Preview
1 ADRIAN GUERRA – State Bar No. 217540
City Attorney, City of La Cañada Flintridge
2 aguerra@awattorneys.com
MICHELLE LEANN VILLARREAL – State Bar No. 239263
3 mvillarreal@awattorneys.com
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
4 1 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614
5 Telephone: 949-223-1170
Facsimile: 949-223-1180
6
PETER C. SHERIDAN - State Bar No. 137267
7 psheridan@glaserweil.com
CHRISTOPHER L. DACUS - State Bar No. 238000
8 cdacus@glaserweil.com
GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD
9 JORDAN & SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
10 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-3000
11 Facsimile: (310) 556-2920
12 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
City of La Cañada Flintridge [Exempt From Filing Fee
Government Code § 6103]
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
15
CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND, a Case No.: 23STCP02614
16 California nonprofit public benefit corporation, Related Case No.: 23STCP02575
17 Petitioner and Plaintiff, Honorable Mitchell L. Beckloff
Department: 86
18 v.
DECLARATION OF PETER SHERIDAN
19 CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT CITY
OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE’S
20 Respondent and Defendant, OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S
NOTICE OF LODGING
21 600 FOOTHILL OWNER, LP, a limited
partnership, [File Concurrently with Objection; [Proposed]
22 Alternate Form of Judgment; and [Proposed]
Real Party in Interest, Alternate Form of Peremptory Writ]
23
24 Action Filed: July 25, 2023
Trial Date: March 01, 2024
25 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
EX REL. ROB BONTA; CALIFORNIA
26 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
27
Petitioners-Intervenors.
28
DECLARATION OF PETER SHERIDAN
2396713
1 DECLARATION OF PETER C. SHERIDAN
2 I, PETER SHERIDAN, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of
4 California, among other Courts, and am a Partner in the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Howard
5 Jordan & Shapiro LLP, attorneys of record herein for Respondent and Defendant City of La Canada
6 Flintridge (the “City”). I make this declaration in support of the City’s Opposition to CHDF’s
7 Objection to Petitioner’s Notice of Lodging. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein,
8 and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and would competently do so under oath.
9 2. On March 8, 2024, after receiving no [Proposed] Judgment in the above captioned
10 matter, I sent an initial draft to counsel for Petitioner California Housing Defense Fund (“CHDF”)
11 and Petitioners-Intervenors. That draft and accompanying email is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
12 3. On March 21, 2024, I did hear back from CHDF via email, with their own version of
13 a [Proposed] Judgment and [Proposed] Writ of Mandate, and without any markup by them of our
14 proposed judgment. A true and correct copy of that email together with its attachments is attached
15 hereto as Exhibit B.
16 4. On March 25, 2024, I sent redlined versions of the [Proposed] Judgment and
17
[Proposed] Writ documents to counsel for CHDF and Petitioners-Intervenors together with an email
18
stating the basis for the City’s objections and proposed additions. A true and correct copy of that
email and its attachments is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
19
5. On April 2, 2024, my colleague and I met and conferred via zoom with Mr. Gourse
20
and additional counsel for CHDF and Petitioner-Intervenors. While Mr. Gourse stated that the
21
procedures pursuant to law (including CEQA and state law generally) were “substantially
22
inefficient” for resolving potential further disputes that may arise regarding the project at issue in
23
the Court’s March 4 Order, and that the procedure he proposed (that I referred during that call as
24
“made-up” to principally because I stated and believe the judgment and writ should track the
25
Court’s Order, not invent new duties or obligations not expressed in that Order) was “a better
26
procedure”, the Parties were not able to reach an agreement on this point or the disputed language in
27
the [Proposed] Judgment and [Proposed] Writ of Mandate.
28
2
DECLARATION OF PETER SHERIDAN
2396713
1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
2 is true and correct, and that this declaration is executed on April 9, 2024 in Los Angeles, California.
3
4
PETER C. SHERIDAN
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
DECLARATION OF PETER SHERIDAN
2396713
EXHIBIT A
From: Peter C. Sheridan
To: Alex Gourse; Nina Lincoff
Cc: Lisa Ells; Sherry Zhu; Leaderman, Ryan M (LAX - X52405); Ashe, Kevin J (NPB - X56972); Christopher Dacus; Sterling,
William E (SFO - X72024); Dylan Casey; Christina Bull Arndt; Nick Eckenwiler; aguerra@awattorneys.com;
mvillarreal@awattorneys.com; egreen@awattorneys.com
Subject: RE: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614
Date: Friday, March 8, 2024 2:49:17 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
2024.03.08 DRAFT Proposed Judgement.docx
Alex and Nina - -here is our prelim draft - -this will need (and I reserve the right to make
changes accordingly) City Attorney and City Council review and approval; however, I did
want to get this to you when I said I would have it to you.
Have a pleasant weekend.
pete.
Peter C. Sheridan
PARTNER AND CHAIR OF THE CONSTRUCTION
PRACTICE
Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP psheridan@glaserweil.com
10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor T 310.282.6243 F 310.573.9044
Los Angeles, CA 90067
glaserweil.com
This message and any attached documents may contain information from the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan &
Shapiro LLP that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or
use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
then delete this message.
From: Alex Gourse
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:26 PM
To: Peter C. Sheridan ; Nina Lincoff
Cc: Lisa Ells ; Sherry Zhu ; Leaderman, Ryan M (LAX - X52405)
; Ashe, Kevin J (NPB - X56972) ; Christopher Dacus
; Sterling, William E (SFO - X72024) ; Dylan Casey
; Christina Bull Arndt ; Nick Eckenwiler ;
aguerra@awattorneys.com; mvillarreal@awattorneys.com; egreen@awattorneys.com
Subject: RE: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614 [IMAN-
DMS.FID75612]
Thanks Peter. We are of course happy to consider your proposed text, though if the parties cannot reach
an agreement we intend to submit our own proposed judgment in accordance with the Court’s March 4
Minute Order, which states: “Counsel for Petitioner is to prepare a proposed judgment, serve on the
opposing parties for approval as to form, wait ten days after service for any objections, meet and confer if
there are objections, and then lodge (do not efile) the proposed judgment directly in Department 86 and
file (do not lodge) a declaration stating the existence or non-existence of any unresolved objections (LASC
Local Rule 3.231(n)).”
Alex
From: Peter C. Sheridan
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:10 PM
To: Nina Lincoff ; Alex Gourse
Cc: Lisa Ells ; Sherry Zhu ; Leaderman, Ryan M (LAX - X52405)
; Ashe, Kevin J (NPB - X56972) ; Christopher Dacus
; Sterling, William E (SFO - X72024) ; Dylan Casey
; Christina Bull Arndt ; Nick Eckenwiler ;
aguerra@awattorneys.com; mvillarreal@awattorneys.com; egreen@awattorneys.com
Subject: RE: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614
[EXTERNAL MESSAGE NOTICE]
Ms. Lincoff and Mr. Gourse:
I hope to have to you a draft judgment/writ for your review in the next day or so, and we
can then hopefully agree on language, obviating further motion practice (reserving of
course all our substantive and other arguments as to the underlying Order).
I believe it is a somewhat different set of circumstances for the 600 Foothill
judgment/writ, and I spoke briefly and preliminarily to Ryan this morning on that subject.
Best,
Pete.
Peter C. Sheridan
PARTNER AND CHAIR OF THE CONSTRUCTION
PRACTICE
Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP psheridan@glaserweil.com
10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor T 310.282.6243 F 310.573.9044
Los Angeles, CA 90067
glaserweil.com
This message and any attached documents may contain information from the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan &
Shapiro LLP that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or
use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
then delete this message.
From: Sherry Zhu
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 4:50 PM
To: aguerra@awattorneys.com; mvillarreal@awattorneys.com; egreen@awattorneys.com; Peter C.
Sheridan ; Christopher Dacus ; Leaderman, Ryan M
(LAX - X52405) ; Ashe, Kevin J (NPB - X56972) ;
Sterling, William E (SFO - X72024) ; Nina Lincoff ;
Christina Bull Arndt
Cc: Lisa Ells ; Alex Gourse ; Dylan Casey ; Nick
Eckenwiler
Subject: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614 [IMAN-
DMS.FID75612]
Re: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614
Dear Counsel:
The below-listed document, which is e-served on the parties as required by California Rules of Court, Rule
2.251 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6(b), is being efiled with the Court today:
· NOTICE OF RULING ON PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5)
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Sherry Zhu
Sherry Zhu
(she/they)
Paralegal Clerk
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 433-6830 ext. 113
szhu@rbgg.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential and protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you
have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at szhu@rbgg.com.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a
leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security
awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small
organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward
building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
15 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND, a Case No.: 23STCP02614
California nonprofit public benefit corporation, Related Case No.: 23STCP02575
16
Petitioner and Plaintiff, Honorable Mitchell L. Beckloff
17 Department: 86
v.
18 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE,
19
Respondent and Defendant,
20 Action Filed: July 27, 2023
600 FOOTHILL OWNER, LP, a limited Trial Date: March 01, 2024
21 partnership,
22 Real Party in Interest.
23
24
25
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
EX REL. ROB BONTA; CALIFORNIA
26
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
27
Petitioners-Intervenors.
28
1
[PROPOSED] JUDGEMENT
2384454
1 On March 1, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the (i) the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
2 and Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed on July 27, 2023, by Petitioner California Housing Defense
3 Fund (“CHDF”) against the City of La Cañada Flintridge (“City”) and (ii) the Petition for Writ of
4 Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed on December 20, 2023, by Petitioners in
5 Intervention the State of California, Ex. Rel. Rob Bonta and the California Department of Housing
6 and Community Development (“Intervenors”) against the City.
7 The separate petition of 600 Foothill Owner, L.P. (“600 Foothill”), was heard at the same time.
8 After considering the parties’ papers and oral argument, the Court issued the attached Final
9 “Order on Petitions for Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief” dated March 4, 2024
10 (attached hereto as Exhibit A), which states in pertinent part that:
11 (i) the Court “will enter judgment on the first cause of action in favor of CHDF and
12 Intervenors on the first cause of action,”
13 (ii) CHDF’s second cause of action for declaratory relief and Intervenors’ second cause of
14 action for declaratory relief “are DENIED,”
15 (iii) the Court will grant in part the first cause of action of CHDF and first cause of action
16 of Intervenors “to enforce the Housing Accountability Act” based on the Court’s
17 finding that the City Council “prejudicially abused its discretion when it found in its
18 May 1, 2023 Decision that the Builder’s Remedy does not apply to the Project” and
19 the Court will deny those causes of action “in all other respects,” and
20 (iv) the Court will grant a writ directing the City “to set aside the City Council’s decision,
21 dated May 1, 2023, finding 600 Foothill’s application does not qualify as a Builder’s
22 Remedy and to process the application in accordance with the HAA and state law.”
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
[PROPOSED] JUDGEMENT
2384454
1 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
2 THAT:
3 1. A writ of mandate shall issue directing the City to set aside the City Council’s decision,
4 dated May 1, 2023, and to process 600 Foothill’s application in accordance with the HAA and state
5 law.
6 2. Costs are awarded to CHDF in the amount of _____________.
7 3. Costs are awarded to Intervenors in the amount of ___________.
8
9 DATED:____________
10 By:
Hon. Mitchell Beckloff
11 Judge of the Superior Court
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
[PROPOSED] JUDGEMENT
2384454
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the age of 18
3 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th
Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067.
4
On March 7, 2024, I served the foregoing document(s) described as [PROPOSED]
5 JUDGEMENT on the interested parties to this action by:
SEE ATTACHED LIST
6
(BY E-MAIL SERVICE) I caused such document to be delivered electronically via e-mail
7 to the e-mail address of the addressee(s) set forth in the attached service list.
8 (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the above is true and correct.
9
Executed on March 7, 2024 at Los Angeles, California.
10
11
Jenna Farruggia
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
[PROPOSED] JUDGEMENT
2384454
1 SERVICE LIST
2 Dylan Casey, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner CALIFORNIA
Nicholas Eckenwiler, Esq. HOUSING DEFENSE FUND
3
CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND
4 360 Grand Avenue, #323
Oakland, CA 94160
5 Email: dylan@calhdf.org
Email:nick@calhdf.org
6
Ryan M. Leaderman, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner 600 FOOTHILL
7 Kevin J. Ashe, Esq. OWNER, LP
William E. Sterling, Esq.
8 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor
9
Los Angeles, California 90071
10 Telephone: 213.896.2405
Email: ryan.leaderman@hklaw.com
11 Email: kevin.ashe@hklaw.com
Email: william.sterling@hklaw.com
12
ADRIAN R. GUERRA, Esq. Attorney for Respondent CITY OF LA
13 MICHELLE LEANN, Esq. CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
14 1 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614
15 Telephone: 949-223-1170
Facsimile: 949-223-1180
16 Email: aguerra@awattorneys.com
Email: mvillarreal@awattorneys.com
17
Lisa Ells, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner CALIFORNIA
18
Alexander Gourse, Esq. HOUSING DEFENSE FUND
ROSEN BEIN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
19
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
20
Phone: (415) 433-6830
Fax: (415) 433-7104
21
Email: lells@rbgg.com
Email: agourse@rbgg.com
22 Rob Bonta, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner-Intervenors PEOPLE
Christina Bull Arndt, Esq. OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL.
23 David Pai, Esq. ROB BONTA; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
Nina Lincoff, Esq. OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
24 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DEVELOPMENT
CALIFORNIA
25 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
P.O. Box 70550
26 Oakland, CA 94612-0550
Email: Nina.Lincoff@doj.ca.gov
27 Email: Christina.Arndt@doj.ca.gov
28
5
[PROPOSED] JUDGEMENT
2384454
EXHIBIT B
From: Alex Gourse
To: Peter C. Sheridan; Christopher Dacus; Michelle Villarreal; Erika D. Green; aguerra@awattorneys.com
Cc: Lisa Ells; Dylan Casey; Nick Eckenwiler; Nina Lincoff; Christina Bull Arndt; DeGood, Alexander M.
Subject: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Canada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614: Proposed Judgment
and Proposed Writ [IMAN-DMS.FID75612]
Date: Thursday, March 21, 2024 12:10:00 PM
Attachments: [Proposed] Judgment, 3-21-24, 1750-6(4457361.3).docx
[Proposed] Writ of Mandate, 3-21-24, 1750-6(4457367.1).docx
Counsel,
Pursuant to the Court’s March 4, 2024 Minute Order in the above-captioned matter, as well as Local
Rule 3.231(n), Petitioner has prepared the attached [Proposed] Judgment and [Proposed]
Peremptory Writ of Administrative Mandate. Please let us know of any objections no later than
Monday, April 1, 2024.
Alexander Gourse
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 433-6830 (telephone)
(415) 433-7104 (fax)
agourse@rbgg.com
The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential and protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender
at agourse@rbgg.com.
1 LISA ELLS – 243657
ALEXANDER GOURSE – 321631
2 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
4 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
Email: lells@rbgg.com
5 agourse@rbgg.com
6 DYLAN CASEY – 325222
NICHOLAS ECKENWILER – 348744
7 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND
360 Grand Ave #323
8 Oakland, California 94610
Telephone: (443) 223-8231
9 Email: dylan@calhdf.org
nick@calhdf.org
10
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
14 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE Case No. 23STCP02614
FUND, a California nonprofit public Related Case No. 23STCP02575
15 benefit corporation,
16 Petitioner and Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
17 v.
Judge: Hon. Mitchell L. Beckloff
18 CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, Dept: 86
Trial Date: March 1, 2024
19 Respondent and Defendant,
Action Filed: July 25, 2023
20
600 FOOTHILL OWNER, LP, a limited
21 partnership,
22 Real Party in Interest
23 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, EX REL. ROB BONTA;
24 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
25 DEVELOPMENT,
26 Petitioners-Intervenors.
27
28
[4457361.2] 1
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1 On March 1, 2024, the Court held a hearing on (i) the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and
2 Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed on July 25, 2023, by Petitioner California Housing Defense Fund
3 against the City of La Cañada Flintridge (“City”) and (ii) the Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint
4 for Declaratory Relief filed on December 20, 2023, by Petitioners-Intervenors People of the State of
5 California, Ex Rel. Rob Bonta, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development
6 (“Petitions”). After considering the parties’ papers and oral argument, the Court issued an “Order on
7 Petitions for Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief,” dated March 4, 2024 and attached
8 hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated into this Judgment in full.
9 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
10 1. Judgment is entered in favor of Petitioner and Petitioners-Intervenors.
11 2. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), a peremptory
12 writ of administrative mandate shall issue directing Respondent to take the following actions
13 within 60 days of service of the Writ, except as provided in paragraph (3):
14 a. Set aside the May 1, 2023 decision finding that Real Party in Interest 600 Foothill
15 LP’s application does not qualify for the builder’s remedy;
16 b. Process Real Party in Interest 600 Foothill LP’s application in a manner that
17 complies with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5, et seq.) and
18 state law, including but not limited to making any and all findings required to
19 support Respondent’s final approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of the
20 application; and
21 c. File with the Court and serve on the parties a Return describing the steps
22 Respondent has taken to comply with the Writ.
23 3. If Respondent contends that full compliance with paragraph (2) is not possible within 60
24 days of service of the Writ because further environmental review is required by the
25 California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21000, et seq.), Respondent
26 shall file with the Court and serve on the parties, not later than 45 days after service of the
27 Writ, a Statement identifying the additional review believed to be required and the
28 applicable deadline(s) for completing such review under Title 14, Article 8 of the California
[4457361.2] 2
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1 Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15100, et seq.). Any party may file
2 objections to this Statement within 14 days of service.
3 a. If no party objects to the Statement, Respondent shall complete the actions
4 identified in paragraph (2) on or before the latest deadline identified in the
5 Statement.
6 b. If any party objects to the Statement, the Court shall calendar a hearing on the
7 matter and issue further orders as appropriate.
8 4. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), the Court retains
9 jurisdiction over this matter to ensure that its judgment is carried out.
10 5. Costs and attorney fees shall be determined upon any timely-filed memorandum and/or
11 motion.
12
13
14 DATED: ______________, 2024 ___________________________________________
Honorable Mitchell L. Beckloff
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[4457361.2] 3
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1 LISA ELLS – 243657
ALEXANDER GOURSE – 321631
2 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
4 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
Email: lells@rbgg.com
5 agourse@rbgg.com
6 DYLAN CASEY – 325222
NICHOLAS ECKENWILER – 348744
7 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND
360 Grand Ave #323
8 Oakland, California 94610
Telephone: (443) 223-8231
9 Email: dylan@calhdf.org
nick@calhdf.org
10
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
14 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE Case No. 23STCP02614
FUND, a California nonprofit public Related Case No. 23STCP02575
15 benefit corporation,
16 Petitioner and Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT
OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE
17 v.
18 CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, Judge: Hon. Mitchell L. Beckloff
Dept: 86
19 Respondent and Defendant, Trial Date: March 1, 2024
20 Action Filed: July 25, 2023
600 FOOTHILL OWNER, LP, a limited
21 partnership,
22 Real Party in Interest
23 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, EX REL. ROB BONTA;
24 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
25 DEVELOPMENT,
26 Petitioners-Intervenors.
27
28
[4457367.1] 1
[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE
1 TO RESPONDENT CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE:
2 WHEREAS Judgment has been entered in this matter in favor of Petitioner California
3 Housing Defense Fund and Petitioners-Intervenors People of the State of California, Ex Rel.
4 Rob Bonta, and California Department of Housing and Community Development, ordering
5 that a Writ of Administrative Mandate issue from this Court,
6 1. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, pursuant to Government Code section
7 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), to take the following actions within 60 days of
8 service of this Writ, except as provided in paragraph (2):
9 a. Set aside the May 1, 2023 decision finding that Real Party in Interest 600
10 Foothill LP’s application does not qualify for the builder’s remedy;
11 b. Process Real Party in Interest 600 Foothill LP’s application in a manner that
12 complies with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5, et seq.)
13 and state law, including but not limited to making any and all findings required
14 to support Respondent’s final approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of
15 the application; and
16 c. File with the Court and serve on the parties a Return describing the steps You
17 have taken to comply with the Writ.
18 2. If You contend that full compliance with paragraph (1) is not possible within 60 days of
19 service of the Writ because further environmental review is required by the California
20 Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21000, et seq.), YOU ARE
21 COMMANDED to file with the Court and serve on the parties, not later than 45 days
22 after service of the Writ, a Statement identifying the additional review believed to be
23 required and the applicable deadline(s) for completing such review under Title 14,
24 Article 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15100, et
25 seq.). Any party may file objections to this Statement within fourteen days of service.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
[4457367.1] 2
[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE
1 a. If no party objects to the Statement, YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to
2 complete the actions identified in paragraph (1) on or before the latest deadline
3 identified in the Statement.
4 b. If any party objects to the Statement, the Court shall calendar a hearing on the
5 matter and issue further orders as appropriate.
6
7 LET THE FOREGOING WRIT ISSUE.
8
9
DATED: __________________________
10
11
12
13
[SEAL] CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[4457367.1] 3
[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE
EXHIBIT C
From: Peter C. Sheridan
To: Alex Gourse; Nina Lincoff
Cc: Lisa Ells; Dylan Casey; Nick Eckenwiler; Erika D. Green; Christina Bull Arndt; DeGood, Alexander M.;
aguerra@awattorneys.com; Christopher Dacus; Michelle Villarreal; John Fox (jfox@awattorneys.com)
Subject: RE: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Canada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614: Proposed Judgment and
Proposed Writ
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 10:08:31 AM
Attachments: CHDF.HCD.Proposed Writ of Mandate 3-21-24.CITY REDLINE.2024.3.25.docx
CHDF.HCD.Proposed Judgment 3-21-24.WITH.CITY.REDLINES.2024.3.25.docx
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Mr. Gourse and Ms. Lincoff:
Attached hereto are the City’s redlines to the proposed judgment and writ you sent over
on March 21. As you might have seen from our proposed judgment sent over on March 8,
which your draft plainly ignores, we believe that the judgment must make clear what was
and was not granted and the disposition of the causes of action in your respective initial
petitions. Our March 8 proposed judgment did that; your March 21 proposed judgment
does not but should.
Also, we have deleted portions of the proposed judgment and writ that find no basis in
the Court’s March 4 Order.
If you wish to have a discussion regarding our objections, as required by LR 3.231(n),
please let me know a convenient time.
If you choose to ignore the obligation to meet and confer and want to proceed directly to
court under LASC LR 3.231(n) please let me know and I will supply our formal objections
and redlines for inclusion in any submission to the Court.
Pete.
Peter C. Sheridan
PARTNER AND CHAIR OF THE CONSTRUCTION
PRACTICE
Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP psheridan@glaserweil.com
10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor T 310.282.6243 F 310.573.9044
Los Angeles, CA 90067
glaserweil.com
This message and any attached documents may contain information from the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan &
Shapiro LLP that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or
use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
then delete this message.
From: Alex Gourse
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 12:09 PM
To: Peter C. Sheridan ; Christopher Dacus ; Michelle
Villarreal ; Erika D. Green ;
aguerra@awattorneys.com
Cc: Lisa Ells ; Dylan Casey ; Nick Eckenwiler ; Nina
Lincoff ; Christina Bull Arndt ; DeGood, Alexander
M.
Subject: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Canada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614: Proposed
Judgment and Proposed Writ [IMAN-DMS.FID75612]
Counsel,
Pursuant to the Court’s March 4, 2024 Minute Order in the above-captioned matter, as well as Local Rule
3.231(n), Petitioner has prepared the attached [Proposed] Judgment and [Proposed] Peremptory Writ of
Administrative Mandate. Please let us know of any objections no later than Monday, April 1, 2024.
Alexander Gourse
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 433-6830 (telephone)
(415) 433-7104 (fax)
agourse@rbgg.com
The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential and protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at
agourse@rbgg.com.
1 LISA ELLS – 243657
ALEXANDER GOURSE – 321631
2 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
4 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
Email: lells@rbgg.com
5 agourse@rbgg.com
6 DYLAN CASEY – 325222
NICHOLAS ECKENWILER – 348744
7 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND
360 Grand Ave #323
8 Oakland, California 94610
Telephone: (443) 223-8231
9 Email: dylan@calhdf.org
nick@calhdf.org
10
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
14 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE Case No. 23STCP02614
FUND, a California nonprofit public Related Case No. 23STCP02575
15 benefit corporation,
16 Petitioner and Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
17 v.
Judge: Hon. Mitchell L. Beckloff
18 CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, Dept: 86
Trial Date: March 1, 2024
19 Respondent and Defendant,
Action Filed: July 25, 2023
20
600 FOOTHILL OWNER, LP, a limited
21 partnership,
22 Real Party in Interest
23 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, EX REL. ROB BONTA;
24 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
25 DEVELOPMENT,
26 Petitioners-Intervenors.
27
28
[4457361.2] 1
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1 On March 1, 2024, the Court held a hearing on (i) the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and
2 Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed on July 25, 2023, by Petitioner California Housing Defense Fund
3 against the City of La Cañada Flintridge (“Respondent” or “City”) and (ii) the Petition for Writ of
4 Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed on December 20, 2023, by Petitioners-Intervenors
5 People of the State of California, Ex Rel. Rob Bonta, and the California Department of Housing and
6 Community Development (“Petitions”). After considering the parties’ papers and oral argument, the
7 Court issued an “Order on Petitions for Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief,” dated
8 March 4, 2024 and attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated into this Judgment in full.
9 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
10
11 1. Judgment is entered in favor of Petitioner and Petitioners-Intervenors on the first cause
12 of action of each “to enforce the Housing Accountability Act” based on the Court’s finding that
13 the City Council “prejudicially abused its discretion when it found in its May 1, 2023 Decision
14 that the Builder’s Remedy does not apply to the Project” and the Court denied those causes of
15 action “in all other respects,”. CHDF’s second cause of action for declaratory relief and
16 Petitioners-Intervenors’ second cause of action for declaratory relief are denied.
17
18 1.2. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), a peremptory
19 writ of administrative mandate shall issue directing Respondent to take the following actions
20 within 60 days of service of the Writ, except as provided in paragraph (3):
21 a. Set aside the May 1, 2023 decision finding that Real Party in Interest 600 Foothill
22 LP’s application does not qualify for the builder’s remedy;
23 b. Process Real Party in Interest 600 Foothill LP’s application in a manner that
24 complies with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5, et seq.) and
25 state law, including but not limited to making any and all findings required to
26 support Respondent’s final approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of the
27 application; and
28 c. File with the Court and serve on the parties a Return describing the steps
[4457361.2] 2
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1 Respondent has taken to comply with the Writ.
2 2. If Respondent contends that full compliance with paragraph (2) is not possible within 60
3 days of service of the Writ because further environmental review is required by the
4 California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21000, et seq.), Respondent
5 shall file with the Court and serve on the parties, not later than 45 days after service of the
6 Writ, a Statement identifying the additional review believed to be required and the
7 applicable deadline(s) for completing such review under Title 14, Article 8 of the California
8 Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15100, et seq.). Any party may file
9 objections to this Statement within 14 days of service.
10 . If no party objects to the Statement, Respondent shall complete the actions
11 identified in paragraph (2) on or before the latest deadline identified in the
12 Statement.
13 . If any party objects to the Statement, the Court shall calendar a hearing on the
14 matter and issue further orders as appropriate.
15 5.3.Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), the Court retains
16 jurisdiction over this matter to ensure that its judgment is carried out.
17 6.4.Costs and attorney fees shall be determined upon any timely-filed memorandum and/or
18 motion.
19
20
21 DATED: ______________, 2024 ___________________________________________
Honorable Mitchell L. Beckloff
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[4457361.2] 3
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1 LISA ELLS – 243657
ALEXANDER GOURSE – 321631
2 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
4 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
Email: lells@rbgg.com
5 agourse@rbgg.com
6 DYLAN CASEY – 325222
NICHOLAS ECKENWILER – 348744
7 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND
360 Grand Ave #323
8 Oakland, California 94610
Telephone: (443) 223-8231
9 Email: dylan@calhdf.org
nick@calhdf.org
10
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
14 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE Case No. 23STCP02614
FUND, a California nonprofit public Related Case No. 23STCP02575
15 benefit corporation,
16 Petitioner and Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT
OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE
17 v.
18 CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, Judge: Hon. Mitchell L. Beckloff
Dept: 86
19 Respondent and Defendant, Trial Date: March 1, 2024
20 Action Filed: July 25, 2023
600 FOOTHILL OWNER, LP, a limited
21 partnership,
22 Real Party in Interest
23 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, EX REL. ROB BONTA;
24 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
25 DEVELOPMENT,
26 Petitioners-Intervenors.
27
28
[4457367.1] 1
[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE
1 TO RESPONDENT CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE:
2 WHEREAS Judgment has been entered in this matter in favor of Petitioner California
3 Housing Defense Fund and Petitioners-Intervenors People of the State of California, Ex Rel.
4 Rob Bonta, and California Department of Housing and Community Development, in the form
5 attached hereto as Exhibit A, ordering that a Writ of Administrative Mandate issue from this
6 Court,
7 1. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, pursuant to Government Code section
8 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), to take the following actions within 60 days of
9 service of this Writ, except as provided in paragraph (2):
10 a. Set aside the May 1, 2023 decision finding that Real Party in Interest 600
11 Foothill LP’s application does not qualify for the builder’s remedy;
12 b. Process Real Party in Interest 600 Foothill LP’s application in a manner that
13 complies with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5, et seq.)
14 and state law, including but not limited to making any and all findings required
15 to support Respondent’s final approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of
16 the application; and
17 c. File with the Court and serve on the parties a Return describing the steps You
18 have taken to comply with the Writ.
19 2. If You contend that full compliance with paragraph (1) is not possible within 60 days of
20 service of the Writ because further environmental review is required by the California
21 Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21000, et seq.), YOU ARE
22 COMMANDED to file with the Court and serve on the parties, not later than 45 days
23 after service of the Writ, a Statement identifying the additional review believed to be
24 required and the applicable deadline(s) for completing such review under Title 14,
25 Article 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15100, et
26 seq.). Any party may file objections to this Statement within fourteen days of service.
27 / / /
28 / / /
[4457367.1] 2
[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE
1 ///
2 a. If no party objects to the Statement, YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to
3 complete the actions identified in paragraph (1) on or before the latest deadline
4 identified in the Statement.
5 b. If any party objects to the Statement, the Court shall calendar a hearing on the
6 matter and issue further orders as appropriate.
7
8 LET THE FOREGOING WRIT ISSUE.
9
10
DATED: __________________________
11
12
13
14
Preview
1 ADRIAN GUERRA – State Bar No. 217540 City Attorney, City of La Cañada Flintridge 2 aguerra@awattorneys.com MICHELLE LEANN VILLARREAL – State Bar No. 239263 3 mvillarreal@awattorneys.com ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP 4 1 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614 5 Telephone: 949-223-1170 Facsimile: 949-223-1180 6 PETER C. SHERIDAN - State Bar No. 137267 7 psheridan@glaserweil.com CHRISTOPHER L. DACUS - State Bar No. 238000 8 cdacus@glaserweil.com GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD 9 JORDAN & SHAPIRO LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor 10 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-3000 11 Facsimile: (310) 556-2920 12 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant City of La Cañada Flintridge [Exempt From Filing Fee Government Code § 6103] 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 15 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND, a Case No.: 23STCP02614 16 California nonprofit public benefit corporation, Related Case No.: 23STCP02575 17 Petitioner and Plaintiff, Honorable Mitchell L. Beckloff Department: 86 18 v. DECLARATION OF PETER SHERIDAN 19 CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE’S 20 Respondent and Defendant, OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF LODGING 21 600 FOOTHILL OWNER, LP, a limited partnership, [File Concurrently with Objection; [Proposed] 22 Alternate Form of Judgment; and [Proposed] Real Party in Interest, Alternate Form of Peremptory Writ] 23 24 Action Filed: July 25, 2023 Trial Date: March 01, 2024 25 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. ROB BONTA; CALIFORNIA 26 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 27 Petitioners-Intervenors. 28 DECLARATION OF PETER SHERIDAN 2396713 1 DECLARATION OF PETER C. SHERIDAN 2 I, PETER SHERIDAN, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of 4 California, among other Courts, and am a Partner in the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Howard 5 Jordan & Shapiro LLP, attorneys of record herein for Respondent and Defendant City of La Canada 6 Flintridge (the “City”). I make this declaration in support of the City’s Opposition to CHDF’s 7 Objection to Petitioner’s Notice of Lodging. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, 8 and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and would competently do so under oath. 9 2. On March 8, 2024, after receiving no [Proposed] Judgment in the above captioned 10 matter, I sent an initial draft to counsel for Petitioner California Housing Defense Fund (“CHDF”) 11 and Petitioners-Intervenors. That draft and accompanying email is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 12 3. On March 21, 2024, I did hear back from CHDF via email, with their own version of 13 a [Proposed] Judgment and [Proposed] Writ of Mandate, and without any markup by them of our 14 proposed judgment. A true and correct copy of that email together with its attachments is attached 15 hereto as Exhibit B. 16 4. On March 25, 2024, I sent redlined versions of the [Proposed] Judgment and 17 [Proposed] Writ documents to counsel for CHDF and Petitioners-Intervenors together with an email 18 stating the basis for the City’s objections and proposed additions. A true and correct copy of that email and its attachments is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 19 5. On April 2, 2024, my colleague and I met and conferred via zoom with Mr. Gourse 20 and additional counsel for CHDF and Petitioner-Intervenors. While Mr. Gourse stated that the 21 procedures pursuant to law (including CEQA and state law generally) were “substantially 22 inefficient” for resolving potential further disputes that may arise regarding the project at issue in 23 the Court’s March 4 Order, and that the procedure he proposed (that I referred during that call as 24 “made-up” to principally because I stated and believe the judgment and writ should track the 25 Court’s Order, not invent new duties or obligations not expressed in that Order) was “a better 26 procedure”, the Parties were not able to reach an agreement on this point or the disputed language in 27 the [Proposed] Judgment and [Proposed] Writ of Mandate. 28 2 DECLARATION OF PETER SHERIDAN 2396713 1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 2 is true and correct, and that this declaration is executed on April 9, 2024 in Los Angeles, California. 3 4 PETER C. SHERIDAN 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DECLARATION OF PETER SHERIDAN 2396713 EXHIBIT A From: Peter C. Sheridan To: Alex Gourse; Nina Lincoff Cc: Lisa Ells; Sherry Zhu; Leaderman, Ryan M (LAX - X52405); Ashe, Kevin J (NPB - X56972); Christopher Dacus; Sterling, William E (SFO - X72024); Dylan Casey; Christina Bull Arndt; Nick Eckenwiler; aguerra@awattorneys.com; mvillarreal@awattorneys.com; egreen@awattorneys.com Subject: RE: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614 Date: Friday, March 8, 2024 2:49:17 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png 2024.03.08 DRAFT Proposed Judgement.docx Alex and Nina - -here is our prelim draft - -this will need (and I reserve the right to make changes accordingly) City Attorney and City Council review and approval; however, I did want to get this to you when I said I would have it to you. Have a pleasant weekend. pete. Peter C. Sheridan PARTNER AND CHAIR OF THE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP psheridan@glaserweil.com 10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor T 310.282.6243 F 310.573.9044 Los Angeles, CA 90067 glaserweil.com This message and any attached documents may contain information from the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. From: Alex Gourse Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:26 PM To: Peter C. Sheridan ; Nina Lincoff Cc: Lisa Ells ; Sherry Zhu ; Leaderman, Ryan M (LAX - X52405) ; Ashe, Kevin J (NPB - X56972) ; Christopher Dacus ; Sterling, William E (SFO - X72024) ; Dylan Casey ; Christina Bull Arndt ; Nick Eckenwiler ; aguerra@awattorneys.com; mvillarreal@awattorneys.com; egreen@awattorneys.com Subject: RE: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614 [IMAN- DMS.FID75612] Thanks Peter. We are of course happy to consider your proposed text, though if the parties cannot reach an agreement we intend to submit our own proposed judgment in accordance with the Court’s March 4 Minute Order, which states: “Counsel for Petitioner is to prepare a proposed judgment, serve on the opposing parties for approval as to form, wait ten days after service for any objections, meet and confer if there are objections, and then lodge (do not efile) the proposed judgment directly in Department 86 and file (do not lodge) a declaration stating the existence or non-existence of any unresolved objections (LASC Local Rule 3.231(n)).” Alex From: Peter C. Sheridan Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:10 PM To: Nina Lincoff ; Alex Gourse Cc: Lisa Ells ; Sherry Zhu ; Leaderman, Ryan M (LAX - X52405) ; Ashe, Kevin J (NPB - X56972) ; Christopher Dacus ; Sterling, William E (SFO - X72024) ; Dylan Casey ; Christina Bull Arndt ; Nick Eckenwiler ; aguerra@awattorneys.com; mvillarreal@awattorneys.com; egreen@awattorneys.com Subject: RE: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614 [EXTERNAL MESSAGE NOTICE] Ms. Lincoff and Mr. Gourse: I hope to have to you a draft judgment/writ for your review in the next day or so, and we can then hopefully agree on language, obviating further motion practice (reserving of course all our substantive and other arguments as to the underlying Order). I believe it is a somewhat different set of circumstances for the 600 Foothill judgment/writ, and I spoke briefly and preliminarily to Ryan this morning on that subject. Best, Pete. Peter C. Sheridan PARTNER AND CHAIR OF THE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP psheridan@glaserweil.com 10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor T 310.282.6243 F 310.573.9044 Los Angeles, CA 90067 glaserweil.com This message and any attached documents may contain information from the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. From: Sherry Zhu Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 4:50 PM To: aguerra@awattorneys.com; mvillarreal@awattorneys.com; egreen@awattorneys.com; Peter C. Sheridan ; Christopher Dacus ; Leaderman, Ryan M (LAX - X52405) ; Ashe, Kevin J (NPB - X56972) ; Sterling, William E (SFO - X72024) ; Nina Lincoff ; Christina Bull Arndt Cc: Lisa Ells ; Alex Gourse ; Dylan Casey ; Nick Eckenwiler Subject: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614 [IMAN- DMS.FID75612] Re: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614 Dear Counsel: The below-listed document, which is e-served on the parties as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6(b), is being efiled with the Court today: · NOTICE OF RULING ON PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5) Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sherry Zhu Sherry Zhu (she/they) Paralegal Clerk ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 433-6830 ext. 113 szhu@rbgg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at szhu@rbgg.com. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 15 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND, a Case No.: 23STCP02614 California nonprofit public benefit corporation, Related Case No.: 23STCP02575 16 Petitioner and Plaintiff, Honorable Mitchell L. Beckloff 17 Department: 86 v. 18 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, 19 Respondent and Defendant, 20 Action Filed: July 27, 2023 600 FOOTHILL OWNER, LP, a limited Trial Date: March 01, 2024 21 partnership, 22 Real Party in Interest. 23 24 25 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. ROB BONTA; CALIFORNIA 26 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 27 Petitioners-Intervenors. 28 1 [PROPOSED] JUDGEMENT 2384454 1 On March 1, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the (i) the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 2 and Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed on July 27, 2023, by Petitioner California Housing Defense 3 Fund (“CHDF”) against the City of La Cañada Flintridge (“City”) and (ii) the Petition for Writ of 4 Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed on December 20, 2023, by Petitioners in 5 Intervention the State of California, Ex. Rel. Rob Bonta and the California Department of Housing 6 and Community Development (“Intervenors”) against the City. 7 The separate petition of 600 Foothill Owner, L.P. (“600 Foothill”), was heard at the same time. 8 After considering the parties’ papers and oral argument, the Court issued the attached Final 9 “Order on Petitions for Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief” dated March 4, 2024 10 (attached hereto as Exhibit A), which states in pertinent part that: 11 (i) the Court “will enter judgment on the first cause of action in favor of CHDF and 12 Intervenors on the first cause of action,” 13 (ii) CHDF’s second cause of action for declaratory relief and Intervenors’ second cause of 14 action for declaratory relief “are DENIED,” 15 (iii) the Court will grant in part the first cause of action of CHDF and first cause of action 16 of Intervenors “to enforce the Housing Accountability Act” based on the Court’s 17 finding that the City Council “prejudicially abused its discretion when it found in its 18 May 1, 2023 Decision that the Builder’s Remedy does not apply to the Project” and 19 the Court will deny those causes of action “in all other respects,” and 20 (iv) the Court will grant a writ directing the City “to set aside the City Council’s decision, 21 dated May 1, 2023, finding 600 Foothill’s application does not qualify as a Builder’s 22 Remedy and to process the application in accordance with the HAA and state law.” 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 [PROPOSED] JUDGEMENT 2384454 1 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED 2 THAT: 3 1. A writ of mandate shall issue directing the City to set aside the City Council’s decision, 4 dated May 1, 2023, and to process 600 Foothill’s application in accordance with the HAA and state 5 law. 6 2. Costs are awarded to CHDF in the amount of _____________. 7 3. Costs are awarded to Intervenors in the amount of ___________. 8 9 DATED:____________ 10 By: Hon. Mitchell Beckloff 11 Judge of the Superior Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 [PROPOSED] JUDGEMENT 2384454 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the age of 18 3 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067. 4 On March 7, 2024, I served the foregoing document(s) described as [PROPOSED] 5 JUDGEMENT on the interested parties to this action by: SEE ATTACHED LIST 6 (BY E-MAIL SERVICE) I caused such document to be delivered electronically via e-mail 7 to the e-mail address of the addressee(s) set forth in the attached service list. 8 (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 9 Executed on March 7, 2024 at Los Angeles, California. 10 11 Jenna Farruggia 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 [PROPOSED] JUDGEMENT 2384454 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Dylan Casey, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner CALIFORNIA Nicholas Eckenwiler, Esq. HOUSING DEFENSE FUND 3 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND 4 360 Grand Avenue, #323 Oakland, CA 94160 5 Email: dylan@calhdf.org Email:nick@calhdf.org 6 Ryan M. Leaderman, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner 600 FOOTHILL 7 Kevin J. Ashe, Esq. OWNER, LP William E. Sterling, Esq. 8 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor 9 Los Angeles, California 90071 10 Telephone: 213.896.2405 Email: ryan.leaderman@hklaw.com 11 Email: kevin.ashe@hklaw.com Email: william.sterling@hklaw.com 12 ADRIAN R. GUERRA, Esq. Attorney for Respondent CITY OF LA 13 MICHELLE LEANN, Esq. CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP 14 1 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614 15 Telephone: 949-223-1170 Facsimile: 949-223-1180 16 Email: aguerra@awattorneys.com Email: mvillarreal@awattorneys.com 17 Lisa Ells, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner CALIFORNIA 18 Alexander Gourse, Esq. HOUSING DEFENSE FUND ROSEN BEIN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 19 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 20 Phone: (415) 433-6830 Fax: (415) 433-7104 21 Email: lells@rbgg.com Email: agourse@rbgg.com 22 Rob Bonta, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner-Intervenors PEOPLE Christina Bull Arndt, Esq. OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. 23 David Pai, Esq. ROB BONTA; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT Nina Lincoff, Esq. OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY 24 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA 25 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor P.O. Box 70550 26 Oakland, CA 94612-0550 Email: Nina.Lincoff@doj.ca.gov 27 Email: Christina.Arndt@doj.ca.gov 28 5 [PROPOSED] JUDGEMENT 2384454 EXHIBIT B From: Alex Gourse To: Peter C. Sheridan; Christopher Dacus; Michelle Villarreal; Erika D. Green; aguerra@awattorneys.com Cc: Lisa Ells; Dylan Casey; Nick Eckenwiler; Nina Lincoff; Christina Bull Arndt; DeGood, Alexander M. Subject: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Canada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614: Proposed Judgment and Proposed Writ [IMAN-DMS.FID75612] Date: Thursday, March 21, 2024 12:10:00 PM Attachments: [Proposed] Judgment, 3-21-24, 1750-6(4457361.3).docx [Proposed] Writ of Mandate, 3-21-24, 1750-6(4457367.1).docx Counsel, Pursuant to the Court’s March 4, 2024 Minute Order in the above-captioned matter, as well as Local Rule 3.231(n), Petitioner has prepared the attached [Proposed] Judgment and [Proposed] Peremptory Writ of Administrative Mandate. Please let us know of any objections no later than Monday, April 1, 2024. Alexander Gourse ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 433-6830 (telephone) (415) 433-7104 (fax) agourse@rbgg.com The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at agourse@rbgg.com. 1 LISA ELLS – 243657 ALEXANDER GOURSE – 321631 2 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 4 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 Email: lells@rbgg.com 5 agourse@rbgg.com 6 DYLAN CASEY – 325222 NICHOLAS ECKENWILER – 348744 7 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND 360 Grand Ave #323 8 Oakland, California 94610 Telephone: (443) 223-8231 9 Email: dylan@calhdf.org nick@calhdf.org 10 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 14 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE Case No. 23STCP02614 FUND, a California nonprofit public Related Case No. 23STCP02575 15 benefit corporation, 16 Petitioner and Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 17 v. Judge: Hon. Mitchell L. Beckloff 18 CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, Dept: 86 Trial Date: March 1, 2024 19 Respondent and Defendant, Action Filed: July 25, 2023 20 600 FOOTHILL OWNER, LP, a limited 21 partnership, 22 Real Party in Interest 23 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. ROB BONTA; 24 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY 25 DEVELOPMENT, 26 Petitioners-Intervenors. 27 28 [4457361.2] 1 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 1 On March 1, 2024, the Court held a hearing on (i) the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and 2 Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed on July 25, 2023, by Petitioner California Housing Defense Fund 3 against the City of La Cañada Flintridge (“City”) and (ii) the Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint 4 for Declaratory Relief filed on December 20, 2023, by Petitioners-Intervenors People of the State of 5 California, Ex Rel. Rob Bonta, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development 6 (“Petitions”). After considering the parties’ papers and oral argument, the Court issued an “Order on 7 Petitions for Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief,” dated March 4, 2024 and attached 8 hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated into this Judgment in full. 9 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 10 1. Judgment is entered in favor of Petitioner and Petitioners-Intervenors. 11 2. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), a peremptory 12 writ of administrative mandate shall issue directing Respondent to take the following actions 13 within 60 days of service of the Writ, except as provided in paragraph (3): 14 a. Set aside the May 1, 2023 decision finding that Real Party in Interest 600 Foothill 15 LP’s application does not qualify for the builder’s remedy; 16 b. Process Real Party in Interest 600 Foothill LP’s application in a manner that 17 complies with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5, et seq.) and 18 state law, including but not limited to making any and all findings required to 19 support Respondent’s final approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of the 20 application; and 21 c. File with the Court and serve on the parties a Return describing the steps 22 Respondent has taken to comply with the Writ. 23 3. If Respondent contends that full compliance with paragraph (2) is not possible within 60 24 days of service of the Writ because further environmental review is required by the 25 California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21000, et seq.), Respondent 26 shall file with the Court and serve on the parties, not later than 45 days after service of the 27 Writ, a Statement identifying the additional review believed to be required and the 28 applicable deadline(s) for completing such review under Title 14, Article 8 of the California [4457361.2] 2 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 1 Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15100, et seq.). Any party may file 2 objections to this Statement within 14 days of service. 3 a. If no party objects to the Statement, Respondent shall complete the actions 4 identified in paragraph (2) on or before the latest deadline identified in the 5 Statement. 6 b. If any party objects to the Statement, the Court shall calendar a hearing on the 7 matter and issue further orders as appropriate. 8 4. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), the Court retains 9 jurisdiction over this matter to ensure that its judgment is carried out. 10 5. Costs and attorney fees shall be determined upon any timely-filed memorandum and/or 11 motion. 12 13 14 DATED: ______________, 2024 ___________________________________________ Honorable Mitchell L. Beckloff 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [4457361.2] 3 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 1 LISA ELLS – 243657 ALEXANDER GOURSE – 321631 2 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 4 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 Email: lells@rbgg.com 5 agourse@rbgg.com 6 DYLAN CASEY – 325222 NICHOLAS ECKENWILER – 348744 7 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND 360 Grand Ave #323 8 Oakland, California 94610 Telephone: (443) 223-8231 9 Email: dylan@calhdf.org nick@calhdf.org 10 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 14 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE Case No. 23STCP02614 FUND, a California nonprofit public Related Case No. 23STCP02575 15 benefit corporation, 16 Petitioner and Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE 17 v. 18 CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, Judge: Hon. Mitchell L. Beckloff Dept: 86 19 Respondent and Defendant, Trial Date: March 1, 2024 20 Action Filed: July 25, 2023 600 FOOTHILL OWNER, LP, a limited 21 partnership, 22 Real Party in Interest 23 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. ROB BONTA; 24 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY 25 DEVELOPMENT, 26 Petitioners-Intervenors. 27 28 [4457367.1] 1 [PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE 1 TO RESPONDENT CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE: 2 WHEREAS Judgment has been entered in this matter in favor of Petitioner California 3 Housing Defense Fund and Petitioners-Intervenors People of the State of California, Ex Rel. 4 Rob Bonta, and California Department of Housing and Community Development, ordering 5 that a Writ of Administrative Mandate issue from this Court, 6 1. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, pursuant to Government Code section 7 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), to take the following actions within 60 days of 8 service of this Writ, except as provided in paragraph (2): 9 a. Set aside the May 1, 2023 decision finding that Real Party in Interest 600 10 Foothill LP’s application does not qualify for the builder’s remedy; 11 b. Process Real Party in Interest 600 Foothill LP’s application in a manner that 12 complies with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5, et seq.) 13 and state law, including but not limited to making any and all findings required 14 to support Respondent’s final approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of 15 the application; and 16 c. File with the Court and serve on the parties a Return describing the steps You 17 have taken to comply with the Writ. 18 2. If You contend that full compliance with paragraph (1) is not possible within 60 days of 19 service of the Writ because further environmental review is required by the California 20 Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21000, et seq.), YOU ARE 21 COMMANDED to file with the Court and serve on the parties, not later than 45 days 22 after service of the Writ, a Statement identifying the additional review believed to be 23 required and the applicable deadline(s) for completing such review under Title 14, 24 Article 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15100, et 25 seq.). Any party may file objections to this Statement within fourteen days of service. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / [4457367.1] 2 [PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE 1 a. If no party objects to the Statement, YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to 2 complete the actions identified in paragraph (1) on or before the latest deadline 3 identified in the Statement. 4 b. If any party objects to the Statement, the Court shall calendar a hearing on the 5 matter and issue further orders as appropriate. 6 7 LET THE FOREGOING WRIT ISSUE. 8 9 DATED: __________________________ 10 11 12 13 [SEAL] CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [4457367.1] 3 [PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE EXHIBIT C From: Peter C. Sheridan To: Alex Gourse; Nina Lincoff Cc: Lisa Ells; Dylan Casey; Nick Eckenwiler; Erika D. Green; Christina Bull Arndt; DeGood, Alexander M.; aguerra@awattorneys.com; Christopher Dacus; Michelle Villarreal; John Fox (jfox@awattorneys.com) Subject: RE: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Canada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614: Proposed Judgment and Proposed Writ Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 10:08:31 AM Attachments: CHDF.HCD.Proposed Writ of Mandate 3-21-24.CITY REDLINE.2024.3.25.docx CHDF.HCD.Proposed Judgment 3-21-24.WITH.CITY.REDLINES.2024.3.25.docx image001.png image002.png image003.png Mr. Gourse and Ms. Lincoff: Attached hereto are the City’s redlines to the proposed judgment and writ you sent over on March 21. As you might have seen from our proposed judgment sent over on March 8, which your draft plainly ignores, we believe that the judgment must make clear what was and was not granted and the disposition of the causes of action in your respective initial petitions. Our March 8 proposed judgment did that; your March 21 proposed judgment does not but should. Also, we have deleted portions of the proposed judgment and writ that find no basis in the Court’s March 4 Order. If you wish to have a discussion regarding our objections, as required by LR 3.231(n), please let me know a convenient time. If you choose to ignore the obligation to meet and confer and want to proceed directly to court under LASC LR 3.231(n) please let me know and I will supply our formal objections and redlines for inclusion in any submission to the Court. Pete. Peter C. Sheridan PARTNER AND CHAIR OF THE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP psheridan@glaserweil.com 10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor T 310.282.6243 F 310.573.9044 Los Angeles, CA 90067 glaserweil.com This message and any attached documents may contain information from the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. From: Alex Gourse Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 12:09 PM To: Peter C. Sheridan ; Christopher Dacus ; Michelle Villarreal ; Erika D. Green ; aguerra@awattorneys.com Cc: Lisa Ells ; Dylan Casey ; Nick Eckenwiler ; Nina Lincoff ; Christina Bull Arndt ; DeGood, Alexander M. Subject: California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Canada Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614: Proposed Judgment and Proposed Writ [IMAN-DMS.FID75612] Counsel, Pursuant to the Court’s March 4, 2024 Minute Order in the above-captioned matter, as well as Local Rule 3.231(n), Petitioner has prepared the attached [Proposed] Judgment and [Proposed] Peremptory Writ of Administrative Mandate. Please let us know of any objections no later than Monday, April 1, 2024. Alexander Gourse ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 433-6830 (telephone) (415) 433-7104 (fax) agourse@rbgg.com The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at agourse@rbgg.com. 1 LISA ELLS – 243657 ALEXANDER GOURSE – 321631 2 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 4 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 Email: lells@rbgg.com 5 agourse@rbgg.com 6 DYLAN CASEY – 325222 NICHOLAS ECKENWILER – 348744 7 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND 360 Grand Ave #323 8 Oakland, California 94610 Telephone: (443) 223-8231 9 Email: dylan@calhdf.org nick@calhdf.org 10 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 14 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE Case No. 23STCP02614 FUND, a California nonprofit public Related Case No. 23STCP02575 15 benefit corporation, 16 Petitioner and Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 17 v. Judge: Hon. Mitchell L. Beckloff 18 CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, Dept: 86 Trial Date: March 1, 2024 19 Respondent and Defendant, Action Filed: July 25, 2023 20 600 FOOTHILL OWNER, LP, a limited 21 partnership, 22 Real Party in Interest 23 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. ROB BONTA; 24 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY 25 DEVELOPMENT, 26 Petitioners-Intervenors. 27 28 [4457361.2] 1 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 1 On March 1, 2024, the Court held a hearing on (i) the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and 2 Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed on July 25, 2023, by Petitioner California Housing Defense Fund 3 against the City of La Cañada Flintridge (“Respondent” or “City”) and (ii) the Petition for Writ of 4 Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed on December 20, 2023, by Petitioners-Intervenors 5 People of the State of California, Ex Rel. Rob Bonta, and the California Department of Housing and 6 Community Development (“Petitions”). After considering the parties’ papers and oral argument, the 7 Court issued an “Order on Petitions for Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief,” dated 8 March 4, 2024 and attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated into this Judgment in full. 9 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 10 11 1. Judgment is entered in favor of Petitioner and Petitioners-Intervenors on the first cause 12 of action of each “to enforce the Housing Accountability Act” based on the Court’s finding that 13 the City Council “prejudicially abused its discretion when it found in its May 1, 2023 Decision 14 that the Builder’s Remedy does not apply to the Project” and the Court denied those causes of 15 action “in all other respects,”. CHDF’s second cause of action for declaratory relief and 16 Petitioners-Intervenors’ second cause of action for declaratory relief are denied. 17 18 1.2. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), a peremptory 19 writ of administrative mandate shall issue directing Respondent to take the following actions 20 within 60 days of service of the Writ, except as provided in paragraph (3): 21 a. Set aside the May 1, 2023 decision finding that Real Party in Interest 600 Foothill 22 LP’s application does not qualify for the builder’s remedy; 23 b. Process Real Party in Interest 600 Foothill LP’s application in a manner that 24 complies with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5, et seq.) and 25 state law, including but not limited to making any and all findings required to 26 support Respondent’s final approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of the 27 application; and 28 c. File with the Court and serve on the parties a Return describing the steps [4457361.2] 2 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 1 Respondent has taken to comply with the Writ. 2 2. If Respondent contends that full compliance with paragraph (2) is not possible within 60 3 days of service of the Writ because further environmental review is required by the 4 California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21000, et seq.), Respondent 5 shall file with the Court and serve on the parties, not later than 45 days after service of the 6 Writ, a Statement identifying the additional review believed to be required and the 7 applicable deadline(s) for completing such review under Title 14, Article 8 of the California 8 Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15100, et seq.). Any party may file 9 objections to this Statement within 14 days of service. 10 . If no party objects to the Statement, Respondent shall complete the actions 11 identified in paragraph (2) on or before the latest deadline identified in the 12 Statement. 13 . If any party objects to the Statement, the Court shall calendar a hearing on the 14 matter and issue further orders as appropriate. 15 5.3.Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), the Court retains 16 jurisdiction over this matter to ensure that its judgment is carried out. 17 6.4.Costs and attorney fees shall be determined upon any timely-filed memorandum and/or 18 motion. 19 20 21 DATED: ______________, 2024 ___________________________________________ Honorable Mitchell L. Beckloff 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [4457361.2] 3 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 1 LISA ELLS – 243657 ALEXANDER GOURSE – 321631 2 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 4 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 Email: lells@rbgg.com 5 agourse@rbgg.com 6 DYLAN CASEY – 325222 NICHOLAS ECKENWILER – 348744 7 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND 360 Grand Ave #323 8 Oakland, California 94610 Telephone: (443) 223-8231 9 Email: dylan@calhdf.org nick@calhdf.org 10 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 14 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE Case No. 23STCP02614 FUND, a California nonprofit public Related Case No. 23STCP02575 15 benefit corporation, 16 Petitioner and Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE 17 v. 18 CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, Judge: Hon. Mitchell L. Beckloff Dept: 86 19 Respondent and Defendant, Trial Date: March 1, 2024 20 Action Filed: July 25, 2023 600 FOOTHILL OWNER, LP, a limited 21 partnership, 22 Real Party in Interest 23 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. ROB BONTA; 24 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY 25 DEVELOPMENT, 26 Petitioners-Intervenors. 27 28 [4457367.1] 1 [PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE 1 TO RESPONDENT CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE: 2 WHEREAS Judgment has been entered in this matter in favor of Petitioner California 3 Housing Defense Fund and Petitioners-Intervenors People of the State of California, Ex Rel. 4 Rob Bonta, and California Department of Housing and Community Development, in the form 5 attached hereto as Exhibit A, ordering that a Writ of Administrative Mandate issue from this 6 Court, 7 1. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, pursuant to Government Code section 8 65589.5, subdivision (k)(1)(A)(ii), to take the following actions within 60 days of 9 service of this Writ, except as provided in paragraph (2): 10 a. Set aside the May 1, 2023 decision finding that Real Party in Interest 600 11 Foothill LP’s application does not qualify for the builder’s remedy; 12 b. Process Real Party in Interest 600 Foothill LP’s application in a manner that 13 complies with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5, et seq.) 14 and state law, including but not limited to making any and all findings required 15 to support Respondent’s final approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of 16 the application; and 17 c. File with the Court and serve on the parties a Return describing the steps You 18 have taken to comply with the Writ. 19 2. If You contend that full compliance with paragraph (1) is not possible within 60 days of 20 service of the Writ because further environmental review is required by the California 21 Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21000, et seq.), YOU ARE 22 COMMANDED to file with the Court and serve on the parties, not later than 45 days 23 after service of the Writ, a Statement identifying the additional review believed to be 24 required and the applicable deadline(s) for completing such review under Title 14, 25 Article 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15100, et 26 seq.). Any party may file objections to this Statement within fourteen days of service. 27 / / / 28 / / / [4457367.1] 2 [PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE 1 /// 2 a. If no party objects to the Statement, YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to 3 complete the actions identified in paragraph (1) on or before the latest deadline 4 identified in the Statement. 5 b. If any party objects to the Statement, the Court shall calendar a hearing on the 6 matter and issue further orders as appropriate. 7 8 LET THE FOREGOING WRIT ISSUE. 9 10 DATED: __________________________ 11 12 13 14