electronically filed · emily l. brough (sbn 284943) zacks, freedman & patterson, pc 235...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

u 10 ~

11 ~a Z O -st 0 -st 0 Cl) >1-1 ,-< 12 ~ I-< -st

- °' µ;i ::::, < ~ Cl) -

~ I-<" ~ 13 ~~g

14 o?3 Cl) ~ ~ ~ u ~ ,

~ 8 15 0 (/) A 0 u

µ;i I-< ~ 16 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z 17 Cl) ti) < ~ <') Cl)

UN 18 <!

N 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RYAN J. PATTERSON (SBN 277971) EMILY L. BROUGH (SBN 284943) ZACKS, FREEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 956-8100 Fax: (415) 288-9755 [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs . CALIFORNIA RENTERS LEGAL ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION FUND; SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS FEDERATION; VICTORIA FIERCE; SONJA TRAUSS

SUPERIOR COURT- STA'.fE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA- UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION

CALIFORNIA RENTERS LEGAL ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION FUND, SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS FEDERATION, VICTORIA FIERCE, and SONJA TRAUSS,

Petitioners and Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS; LOS ALTOS CITY COUNCIL; CITY OF LOS ALTOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT; and DOES 1-25,

Respondents and Defendants,

40 MAIN STREET OFFICES LLC, a limited liability company,

Real Party in Interest.

Case Number:

PETITION FOR WRITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS OR MANDATE (CCP § 1094.5 or§ 1085; GOV. CODE § 65913.4; GOV. CODE § 65589.5); COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (CCP § 1060); AND IMMEDIATE REQUEST FOR STAY

PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS AND/OR lvIANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF -1-

Electronically Filedby Superior Court of CA,County of Santa Clara,on 6/12/2019 2:02 PMReviewed By: S. UyCase #19CV350422Envelope: 3000196

19CV350422

u ~ ~o Z 0-sj-

0 -st 0 (/) ~ ,-;

~ t g µ;i ::i ;:5 H (/J

H , ... ; ~ <1 ~ 0 ~~~ 0(j (/J ~ ~~u ~ ,

~ 0 ;:;;: u 0 (/J

A 0 tl µ:j b ~ ~ 6 r:r.a

~~~ ~ ~ (<) (/J

UN ~ N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Petitioners and plaintiffs CALIFORNIA RENTERS LEGAL ADVOCACY AND

EDUCATION FUND, SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS FEDERATION,

VICTORIA FIERCE, and SONJA TRAUSS (collectively, "Petitioners"), by and through their

attorneys, Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC, file this petition for writs of administrative

·mandamus and/or mandate and complaint for declaratory relief against respondents and

defendants CITY OF LOS ALTOS, LOS ALTOS CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF LOS ALTOS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1-25 (collectively,

"Respondents"), to set aside and void Respondents' decision denying ministerial permit

applications nos. 18-D-07 and 18-UP-10 ( collectively, "Application") for the 40 Main Street

Project ("Project"), located at 40 Main Street, Los Altos, CA ("Property"), and to compel

Respondents to approve the Application and Project. In addition to the aforesaid writs of

mandate/mandamus and declaratory relief, Petitioners also seek issuance of an immediate stay.

Petitioners allege as follows:

PARTIES TO THE ACTION

1. Petitioner and Plaintiff California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund

("CaRLA") is a California nonprofit corporation in good standing in this state, and lawfully

allowed to bring and maintain this Petition and Complaint. CaRLA was formed, in pmt, to

advocate for the construction of housing throughout the state, including in Los Altos, to meet

the needs of California residents. This advocacy includes litigation under certain state laws that

limit the ability of local governments to limit housing production, including California's

Housing Accountability Act, Government Code § 65589.5 et seq. ("HAA''), Government Code

section 65913.4 ("SB 35"), and the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code section 65915,

et seq. (the "State Density Bonus Law"). CaRLA has a direct and substantial interest in

ensuring that Los Altos complies with state laws requiring that it participate in addressing the

housing needs of California residents. It acts on behalf of its members, though its actions

benefit all similarly-situated residents and intended residents. CaRLA has a substantial interest

in ensuring that Los Altos' decisions are in conformity with the requirements of law, and in

having those requirements properly executed and its public duties enforced. On April 8, 2019,

PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS AND/OR MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF -2-

u ~ ~o

Z O 'St 0 -st 0

rJ) [:l ~ i:t:: H °' µ;i5s;:l

~ti~ ~ ~ ~ o(3 (/J ::;! ~~u ~ ,

~ 8 Q Ul

0 CJ tJ µ;i f-, ~ ~6~ ~~~ ~ <') (/J

UN ~ N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CaRLA submitted written objections to the Los Altos City Council in support of the Project

sponsor's appeal of Application denial. CaRLA brings this Petition on its own behalf and on

behalf of others affected by Respondents' failure to comply with state law as alleged herein.

The Property is located within Santa Clara County and Judicial District.

2. Petitioner and Plaintiff San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation (the

"Federation") is an unincorporated association of renters whose mission includes advocating

for the construction of housing to meet the needs of California residents, including in Los

Altos, through the HAA, SB 35, and State Density Bonus Law. Its members are residents of

the State of California and cut across socioeconomic lines, including members with very low,

low, moderate, middle, and higher incomes. The Federation has a direct and substantial

interest in ensuring that Los Altos complies with state laws requiring that it participate in

addressing the housing needs of California residents. The Federation actively supports housing

development projects and opposes efforts to disapprove or reduce the density of housing

development projects. It acts on behalf of its members, though its actions benefit all similarly

situated residents and intended residents. Members of the Federation were, are, will be, and

would be eligible to apply for residency in the Project at issue in this petition. As potential

residents of the Project, members of the Federation are affected by Los Altos' actions

challenged herein. The Federation has a substantial interest in ensuring that Los Altos'

decisions are in conformity with the requirements of law, and in having those requirements

properly executed and its public duties enforced. Its members, as well as the general public,

will be adversely affected by impacts resulting from the acts described herein and are

aggrieved by the acts, decisions, and omissions of Los Altos as alleged in this petition. The

Federation is suing on its own behalf, on behalf of its members, and on behalf of others

affected by Los Altos' acts pertaining to the Project, as well as all potential applicants and

residents of the Project.

3. Petitioner and Plaintiff Victoria Fierce is a natural person and a resident of the

State of California, and a co-executive director of CaRLA. Fierce was, is, and will be "a person


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

u 10 p..

11 ~a Z O -st 0 -st 0 C/l p::i ,-< 12 p:: b -st

H °' µ;i ;::i < !:-< C/) H

~ E--<" ~ 13 p::i 0

p.. ~ ~ 14 ~ C/l ~

~~u p; •

~ 8 15 0 (/J 0 0 0

µ;i b ~ 16 ~ ~ µ, ~~z 17 C/l~ lf) < t:4 «-l C/l UN

18 < N

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development," i.e., the Project. Fierce has a

substantial interest in ensuring that Respondents' decisions are in conformity with the

requirements of law, that those requirements are properly executed, and that the public duties of

Los Altos are enforced.

4. Petitioner and Plaintiff Sonja Trauss is a natural person and a resident of the

State of California, a co-executive director of CaRLA, and the founder of the Federation.

Trauss was, is, and will be "a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the

development," i.e., the Project. Trauss has a substantial interest in ensuring that Respondents'

decisions are in conformity with the requirements of law, that those requirements are properly

executed, and that the public duties of Respondents are enforced.

5. Respondent and Defendant City of Los Altos (the "City") is a municipality of the

State of California.

6. Respondent and Defendant Los Altos City Council (the "Council") is a quasi-

judicial, policy making and supervisory body, which hears appeals and determines City

policies and service standards.

7. Respondent and Defendant City of Los Altos Community Development

Depaiiment ("CDD") is an agency integral to the City of Los Altos.

8. Real Party in Interest 40 Main Street Offices LLC is a California limited

liability company that is and was at all times mentioned herein qualified to do business in

California. Real Patty 1n Interest owns the Property and is the Project applicant.

9. Petitioners are not aware of the identities of respondent/defendants DOES 1-25,

who are responsible for the acts and omissions alleged herein and that caused damage to

Petitioners; therefore Petitioners will amend this Petition and Complaint when the true

identities of DOES 1-25 are ascertained.

10. Petitioners are informed and believe that at all times mentioned in this Petition

and Complaint, all respondent/defendants were the agents or employees of their co

Respondent/Defendant, and in doing the things alleged in this Complaint, were acting within

the course and scope of that agency and employment.


u 11; ~a

Z O 'St 0 'St 0

C/) ~ ~ p:; - C\ ~ ~ <: f-; [/) -ti b" ~

>:r.1 0 11; ~ ;:1 ~ [/) ~ ~~u p,: ,

~ 8 0 (/) A 0 0

~ b ~ ~ § µ, ll,.i ~ z C/)~ If) <: ~ (<) [/)

UN < N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BACKGROUND FACTS

11. The Property sits within a Commercial Retail Sales/Office-Administrative

District of Los Altos, which permits a full range of retail, office, mixed-use residential, and

commercial services, and is within the City's public parking plaza system. The Project

proposes a five-story mixed-use building with two levels of underground parking. The

proposed uses include a first-level office space and fifteen (15) residential rental units on levels

two though five. Two of the fifteen (15) residential rental units are proposed as below market

rate (BMR) units. A total of eighteen (18) parking spaces and storage areas are provided

between the two underground parking levels. The Project includes the removal of existing

structures, site improvements, plants, and landscaping.

12. The Project sponsor initially submitted an application for a 3-story office project

in 2010 and resubmitted it again in 2013. The City denied the 2010 application, and initially

denied the 2013 application based on a claim the application was incomplete, even after the

Project sponsor supplemented the application with the additional materials requested by the

City. After finally acknowledging that the application was "complete" in 2016, the City

refused to approve it and instead demanded additional repmis, third patty review processes,

and numerous design changes. After the Project sponsor redesigned the prior project to meet

the City's demands, the Planning Commission again rejected that project in June of 2018,

indicating that it would oppose any future attempts to build any project on the Property that

was not completely redesigned and reduced in size.

13. On November 8, 2018, after nine years of attempts to build an office on the

Property had failed, the Project sponsor redesigned the Project to provide housing to comply

with SB 35, and submitted the Application under SB 35. SB 35 provides a streamlined

ministerial approval process for development projects that provide for at least 10% BMR

residential units. Recognizing California's dire need for more affordable housing, the

Legislature enacted SB 35 to accelerate the permitting process for such housing development

projects.

14. To qualify for SB 35 approval, the proposed project must be planned for a site


u P-; ~a Zo~ o~o

C/l µ:l ,-a

~ti i:.:i :::i ;:5 t-1 (/) ~ b" ~ P-; I g ~ (/) ~ ~ >< u ~ .

~ 8 0 (/J A O 0

J;t;i b ~ ~isµ'.; ll,; ::21 C/l~ LI") ~ ~ «) (/)

UN < N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

whose general plan and zoning allow for residential use or mixed-use, and if a mixed-use

project is proposed, at least two-thirds of the development must be for residential use. SB 35

also requires that, on non-public works projects, the project applicant ce1tify that all

construction workers employed thereon shall be paid the prevailing wage. (Gov. Code

§65913.4(a)(8)(5)) The project must also comply with "objective" rather than subjective

general plan, zoning, and design review standards. Specifically, these are "standards that

involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by

reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both

the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal." (Gov. Code

§65913.4(a)(5)) As paii of the Application, the Project sponsor submitted detailed materials to

the City demonstrating that the Project is zoning compliant, general plan compliant, and fully

complies with SB 35.

15. SB 35 also provides that project applicants are entitled to utilize the State

Density Bonus Law when preparing and submitting SB 35 Projects. Among other things, the

State Density Bonus Law encourages construction of additional housing by allowing project

applicants to add additional units beyond the local jurisdiction's limits, in exchange for

building affordable or senior units. The State Density Bonus Law is specifically intended to

help make the development of such housing economically feasible. The Project sponsor here

included a request for a density bonus in the Application. Because the Project was fully

compliant with SB 35, Respondents were required to grant the density bonus under the State

Density Bonus Law.

16. The Project is also subject to and was submitted under the HAA. Under the

HAA, municipalities are prohibited from imposing any conditions that have the same effect on

the ability of the project to provide housing. Municipalities are only permitted to deny a

project that meets HAA criteria if it can make findings, based on a preponderance of the

evidence, that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety

standards. (Gov. Code §65589.5(i), G).)

17. "The Legislature's intent in enacting [the HAA] in 1982 and in expanding its

PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE A1ANDAMUS AND/OR A1ANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF -6-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

u 10 P..

11 ~a Zo'tj-Q70 Cl) i'.I1 ,.-< 12 ~ ti lil ;:J ;:5 r-1 C/l

~ r,--.° ~ 13 i'.I1 0

P.. ~ f=1 14 o?J C/l ~

~~u p:: ,

~ 8 15 0 (/)

A CJ tl lil b ~ 16 ~ 5 µ, ~~~ 17 Cl)~ If)

~ <') C/l UN

18 < N

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

prov1s1ons since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new

housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and

effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or

render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not

been fulfilled." (Gov't Code§ 65589.5(a)(2)(K).)

18. The HAA requires, inter alia:

When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supp01ied by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:

(1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

(2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1 ), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

(Gov. Code§ 65589.SG).)

19. The HAA provides that a housing development project shall be:

deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that


u Pot ~o

Z O "St 0 "St 0

Cf) l:l ~ i:x:: H G\ ~ ::J < ~ C/) H

< E-<" ~ Pot ~ g a(! C/l ~ ~~u ~ ,

~ 8 Q Ul

Ci (.'J tl ~ E-< ~ l;a 6 ~ ~~~ ~ «) C/l UN < N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the housing development project . . . is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.

(Gov't Code§ 65889.5(f)(4).)

20. Further, the HAA must be construed broadly and "cons.istent with, and in

promotion of, the statewide goal of a sufficient supply of decent housing to meet the needs of

all Californians." (Gov't Code § 65589(d).) In order to deny a housing development project,

Los Altos has the burden of either proving that the "proposed project in some manner fails to

comply with 'applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including

design review standards ... ' " or making the findings required by the HAA. (Honchariw v.

County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1081.)

21. SB 35 and the HAA impose strict statutory deadlines for municipal review. For

proposed projects of 150 residential units or fewer, SB 35 requires that the municipality decide

whether the project conflicts with any of its objective standards, along with an explanation of

that conflict, within 60 days after the submission of an application. (Gov. Code

§65913.4(b)(l).) And, if a city does not do so, "the development shall be deemed to satisfy the

objective planning standards." (Gov. Code §65913.4(b)(2).) If the project is eligible, the

municipality's review of the project must be completed and the permit issued or denied within

90 days after the submission of the application. (Gov. Code §65913.4(c)(l)(A).) That review

"shall be objective and be strictly focused on assessing compliance with criteria required for

streamlined projects, as well as any reasonable objective design standards published and

adopted by ordinance or resolution by a local jurisdiction before submission of a development

application, and shall be broadly applicable to development within the jurisdiction" and "shall

not in any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the ministerial approval" as provided for under SB

35. (Gov. Code §65913.4(c)(l).) Under the HAA, if the municipality determines that a

proposed project (with 150 units or less) is not consistent with the HAA, it "shall provide the

applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an

explanation of the reason or reasons" used to make that determination within 30 days of the

completion of the application. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A)(i).) Like under SB 35, the


u ~ ~a

Z O -st-0 -st- 0

Cf) ~ ~ ~ H 0\ µ;;i :=, < ~ C/J H

~ F-<" 8 µ1 0

~ ~ ~ o?J C/l ~ ~~u pc:: •

~ § A 8 t1 µ;;if-<~

~ 6 µ,

~~~ ~ ~ <') C/l UN <: N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

proposed project shall be deemed consistent with the HAA if the municipality does not meet

the statutory deadline. (Gov. Code § 65589.5G)(2)(B).)

22. On December 7, 2018, Respondents responded to the Application, erroneously

stating that their "review of the [P]roject indicates that it is not subject to the provisions of SB

35" (the "Determination"). In the Determination, the City made the following findings as to

why the Project allegedly did not meet SB 35: (1) The Project purportedly did not provide the

requisite percentage of BMR units under SB 35; and (2) The Project was purportedly

inconsistent with the City's objective zoning standards because it did not "provide the required

number of off-street residential and visitor parking spaces nor adequate access/egress" to the

proposed off street parking. The first finding was wrong, which the City later admitted. The

second finding was not "objective", as required under SB 35 and the HAA, nor did the City

give any further explanation for this finding. Along with its Determination, the City also sent a

separate "Notice of Incomplete Application," stating that if the Project sponsor "elect[s] to

pursue other approval/permits avenues for the project that is the subject of this notice, the

applications, fees, deposits, studies, and information contained in the attached Notice of

Incomplete Application are required to continue an evaluation of the [P]roject."

23. on January 9, 2018, the Project sponsor submitted a letter to the City

challenging the City's Determination on its face: First, because the Project legally met the

BMR requirements under SB 35; second, because the Determination failed to identify any

noncompliance with any objective standard of SB 35, and further failed to provide an

explanation or specific code section reference for any purported noncompliance. Indeed,

because the City failed to identify any such noncompliance under SB 35 and the HAA, the

Application has been deemed compliant with all objective standards under those sections.

24. On February 6, 2019, the City responded, conceding that the Project had met

the applicable requirements for BMR units under SB 35. But the City nevertheless now

required further information about the parking, prior to approval of the Project under SB 35 or

approval of the Project under the HAA, or the request for a density bonus under the State


u P.. ~a

Zo-tj-Q70 Cl) p:i M

~bi µ.1 :::i ;:5 H UJ H E-<" ~ <! p:i 0 P.. ~ f:, o(3 (/J ~ i~u ~ .

~ 8 0 (/) A 0 0

µ.1 f-< ~ ~ ~ µ, ll--t~z (/)~ l./) < ~ <'") UJ u('] < N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Density Bonus Law. The City further responded that because the Application was

"incomplete," SB 35 purportedly did not apply. This statement was contrary to the findings

provided in the City's Determination, whereby the City expressly determined that the Project

was not subject to SB 35, and only directed the Project sponsor to submit the materials listed

on the Notice of Incomplete Application if the Project sponsor "elect[ ed] to pursue other

approval/permits avenues for the project." That is, approvals/permits outside of this SB 35

Application.

25. Thereafter, on February 21, 2019, the City erroneously notified the Project

sponsor that the denial of the Application was subject to an appeal under Los Altos Municipal

Code, even though that Code specifically provides that there is no right to appeal to the

Council for ministerial acts. (Los Altos Municipal Code section 1. 12.020) The Project sponsor

filed an appeal in response that day, under protest (the "Appeal"). The Appeal hearing was

thereafter scheduled for April 9, 2019.

26. On March 15, 2019, the Project sponsor provided to Respondents a

memorandum from the California Depatiment of Housing and Community Development

("HCD"), dated March 11, 2019. In this memorandum, the HCD explained that: (1) a 60-day

determination (such as the Determination) was required to include references to the specific

objective standards with which the Project purportedly conflicts, (2) that merely raising

concerns about "adequate" access to parking, with no citation to any specific code section, was

an insufficient basis for denial and impermissibly implied a "subjective" determination which

is prohibited by SB 35, (3) when a city fails to meet its obligation to identify a specific

standard, the Project is deemed to comply with the standards, and (4) a locality cannot demand

that an SB 35 applicant submit all of the material the locality requires for discretionary permit

applications as a precondition to granting an SB 35 permit.

27. Prior to the Appeal hearing, the City published a Staff Report. In an apparent

attempt to retroactively legitimize its rejection of the Application, the Staff Report identified a

handful of new standards none of which were included in the Determination with which the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

u 10 P--t

11 ~a Zo-st o-sto C/) p:i ,-< 12 ~ ti µ;1 :::i ;:5 r"" Cl)

~ r:-dz 13 P--t ~ g

14 a(! Cl) ~ ~~u ~ ,

p:i 0 15 ~ 27i QOO µ;1 R ~ 16 ~ 25 µ, ~ ~ z 17 C/)~ V") -< 1::4 <') Cl)

UN 18 <

N 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Project allegedly conflicted. The Staff Report did not include, or describe, or indicate that it

had considered the HCD memorandum that the Project sponsor had provided to the City on

March 15.

28. Petitioners submitted written objections to the Council in support of the Appeal

on April 8, 2019.

29. A hearing was held on the Appeal on April 9, 2019, where the Council voted to

deny the Appeal for wholly separate reasons than those listed in the Determination. On April

23, 2019, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-13, denying the Appeal, and affirming the

denial of the Application.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate CCP § 1094.5 and/or § 1085; Gov. Code § 65913.4; Gov. Code § 65589.5

-Against All Respondents)

30. Petitioners incorporate here by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs

1 through 29 of this Petition and Complaint.

31. Santa Clara County Superior Court has initial jurisdiction of the matters alleged

herein pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1094.5 or 1085, which authorize Petitioners to

seek a writ of mandate/mandamus, and which authorize the Court to review and set aside

public agency decisions involving a prejudicial abuse of discretion and/or to compel

Respondents' performance of their ministerial and/or legal duties. Venue is proper pursuant

to Code of Civil Procedure§ 394(a), which provides that "[a]n action ... against a ... city and

county ... may be tried in [that] ... city and county .... "

32. Petitioners request the Court issue a writ of mandate or mandamus, setting aside

and voiding Respondents' Determination and denial of the Appeal and to instead direct

Respondents to approve the Application as required under SB 35, the HAA, and the State

Density Bonus Law. Petitioners seek an immediate stay to eajoin Respondents from denying

the Application.

33. Respondents' Determination and denial of the Appeal was a prejudicial abuse of

discretion in that Respondents did not proceed as required by law, their decision is not


u P-s ~o

Zo-st 0 -tj- 0

rJJ f::l ~ ~ H 0\

~ a ::i ~ b

0

12 P-s ~ g O<l VJ ~ i~u p; ,

~ § 0 8 tJ ~ b ~ ~ ~ µ, ~ ~ z ~ tr) -<:;

rJJ <') VJ ~N u ~ N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

supported by the findings, and/or the findings are not supported by the evidence, because: The

Project complies with SB 35, the HAA, and the State Density Bonus Law, and Respondents

failed to identify any legally sufficient grounds to deny the Application under either SB 35, the

HAA, or the State Density Bonus Law; Respondents' Determination failed to identify any such

grounds for denial of the Application within the permissible timeframes of SB 35 and the

HAA; Respondents violated SB 35 by denying the Application on incompleteness grounds;

Respondents violated SB 35 by denying the Application on bases for discretionary permit

applications and/or other reasons not specially set forth in SB 35.

34. Further, in denying the Application on the aforesaid bases, Respondents

exceeded their jurisdiction and failed to comply with their ministerial duty to approve the

Application under SB 35 and act in accordance with the HAA.

35. Because Respondents' findings are not supported by the evidence and their

decision is contrary to well established law; the standard of review is substantial evidence

and/or preponderance of the evidence, and Respondents have not met their burden.

36. Petitioners exhausted the available administrative remedies required to be

pursued by them by submitting written comments to the Council during its consideration of the

Determination during the Appeal on April 8, 2019.

37. Petitioners have a beneficial interest in ensuring the Application is granted, so

that Petitioners' and its members' statutory rights are not infringed upon. Petitioners have a

direct and substantial interest in ensuring that Los Altos complies with state laws requiring that

it participate in addressing the housing needs of California residents, and in ensuring that Los

Altos' decisions are in conformity with the requirements of law, and in having those

requirements properly executed and its public duties enforced. Petitioners have a clear,

present, and legal right to Respondents' performance of its legal duties as described herein, and

Respondents have failed and refused to perform their duties and/or abused its discretion in

doing so. Petitioners do not have a plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of

law, and therefore writ relief is necessary to compel Respondents to correct their actions,

which are unlawful and in excess of their authority.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

u 10 ~

11 ~a Z O -st 0 -tj- 0 Cl) P'l ,-< 12 i:x:: f---, -tj-

H °' µ;l::::, < ~ ~" ~ 13 ~~g

14 ~ (/J :;j ~~u ~ ,

~ 8 15 0 (/)

A 0 tl µ;l f---, ~ 16 gj ~ µ:. IJ;. ~ z 17 U) L{) < ~ <'") (/J

UN 18 <:!

N 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

38. Because Respondents' decision to deny the Application was illegal, Petitioners

are entitled to attorneys' fees under CCP § 1021.5, Govt. Code§ 800(a), and/or 65589.5.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief- Code Civ. Proc.§ 1060-Against All Respondents)

39. Petitioners incorporate here by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs

1 through 3 8 of this Petition and Complaint.

40. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Petitioners and

Respondents concerning the obligations and duties of Respondents under California statutory

law. As set forth herein, Petitioner contends that SB 35, the HAA, and the State Density Bonus

Law require Respondents to approve the Application. Petitioners are informed and believe,

and on that basis allege, that Respondents contend in all respects to the contrary. A judicial

determination and declaration as to the applicability of SB 35, the HAA, and the State Density

Bonus Law and of the resulting legal obligations of Respondents is therefore necessary and

appropriate.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners demand judgment against Respondents for the following:

1. For alternative and/or peremptory writs of mandamus or mandate, or other

appropriate relief, including a declaration or injunction, setting aside and voiding Respondents'

Decision to deny the Application and compelling Respondents to grant the Application for all

of the reasons alleged above;

2. For a declaratory judgment pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1060, declaring that

SB 35, the HAA, or both, require the City to issue the streamlined ministerial permit for which

Petitioner applied, and a finding that a density bonus is applicable under the State Density

Bonus Law;

3. For a stay enjoining Respondents from denying the Application;

4. For costs of suit herein;

5. For reasonable attorneys' fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5,

Government Code section 800 and/or 65589.5;


u ~ ~o Zov ovo CJ) ~ ~ ~ >--< G\

~ 5l ;:i

~ c-" ~ ~ ~g ~ (/J :;! ~ ~u ~ ,

~ § 0 o u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ <') (/J

UN -< N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6. For any other relief that the Comt deems just and proper.

Dated: June 12, 2019 ZACKS, FREEDMAN & PATTERSON, P.C.

;z~ By: Ryan J. Patterson

Emily L. Brough Attorneys for Petitioners

PETITION FOR ~VRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS AND/OR MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF -14-

a resident of .the :State of California. I am ihe co-

· .. ·.•··{ti~t !~:si~:i:r;i~:r~~:::tt~q· ·· know its cohtents .. The matters stated in

~•ro .... a·tyta.nq~te are:fiue ofmy ownkn9wieqgef~otri'.havihg . ofthe Projeci . . . . . . .. . . . < . . • .

the la\1/S 60heStateo'f' Cilifornia :thafthe··

. E*ecute:cf bn~J J; n,t _ 'tL. , .···2019·-• , ...

>· ... · .. ;~~ Victoria Fierce ·. > .

' .·. 'i

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

u 10 P-i

11 z~o '<I-0 .~ 0

~§i 12

~ i~ 13

~ a ~ Vl 14

;is 15 I o o §j 16 ~ ~ ~ · 17 ii 1 Ul u ('

18 ~.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFICATION

I, Sonja Trauss, declare as follows:

1. I am a natlU'al pe1·son and a resident of the State of California. I am the foundet

of the San Francisco Bay Area Renter~·Federation. I am authorized to verify this Petition for

Writs of Administrative Mandamus 01· Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief on

behalf of this entity.

2. I have read the foregoing Petition for Writs of Administrntive Mandamus and·

Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief and know its contents. The matters stated in

the Petition for Wl'its of Administrative Mandamus and Mandate and Complaint for

Declaratory Reli~f are trne of my own knowledge from having reviewed the administrative

history of the Project.

I declare under penalty of pe1jury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing ·is tl'Ue and corl'ect.

Executed on f v!'.'€.- I 2--

_ b z__ SonJa Trauss ·

, 2019

PErJ1'JON FOR WRIT OF ADMJNISTRATIVE MANDAMUS AND/OR MANDATE AND COMPLAIN1'FOR DECLAJIATORI' RELIEF -16-

electronically filed · emily l. brough (sbn 284943) zacks, freedman & patterson, pc 235...

Documents