo Alto to turn the sanitary district into a subsidiary of the city. The district, which serves most of East Palo Alto and a small portion of Menlo Park, has been an independent entity since 1939. City officials and developers have for years complained about the district’s high hook-up rates for new developments, which they argued stifled development and effectively prevented the City Council from fulfilling its duty to plan for housing and community-serving projects.
The district has disputed these claims and has argued over recent public hearings and in court that the aged sewer system it oversees cannot handle all the projects in the city’s development pipeline and that it is already upgrading its infrastructure to facilitate growth.
The Friday ruling from Superior Court Judge Roger Picquet reaffirmed the July decision from the San Mateo Local Formation Agency Committee (LAFCo), a body that oversees jurisdictional disputes in the county. LAFCo voted to support East Palo Alto’s consolidation plan. The district appealed this approval as well as LAFCO’s earlier ruling in favor of the city, decisions that the district’s attorneys claim were not based on evidence.
Much of the Aug. 16 hearing in a Redwood City courtroom revolved around what type of evidence LAFCo did and did not consider before its 6-0 vote in favor of consolidation. Leah Castella, attorney for the district, claimed that the commission did not adequately consider the district’s infrastructure plan and its capital improvement budget and that the city’s consolidation plan is driven by developers who want to see the sewer system expanded at the expense of current rate-paying residents.
“What this dispute really comes down to is whether and to what extent the ratepayers would bear the burden of increased capacity,” Castella said.
Attorneys for LAFCo and for the city of East Palo Alto countered that the dispute has nothing to do with rates. Rather, it comes down to which agency is best suited for providing the service while making sure that the city meets all of its other state-mandated obligations, including building housing. Attorneys have also argued that residents who are upset about rising rates would have political remedies. They can protest the higher rates or support City Council candidates who oppose rate hikes.
“We’re not here to do the analysis of how the sewer district should do its job going forward,” Timothy Fox, attorney for LAFCo said at the Aug. 16 hearing. “We’re here to evaluate whether the structure by which those decisions are made, namely by one elected board that specializes in providing sewer services, is operating somewhat at odds with a different elected board that manages other municipal functions in largely the same geographic jurisdiction.”
Picquet agreed and wrote in his Aug. 30 ruling that the change of governance, in and of itself, “would not make it any easier or harder to change or modify affected fees or charges.”
“In addition, there are other checks and balances that exist in the local political arena that allow the public to affect how their policy makers may act on financial issues like rate increases and connection fees for sewer services,” he wrote.
Picquet also concluded that LAFCo acted in accordance with the law when it approved East Palo Alto’s proposal. Specifically, he found no evidence that LAFCo had engaged in “prejudicial abuse of discretion” in supporting the city’s position, which was the judicial standard of review. Both sides, he argued, presented ample evidence and LAFCo properly considered it before making its decision.
“The Court finds that the record, taken as a whole, contains substantial evidence in support of the challenged decisions,” Picquet wrote. “The Court recognizes that there is also evidence in the record that could perhaps be used to support different decisions by LAFCo.
“Such an observation is not in conflict or irreconcilable. It reflects that the weight to be given to the evidence is up to the decision maker. Reasonable can disagree as to its weight, interpretation or persuasive value but not the existence of evidence.”
The ruling clears the way for the city to take over operations of the sewer system, consistent with the LAFCo ruling. The City Council has agreed to appoint an advisory committee of five people, two of whom would be from Menlo Park and one of whom would be appointed by the Menlo Park City Council.
