In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for California, a judge in Los Angeles County declared this week that La Cañada Flintridge, a wealthy city in L.A. County, missed a crucial deadline to achieve state compliance on its housing element. This ruling confirms that the city is eligible for builder’s remedy projects, intensifying an ongoing dispute over this development provision.
The ruling holds particular importance due to its potential impact on other builder’s remedy battles across the state. Over the past few months, developers have sought to utilize this provision to construct projects that do not adhere to local zoning regulations. In response, La Cañada Flintridge and other cities resistant to development have fiercely fought back, often attempting to bypass state housing regulations. They have argued for the ability to “self-certify” their housing elements, disregarding the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s assessment of compliance. The court’s ruling undermines these arguments and offers the most significant legal support for builder’s remedy since the controversial provision emerged last fall as a major force in California housing development, according to a report in The Real Deal.
Jennifer Branchini, president of the California Association of Realtors, hailed the decision as a major victory for housing, emphasizing that compliance with state housing laws is not optional. The lawsuit was filed by Californians for Homeownership, a nonprofit associated with the state realtor group that frequently initiates pro-housing lawsuits against cities.
Matt Gelfand, an attorney representing the nonprofit, expressed satisfaction with the outcome, considering it a substantial win. La Cañada Flintridge officials did not provide an immediate response to the ruling. However, the judge’s decision had nuances. Although he denied the city’s request to dismiss the case, he also rejected an immediate ruling sought by Californians for Homeownership to discredit the city’s housing element. This matter will be addressed in a trial expected to occur later in the summer.
The judge did not issue a clear declaration that builder’s remedy applies to the city, as he determined that Californians for Homeownership lacked legal standing without a pending project. However, he indicated that a developer with a pending project would likely receive such a declaration. Nonetheless, the judge ruled in favor of Californians for Homeownership on another claim, stating that La Cañada Flintridge’s housing element did not meet the substantial compliance standard required for eligibility for builder’s remedy and other penalties. This ruling upholds the state’s authority, rejects the city’s self-certification argument, and strongly suggests that builder’s remedy does indeed apply. A final court judgment will impose penalties on the city, including the requirement for timely rezoning.
Gelfand expressed that the primary objective was to enable builder’s remedy to proceed in the city until it fulfills its obligations. He believes this goal has been accomplished with this ruling. This week’s ruling arrives in the midst of an extended conflict in the town over builder’s remedy, as well as a protracted dispute over a specific property. The development team associated with the property intends to utilize the penalty to construct a five-story mixed-use project comprising 80 residential units, approximately 8,000 square feet of office space, and a 12-room hotel. As tensions have escalated, state officials have issued warnings to the city, hinting at potential legal action.
Following the court ruling, Alexandra Hack, one of the partners involved in the project, expressed her elation and mentioned that her team was preparing for its own potential legal action against the city. She emphasized the certainty brought by the court’s decision, highlighting that self-certification does not ensure substantial compliance and is an inadequate means of achieving a compliant housing element.
