• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Daniel S. Gonzales

What you need to know about Commercial Real Estate | 408.280.0535

  • Home
  • About Daniel S. Gonzales
  • Documents of interest
  • Blog

Remember the California housing crisis? Judge rules that SB 35 bars the City of Los Altos from rejecting controversial project

May 5, 2020 by Daniel S. Gonzales Leave a Comment

Housing crisisIt may now seem like a lifetime ago given the ubiquity and enormity of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on our everyday lives, but it has actually only been a few months since California’s chronic and acute shortage of housing had been monopolizing our attention.  While we shelter in place and try to imagine what the world will look like after things get back to “normal,” our housing crisis has not gone away, notwithstanding our notice being drawn elsewhere.  Even as we must cope with the impacts of the coronavirus, it would behoove us not to forget about this problem.

With this in mind, this week’s article focuses on a recent court decision in a case I highlighted in this blog several months ago involving the City of Los Altos.  At the time, I reported that the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (“CaRLA”), a housing nonprofit known for suing local governments for their housing policies, had challenged the city’s rejection of a five-story, 15-unit, mixed-use project proposed to be built in downtown Los Altos.  The city disallowed the development on the ground that it failed to meet the streamlined approval requirements of SB 35, despite the fact that it was specifically designed to satisfy that law and had been found in compliance by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

In late April, Judge Helen Williams of the Santa Clara County Superior Court issued her ruling in CaRLA’s lawsuit against the City of Los Altos, finding the city must allow this development to move forward as proposed.  As noted in my prior post, one of the primary justifications relied on by the city in opposing this design was that it was “out of character” with downtown Los Altos.  In making her pronouncement, however, Judge Williams determined that the city had violated the requirements of SB 35 as well as the state Housing Accountability Act in disapproving this proposal, concluding that the city failed to provide Ted and Jerry Sorensen, the longtime developers of this property, with any objective standards to apply.

Furthermore, Judge Williams held that the city acted in bad faith in rejecting the development, from its staff’s handling of the project application, through the planning department appeals procedure, and finally in denying the project.  Rebuking the city, Judge Williams wrote:  “In addition to tactics such as demanding an administrative appeal on less than one day’s notice and using strained constructions and textual interpretations to assert that the developer had presented two applications that had to be withdrawn, the city denied the streamlining application with a facially deficient letter and later adopted a resolution enumerating insufficient reasons for the denial.”  According to Victoria Fierce of CaRLA, cities should be on notice that they no longer have the discretion to reject otherwise compliant housing projects they simply do not like.  “Here, Los Altos lied and put up barriers to approval at every step, never expecting a court would hold them accountable,” noted Ms. Fierce.

Understandably, the City of Los Altos is displeased with Judge Williams’s decision.  It is one thing to lose a case; it is something else again to be found to be in bad faith, especially having to bear the costs of suit and attorneys’ fees of the prevailing party.  And, as hinted by Ms. Fierce, the court’s ruling must be on the radar of anyone involved in projects being advanced pursuant to SB 35.  In particular, since Judge Williams is also handling the pending litigation over the SB 35 approval of the redevelopment of the old Vallco mall, her decision here can only further serve to fuel speculation over the ultimate outcome of that case.

A copy of Judge Williams’s order may be found here.

Filed Under: affordable housing, housing crisis

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Search

Sign up for Updates

  • Hidden
    MM slash DD slash YYYY
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Helping you avoid risk, maximize profit, and protect your long term real estate appreciation

Mr. Gonzales is in private practice, providing representation, advice and counsel in complex real estate, corporate, and business transactions on behalf of public and private institutions, businesses, and individuals.

This material has been prepared by Daniel S. Gonzales for informational purposes only and does not constitute advertising, a solicitation, or legal advice. Neither delivery nor transmission of this material or the information contained herein is intended to create, and receipt thereof does not constitute formation of, an attorney-client relationship. The reader should not rely upon this information for any purpose without seeking legal advice from a licensed attorney. The information contained in this material is provided only as general information and is not promised or guaranteed to be correct or complete. Daniel S. Gonzales expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this material.

Recent Posts

  • Protracted legal odyssey ends in victory for Lafayette housing development
  • Is CEQA being weaponized against housing development?
  • Can tech automate commercial lease management? Stay tuned
  • Prolific ADA Litigant Shelved?
  • Prop. 15:  Time to switch off the “third rail” of California politics?
Copyright © 2023 Daniel S. Gonzales