California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v. City of San Mateo

Reverses Judge On Housing Accountability Act

1st District Court Of Appeal

Justice Alison M. Tucher

Appellants' Attorneys: Holland & Knight Llp, Jennifer L. Hernandez, Daniel R. Golub, Emily M. Lieban

Appellee's Attorneys: Goldfarb & Lipman Llp, Dolores Bastian Dalton, Barbara E. Kautz, James T. Diamond Jr., Rye P. Murphy

Jennifer L. Hernandez

The Housing Accountability Act of California was written to limit the ability of city and county governments to restrict the development of new housing.

Holland & Knight LLP partners Daniel R. Golub and Jennifer L. Hernandez used the state law to prove the San Mateo City Council could not reject a large housing project in a single-family neighborhood that its staff recommended.

A 1st District Court of Appeal panel, in a September decision written by Justice Alison M. Tucher, reversed a ruling by San Mateo County Superior Court Judge George A. Miram, who concluded the state law was "unenforceable."

Lawyers representing San Mateo argued the 1982 law was unconstitutional because it violated a charter city's authority over housing and planning decisions.

"The Housing Accountability Act has been largely ignored, and this is the reason it was so difficult to persuade a court that the city was unlawfully disapproving housing," explained Golub, who represented the plaintiff on appeal.

The litigation began when business owner Tony Gundogdu, submitted in 2015 a proposal to build a four-story, 10-unit multifamily residential building in San Mateo. It covered an entire block in a neighborhood of single-family houses on a site that was zoned for multifamily dwellings.

The city's planning commission staff OK'd the proposal with minor modifications and recommended it be approved.

City residents opposed the project at a hearing. The commission voted to reject it, concluding the project was not in substantial compliance with the limitations on building scale. The city council subsequently affirmed the commission decision.

The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, an advocacy group that files complaints to ensure cities comply with their own zoning ordinances and the Housing Accountability Act, sought a writ of mandate ordering the council to reverse its decision.

After Miram sided with the city, Golub and Hernandez appealed his decision to the 1st District.

The state attorney general's office intervened in the case to defend the law.

"Our best strategy was to put before the Court of Appeal the basic facts regarding the housing crisis and the ample support that the Legislature had for its decision to impose some limitations on the local government's ability to disapprove housing," Golub said.

"A critical part of this was to point out that a law like this is not supposed to be interpreted in a way that defers to local governments the decision to disapprove housing," he said.

"A law like this is intended to limit local governments from disapproving housing they have planned for," Golub added. "It has to be interpreted in a way that furthers the purpose of wanting to see more housing built."

Tucher ordered the planning commission to vacate its decision denying the project application. California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v. City of San Mateo, A159320, (Cal. App. 1st Dist., filed Jan. 10, 2020).

The city then settled, agreeing not to appeal and to pay the appellants $450,000 in attorney fees and costs.

"The consequences of this decision are that cities are told that if they planned for housing, then they would face significant consequences if they said no to building those houses," Golub said.

"The California Court of Appeal rejected three different constitutional arguments that some governments used to argue that these laws can't be enforced, and I think they gave a very definitive rejection affirming that when the Legislature passes a housing law, it's very likely to be found constitutional," he concluded.

- Federico Lo Giudice

Daniel R. Golub

Emily M. Lieban