A judge has ruled against the city of La Cañada Flintridge in a lawsuit over its handling of the state-mandated housing element, filed by the nonprofit organization Californians for Homeownership.
The attorneys representing both the city and CFH met at the Los Angeles Superior Court on July 11 for a hearing on the case that involves the city’s housing element. The judge in the case, James Chalfant, determined that the city has failed to adopt a substantially compliant housing element since the city hasn’t done the proper rezoning to comply with building more housing units.
“You just didn’t do it,” said Chalfant in the hearing to the attorneys representing the city.
The simple message that the city did not complete rezoning by the deadline to submit the housing element document on Oct. 15, 2022, is “true and granted from the court to be true,” the judge ruled.
CFH began to review LCF’s compliance status once they noticed that the city was more than a year behind in developing a state-approved housing element, and tried to communicate with them about the process, but filed a petition to the court over the matter on March 3.
“We identified a group of cities that are doing something that we think is noncompliant,” Matthew Gelfand, counsel for Californians for Homeownership, told the Outlook Valley Sun. “In the case of South Pasadena, for example, and the other cities we sued for the same crime, we identified a large number of cities that seem to be very far behind in the housing element process and weren’t making good progress to getting their housing element complete.”
After an email and a phone call, Aleshire & Wynder LLP attorney Michelle Villarreal, who represents LCF, said on July 17 that the city cannot comment on the case specifics.
“As demonstrated in this case, the city is committed to supporting the statewide effort to tackle the ongoing housing crisis,” Villarreal responded in an email. “The city has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to work with our community, stakeholders and the state to ensure that the city can fulfill its share of the state’s much-needed housing. The city stands ready to implement its identified housing programs and partner with our community and the state on this critical mission.”
The original deadline was Oct. 15, 2021, for the city to adopt its housing element but waited a year to do so, on Oct. 4, 2022. For the penalty of not adopting a housing element more than 120 days after the Oct. 15, 2021, deadline, the state of California then required the city to complete rezoning by Oct. 15, 2022, to adopt and have a substantially compliant housing element.
The city argues that they were “substantially compliant” on Oct. 4, 2022, when the city submitted their housing element, and since then, the rezoning has not been done.
“The city is currently in the process of rezoning in accordance with its housing element, and the rezoning will be completed by October 2023,” the city said in the court document before the hearing.
The plaintiffs also state that the city’s challenged housing element was not adopted until Feb. 21, more than one year after the statutory deadline of Oct. 15, 2021, and has not been certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD.
“La Cañada Flintridge’s housing element is currently out of compliance,” HCD communication specialist Alicia Murillo said. “The city remains out of compliance until it completes the statutorily required rezoning.
“As of today, [among] Southern California jurisdictions, 105 [are] in compliance, 92 [are] out of compliance,” she added.
“The reason the city is obsessed with that date is because that falls before the builder’s remedy application,” said Gelfand. “The city wants to be able to look back and essentially backdate the new housing element all the way back to that prior version.”
Since the city sees the Oct. 4, 2022, date as when they adopted their housing element; the city does only acknowledge the Feb 21 date as a time to make minor changes.
“Moreover, the city operates under a false assumption that housing element approval must come before rezoning,” the court said in the document.
Another cause of action that CFH brought to the case was the city’s lack of supported evidence for potential build sites that it listed for development.
“The city shall specify the additional development potential for each nonvacant site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of methodology used to determine the development potential,” according to the document.
The court determined the matter could not be resolved at the hearing and set a trial date. The trial was set for Aug. 10, until CFH decided on July 18 to dismiss the “sites” cause of action to expedite a decision.
“There will not be a trial, the case will now proceed to a final judgment,” said Gelfand. “We want to let this case get fully resolved and end up in a judgment and the best way to do that is to put those claims off for later if we decide that they need to be refiled. But our current expectation is not to refile those claims, just move forward on [the city’s] rezoning.”
CFH also cited the builder’s remedy situation in the case, stemming from the city denying the 600 Foothill Blvd. project, even though the city was not substantially compliant in their housing element at that time. Although the judge stated that CFH was correct in their argument that the city could not have denied the project because of its rezoning, the judge would not recognize CFH as a vested party as they are not seeking development in LCF.
“The petition also does not allege that CFH has applied to the city for a housing development project or intends to at any future date. Consequently, there is no controversy between the city and CFH about the applicability,” stated the document.
Jonathan Curtis, former LCF mayor and partner in Cedar Street Partners, along with Alexandra Hack and Garret Weyand, said that they are pleased with the court’s decision and will be considering all their options in regard to the denial of their builder’s remedy argument back in May.
The three partners were present at the hearing.
Gelfand was also pleased with the result.
“Yes, we’re pleased with the result,” he said. “It accomplishes our goals, which is establishing that these rules are real.”
Gelfand explained that once the city receives final judgment, the court will give a timeline on when it will need to complete rezoning, which can be “a very expedited basis.”
“We’re going to be going to court to try and get a final judgment issued,” said Gelfand. “We are going to be working toward that as quickly as possible.”
First published in the July 20 print issue of the Outlook Valley Sun.
