This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Property
Land Use
Writ of Mandate

40 Main Street Offices LLC v. City of Los Altos, et al.

Published: Jun. 19, 2020 | Result Date: Apr. 27, 2020 | Filing Date: Jun. 13, 2019 |

Case number: 19CV349845 Bench Decision –  Petition Granted

Judge

Helen E. Williams

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel R. Golub
(Holland & Knight LLP)

Genna R. Yarkin
(Holland & Knight LLP)

Ryan J. Patterson
(Zacks, Freedman & Patterson PC)

Emily L. Brough
(Zacks, Freedman & Patterson PC)


Defendant

Arthur J. Friedman
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)


Facts

Petitioner 40 Main Street Offices, LLC tried to develop a mixed-use building in downtown Los Altos for many years, submitting multiple proposals all subject to discretionary review by respondents the City of Los Altos, the City of Los Altos City Council, and the City of Los Altos Community Development Department. After respondents rejected petitioners' latest proposal submitted under new, streamlined procedures established by Senate Bill 35, remedial legislation enacted to promote the construction of housing in California, petitioner filed an action for relief in mandate and for declaratory relief. Petitioner's action was consolidated with another action filed against respondents by the California Renters Legal and Education Fund, a housing advocacy group.

Contentions

PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS: Petitioner contended the City unlawfully rejected its housing and mixed-use development proposal in violation of Senate Bill 35. Petitioner further alleged respondents violated the Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS: Respondent denied the allegations.

Result

The court granted the petition for writ of mandate.

Other Information

Consolidated with: 19CV350422


#134888

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390