Preview
‘DOLORES BASTIAN DALTON,
ddsItong'mgnldIhn’nlipm:m.cmu
BARBARA E. KAUTZ,
bknmacs}rgnldthrhlimmn .cnm
RYE P. MURPHY, 51m:
51am
Bm-stfi
nnnlphyt'éflgmldfil rhl ipnumxom
Bmunmsn
5.3.:3m u mm.
um
ByW Efeflmnitalfly
”Emmi
m
EM: ¢I'{.Hflbu‘u, iCmmty H 5M
By SIJfilifi
3/6/2020
‘
GOLDFARB 8LLIPMAN LLP
1300 Clay Street, Eleventh Flam
Lh
Oakland, California 946 l 2
Telephone: (S 1 U}83 6—6336
wFacsimile: (5-10) 836—1035
MG [Exempffiom Filing Fee (Gav. Code § 6} 03)]
f
SHAWN M. MASON, SEN #115996
CITY OF SAN MATEO
:;City Attorney's Office
330 West 20th Avenue
‘
San Mateo, CA 94403
10
Attornays for Reapnndents
ll CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY
COUNCIL, and CITY OF SAN MATEO
12 PLANNING COMMISSION
l3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14‘ FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
15
1f)
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS Case N0; lS—CIV-UEIUS
IFEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS LEGAL
ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION FUND, DECLARATION 0F DOLORES B.
ZVICTORIA FIERCE AND JOHN MOON. DALTON IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO STRIKE 0R TAX
Petitioner, COSTS
“lull
III h‘ ‘
vs. Dated: March 19, 2020
a
Time: 2 p.111.
CITY OF SAN MATEO. SAN MATEO CITY Judge: Honorable George A. Miram
COUNCIL, AND CITY OF SAN MATEO Department 28
PLANNING COMMISSION,
Respondents. Atrium Filed: April 26, 2m 7
‘‘‘‘‘ TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR V.
~
GUNDOGDU,
Real Palfies in Interest.
m OPPD. m MOTIONT’O smmE-"J'Ax COSTS.
]
mitt. 66$}st DAL'IUN
”HMHM
MJH‘H'T I
DECLARATION OF DOLORES BASTIAN DALTON
IN OPPOSITION T0 MOTION TD STRIKEITAX COSTS
Id
I, DOLDRES BASTIAN DALTON. declare:
1. lam a partner in the law firm, Goldfarb 8L Lipman, LLP. This firm reprasents
Respondents City 0f San Mateo, San Mateo City Council, and City 0f San Mateo Planning
?
Commission (the City) in this action. As such, I-have obtained persona] knuwledgc as to the facts
‘
D&DmflGfiLh-bm
described in this declaration. 1 make this declaration in support 0f the City‘s request for an award
'of costs reasonably and necessarily incurred in the preparation 0f the administrative record in this
acfion.
2. For the Court‘s convenience, certain papers filed in this action that are cited in
H
Respondent's Oppnsitiun memorandum are attached t0 this daclaration as Exhibit A through F.
m_-
II—i
3. Petitioners requested that the City prepare: the administrative record in this action.
HM
LaJ
See Exhibit A, attached hereto, a true and correct copy of an email, dated May 1 l,20] 9, fmm
o—I
Petitioners“ counsel, stating that Respondents were required to prepara the administrative record. _
db-
i—
h—l-
Lfl
Petitioner‘s email stated: "Per HAA section (m). the city must prepare the administl‘ativa record
D!
within 30 days at its own expense." This document was attached t0 my declaratifln filed with
H
«J
Respondents' Memorandum 0f Costs,
.I—l
4. Fur the Court's cn‘nvenienca‘ attached as Exhibit B isa true and correct copy 0f
"DO
H
—l-
the Court's August 29, 20 I U Order requesting further briefing 0n particular matters at issue in
MO
b
_-_':‘~:11LI
Petitioners‘ claims.
MG
5. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy 0f 'Petitiuners' Opening Brief.
filed in this action on July 12+ 20W.
6. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Petitiuners‘ Supplemantal
Brief, filed in this action {m Septmnber l9, 20 tL3.
7'. Attached ab Exhibit E is a hm: and correct cup}; uf' Petitiuncrs' Raquest for
Judicial Notice in support uflheir Supplemental Brief. filed in this actinn on September 19‘
2019. The exhibits t0 the Request haw: been omitted.
3. Altached as Exhibit F is a true and cnn‘ect campy nt‘Respnndents' Supplemental
j
DEC'L. DOLDRFS 13A LTDN MflTlflN
lfil—[JJ‘P’Pf’i’TI'l TC}STRIKE‘TAX L'USTS
Mawmnmsfli l
Brief, filed in this action 0n October 17, 2019.
9. Logikcull is not an "electronic filing service provider." Logikcull is an important
decument management mo] that Goidfarh 85 Lipman routinely 11363 when pr3paring
administrative records. The use of Logikcull in the preparation 0f the administrative record in
this matter allowed Respundents to efficiently sort and review City records, which originated
D‘-
from different sources, in preparing the record. Logikcull's automation features fur document
*4
review reduced the number 0f attorney and paralegal hours and ultimately lowered the cost 0f
DO
record preparation.
ND
Ideclare undar panalry of perjury under the laws 0f tha State 0f California that the
“D foregoing is trua and corract. Executed March 5, 202:0, at Oakland, California.
11
12 Dwm
DOLORES BASTIAN DALTON
EPILM v
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9
Lnlrflmb
r$
20
Ipmnll II?
21
£on Emmy
LJp
El
22
h I'qu‘h Hi
.'
v.
23
hklnnr‘
24
.nhirn nu:-
25
JAM?
v.4m n am
9-:
26
'
VIE. Hm;
|Iii.I'
28
3
DECL. DOLGRES DALTON IN DPPO. TO MOTION TO SVTRIKEFTAX COSTS
fififlhflflfififlflll
Exhibit A
Konni Stalica
From: Ryan Patterson
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 5:53 PM
To: Dolores Dalton
Cc: Barbara Kautz
Subject: RE: SF BARF v. San Mateo
Thanks, Dolores. It was nice talking with you, and I'm glad to hear you and Barbara will be handling this case. Per HAA
section (m), the city must prepare the administrative record within 30 days at its own expense, but we're happy to
stipulate to an extra 10 days. If you need more time, please let me know and we can discuss.
Best,
Ryan
Ryan J. Patterson
Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 956-8100
Facsimile: (415) 288-9755
Email: ryan@zfplaw.com
www.zfplaw.com
This communication and its contents may contain confidential and/or privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies. Unless expressly stated, nothing inthis communication should be
regarded as tax advice.
5
Exhibit B
Case Number: 18-ClV-02105
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
400 County Center 1050 Mission Road
Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080
www.sanmateocourt.org
Minute Order
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS FEDERATION, et al vs. CITY OF 18-ClV—02105
SAN MATEO, et al
08/29/2019 2:00 PM
Petition for Writ of Mandate
Hearing Result: Held
Judicial Officer: Scott, Joseph C. Location: Courtroom ZG
Courtroom Clerk: Linda Makela Courtroom Reporter: Jocelyne Fakhouri
Parties Present
Exhibits
Minutes
Journals
-
No appearance by any parties herein or their counsel of record.
Tentative ruling adopted as follows:
The Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by Petitioners, San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation,
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, Victoria Fierce and John Moon is CONTINUED TO
Thursday October 24, 2019 for further briefing on the matters listed below. Petitioner's Supplemental
Brief due by September 19, 2019, Respondent's Brief due by October 17- 2019. No Reply.
Issue 1:The Burden of Proof on a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate seeking to overturn a City
Council Decision Denying An Appeal on a Residential Housing Development Project Permit on the
Grounds that Such Decision violates the California Housing Accountability Act, Government Code
65589.5 et seq.
California Code of CivilProcedure 1094.5(c) provides:
”Where claimed that the findings are not supported
it is by the evidence, in cases inwhich the court is
authorized by law to exercise itsindependent judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is
established ifthe court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. In
allother cases, abuse of discretion is established ifthe court determines that findings isnot supported
findings by substantial e evidence in light of the whole record."
Government Code 65589.5(f)(4) provides:
”For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed
consistent, compliant, or inconformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard,
requirement, or other similar provision ifthere is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable
person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter isconsistent, compliant,
or in conformity."
Case Number: 18-ClV-02105
In itsReply Brief, Petitioners state:
"In non—HAA cases, the substantial evidence test usually favors public agencies whose decisions are
challenged. Ifthere isany substantial evidence inthe record supporting an agency's decision, it must be
upheld. The HAA reverses this, so that project applicants must be afforded the benefit of the doubt. If
there isany substantial evidence supporting approval of the housing project, it must be approved."
(Reply Brief at 3:18—22 [italics in original[.)
The parties are ordered to provide their respective contentions concerning the burden of proof
applicable to this matter and to provide allauthority, including case law, statutes, legislative history,
rules of construction, and treatises relevant to the extent, ifany, that the above quoted provision of
Government Code 65589.5(f)(4) should be deemed to modify or replace the above quoted provision of
California Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5(c).
Ifeither party contends that some aspect of Government Code 65589.5(f)(4) isor isnot enforceable or
is or isnot applicable to this action, the parties are ordered to provide allauthority supporting that
contention.
Ifeither party contends that Government Code 65589.5(f)(4) eliminates the power of a government
entity to exercise discretion in determining which "plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard,
requirement, or other similar provision" isapplicable or eliminates the power of a government entity to
exercise discretion to deny a project ifthere issome substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable
person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant,
or in conformity, the parties are ordered to provide allauthority supporting that contention.
Ifeither party contends that a Superior Court ruling on a Petition for Writ of Mandate alleging a violation
of Government Code 65589.5(f)(4) by a government entity must or must not give any deference to the
Government entities' findings, the parties are ordered to provide all authority supporting that
contention.
Issue 2: The Extent to Which the HAA precludes the use of discretionary guidelines.
The parties are ordered to provide their respective contentions concerning whether the HAA precludes
the use of discretionary guidelines in evaluating Residential Housing Development Project Permits and
to provide all authority, including case law, statutes, legislative history,rules of construction, and
treatises that supports such contention.
Issue 3: The Appropriate Remedy ifA Writ of Mandate Should Issue
The parties are ordered to provide their respective contentions concerning the appropriate remedy
where a court finds that a government entities' actions failed to comply with the HAA; e.g. whether the
appropriate remedy is an order commanding the government entity to approve the project in question
or an order remanding the matter to the government entity for further consideration, including but not
limited to considerations not addressed in the original hearings, and to provide allauthority, including
case law, statutes, legislative history, rules of construction, and treatises that supports such contention.
Case Events
-
Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:
Others
Comments:
Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings
Exhibit C
H RYAN J. PATTERSON (SBN 277971)
SARAH M. K. HOFFMAN (SBN 308568) F I LfiE D
Aflo‘ g
w? «rm
ZACKS FREEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC SAN “M7? a
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 JUL I 2 2019-.
San Francisco, CA 94104 .
Tel: (415) 956—8100
Fax: (415) 288—9755
Attorneys for Petitioners
San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation,
\DOOQQU‘I-PUJN
California Renters Legal Advocacy and
Education Fund, Victoria Fierce, and John Moon
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS CASE NO. 18CIV02105
FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS
PC
LEGAL ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION PETITIONERs’ OPENING BRIEF
FUND, VICTORIA PIERCE, and JOHN MOON,
400
94104
Petitioners
(CCP § 1094.5; Govt. Code § 65589.5)
SUITE
PATIERSON,
C-IV— 02105
CALIFORNIA
VS. i18-
STREET,
& Plaintiafi' s Brief re:
CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY ,
COUNCIL, and CITY OF SAN MATEO
EH 3mm“ “l.“ llllllllillfll‘lljll
FRANCISCO,
MONTGOMERY
FREEDMAN
PLANNNG COMMISSION,
SAN
235
ZACKs, Respondents,
NNNNNNNNHHHr—IHn—‘Hn—‘HH
31H
TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR V.
A8
GUNDOGDU,
g‘dQM&WNHO\DOOQO\M-PWNHO
WA
Real Parties in Interest.
PETITIONERS’ OPENING BRIEF
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
#UJN
II. FACTS .................................................................................................................................
1
III.ARGUMENT 4
.......................................................................................................................
QQUI
A. California’s Housing Accountability Act Requires Approval of Housing
Development Proj ects ................................................................................................. 4
B. Standard of Review and Burden of Proof................................................................... 5
1.Standard 0f Review ................................................................................................. 5
10 2. In an HAA Case, the City Bears the Burden 0f Proof 5
............................................
11 C. San Mateo Violated the Housing Accountability Act by Disapproving the Proj ect
PC
Without Making the Required Findings ..................................................................... 6
400 12
94104
SUITE
PATTERSON,
13
1.There is Substantial Evidence that Would Allow a Reasonable Person t0
Conclude that the Proj ect is Code-Compliant ........................................................ 6
CALIFORNIA
STREET
14
&
2. The MFDGS are not Applicable Objective General Plan, Zoning 0r Subdivision
15 Standards ............................................................................................................... 10
FRANCISCO,
MONTGOMERY
FREEDMAN
16
SAN
3. Even if the MFDGS were Applicable Objective Standards, the “Height”
235
ZACKS,
17 Guideline relied on by San Mateo to Deny the Proj ect isnot Obj ective ............... 11
18 i. An “Objective Standard” must be Uniformly Verifiable and Involve n0
Subj ective Judgement 11
.................................................................................
19
20 ii. The “Height” Guideline is Subjective and Discretionary, and Cannot be
Invoked t0 Deny the Proj ect 12
........................................................................
21
4. In any Event, There is Clearly Substantial Evidence that Would Allow a
22 Reasonable Person to Conclude that the Proj ect Complies with the Height
Guideline ............................................................................................................... 14
23
24 IV. CONCLUSION 15
..................................................................................................................
25
26
27
28
11
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
#UJN
Bam, Inc. v. Board ofPolice Com'rs (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1343 15
...............................................
Bixby v. Piemo (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130 5
...............................................................................................
Broadway, Laguna, Vallejo Ass'n v.Board ofPermit Appeals ofCily and Coumfy ofSan
QQUI Francisco (1967) 66 Ca1.2d 767 5
..................................................................................................
East West Bank. v. Rio School District (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2015) 235 Ca1.App.4th 742 11
..........
Harroman C0. v. Town ofTiburon (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 388 5
...................................................
Honchariw v. Coumfy ofStanislaus (201 1) 200 Ca1.App.4th 1066 4, 5, 6,
............... 10, 11, 12, 13
Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City ofLos Angeles (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 927 4
......................................
10
Northcross v. Board ofEducation (1973) 412 U.S. 427 12
..............................................................
11
PC
Schellinger Bros. v. City ofSebastopol (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1245 1
.........................................
400 12
94104
SUITE
PATTERSON,
Statutes
13
CALIFORNIA
STREET
Cal. Code Regs. § 15332 8
...................................................................................................................
14
&
Code CiV. Proc. § 1094.5 5
..................................................................................................................
15
FRANCISCO,
MONTGOMERY
FREEDMAN
Code Civ. Proc. § 5, 6
1094.5(b) ..........................................................................................................
16
235
SAN
GOV. Code §65589.5 1, 4, 6
.................................................................................................................
ZACKS,
17
Gov. Code §65589.5(b) 4
....................................................................................................................
18
Gov. Code §65589.5(j) 4
.....................................................................................................................
19
Gov. Code 11
§65589.5(a)(1)(K) ........................................................................................................
20
Gov. Code §65589.5(a)(1)(L) 11
........................................................................................................
21
Gov. Code §65589.5(a)(2)(J) 1
...........................................................................................................
22
23
GOV. Code §65589.5(f)(4) 5, 6, 10, 14
................................................................................................
24 Gov. Code §65589.5(j) 4
.....................................................................................................................
25 Gov. Code §65589.5(j)(1) 10
..............................................................................................................
26 Gov. Code §65589.5(k) 5
....................................................................................................................
27 Gov. Code §65589.5(m) 5
...................................................................................................................
28 Gov. Code §65589.6 6
.........................................................................................................................
12
1 GOV. Code §65913.4 12
2 Gov. Code §659134(a)(5) 12
3
4
5
6
7
0
0
9
10
1 1
O
m.
Z c
o 12
o
m w 3
m 2
M b $
M a
H m £
7
13
H H 2
< m
m m
y 8
mg 5 4
mfi 5
1
5 d
3 u
m 15
g 8
m fi
m 3 z
m 2 g 6
m 0 m 1
m. 2m7
m 2
M m m
m
17
u
<
N 0
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
200
13
I. INTRODUCTION
California’s housing shortage has “reached a crisis 0f historic proportions.” (Gov. Code
#UJN
§ 65589.5(a)(2)(J).) Yet attempts to build housing are routinely opposed by neighbors, NIMBYs,1
and local municipalities. Here, the City of San Mateo illegally denied a local property owner’s
proposal t0 build ten new housing units (the “Proj ect”) 0n a lot that is zoned for residential use. San
QQUI
Mateo’s own Planning Division determined that the Proj ect was code-compliant and recommended
approval. However, in response t0 neighbors’ opposition, the City yielded t0 political pressure and
used a spurious basis t0 deny the Proj ect.
This isa case study 0f the precise situation the California legislature sought to prevent in
10 enacting, and subsequently strengthening, the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA,” GOV’t Code
PC
11 § 65589.5). The HAA — often referred t0 as the “Anti-NIMBY law” — compels local agencies to
400 12 approve code-compliant housing development proj ects, unless specific health and safety findings are
94104
SUITE
HAA promotes new housing by restricting local agencies’
PATTERSON,
13 made. The discretion to deny 0r condition
CALIFORNIA
STREET
14 housing development projects.
&
15
FRANCISCO,
The Project is code-compliant, and the HAA compels approval. (Schellinger Bros. v. City 0f
MONTGOMERY
FREEDMAN
16 Sebastopol (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1253, fn. 9.)The Petitioners seek an order reversing San
SAN
235
ZACKS,
17 Mateo’s wrongful denial of the Proj ect and directing the City t0 approve the Proj ect as proposed.
18 II. FACTS
19 On February 23, 2015, Tony and Aynur Gundogdu (the “Real Parties”), a local couple Who
20 live in San Mateo county, submitted an application to construct a new, 15,322 square foot, lO-unit
21 residential condominium project at 4 West Santa Inez and 1 Engle Road. (#PA15-104, AR, 1254.)
22 The San Mateo General Plan designates the Project parcel as “High Density Multi-Family,” and the
23 Zoning Code land designation isR4 — “Multiple Family High Density.” (AR, 886.)
24 After years 0f discussions with City Planning staff, and revisions in response to staff” s
25 requests, the Project was presented to the City Planning Commission on August 8, 2017. The Staff
26
27
28 1
“Not In My Backyard.”
14
Report recommended approval 0f the Proj ect. (AR, 885.) The proposed “Findings for Approval”
(AR,
#UJNr—t
891—907) state that the Proj ect:
meets all applicable standards as adopted by the Planning Commission
and City Council, conforms t0 the General Plan, and will correct any
Violations to the Uniform Building Code, Zoning Code, and 0r
municipal codes in that:
QQUI
a) The project meets the development standards of the R4
zoning district with respect t0 density, setbacks, floor area,
building height, and vehicular parking and bicycle parking;
b) The project complies with the City’s Multi-Family Dwelling
Design Guidelines;
c) The project complies With the recommendations 0f the
City’s Design Review consultant, as conditioned; and
10
d) The project will be constructed to meet all applicable
11 provisions of the Uniform Building Code.
PC
400 12 (AR, 896.)
94104
SUITE
PATTERSON,
At the August 8, 2017 Planning Commission hearing, neighbors spoke in opposition t0 the
13
CALIFORNIA
STREET Proj ect. One neighbor proposed a listof conditions for approval of the proj ect, and presented itto the
14
&
Real Parties shortly before the hearing commenced. (AR, 1199.) The Project architect stated that the
15
FRANCISCO,
MONTGOMERY
FREEDMAN
16
conditions proposed by the neighbor were generally acceptable, and that the Real Parties were
SAN
235 “Willing t0 work with city staff to meet the spirit 0f those conditions.” (AR, 1214-15.) The City
ZACKS,
17
Attorney stated that the Planning Commission could either “approve the Proj ect with the
18
understanding that city staff Will be working With the applicant t0 finalize the conditions [0f
19
approval],” or continue the hearing “until all the conditions 0f approval have been hammered out.”
20
(AR, 12 1 5 .)
21
At the August 8 meeting, there was no suggestion from staff or the Planning Commission that
22
the Proj ect failed to comply With any applicable requirement. The Flaming Commission continued
23
the hearing so that the Real Parties could continue this discussion With the neighbors, and passed a
24
motion t0 “limit the public comment at that future meeting t0 only the conditions of approval.” (AR,
25
1237.) In other words, at the close of this meeting, the only outstanding issues related t0 the
26
conditions attached to the approval, rather than whether the Project should be approved.
27
28
15
Further Planning Commission meetings were held 0n September 26, and October 10, 2017. At
the September 26 meeting, Planning staff again
#UJNr—t
recommended approval 0f the Project, with revised
conditions of approval to address the neighbors’ concerns. (AR, 574.) However, caving t0 pressure
from neighbors, the Planning Commission contrived subj ective concerns regarding neighborhood
compatibility. The City’s General Plan and Planning Code contain n0 objective standards that would
QQUI
allow denial of a proj ect 0n this basis, but the Planning Commission nevertheless voted to deny the
Proj ect and directed Staff t0 “prepare findings for denial” t0 be presented at a future meeting. (AR,
87 1 .)
On October 10, 2017, the Planning
Preview
‘DOLORES BASTIAN DALTON, ddsItong'mgnldIhn’nlipm:m.cmu BARBARA E. KAUTZ, bknmacs}rgnldthrhlimmn .cnm RYE P. MURPHY, 51m: 51am Bm-stfi nnnlphyt'éflgmldfil rhl ipnumxom Bmunmsn 5.3.:3m u mm. um ByW Efeflmnitalfly ”Emmi m EM: ¢I'{.Hflbu‘u, iCmmty H 5M By SIJfilifi 3/6/2020 ‘ GOLDFARB 8LLIPMAN LLP 1300 Clay Street, Eleventh Flam Lh Oakland, California 946 l 2 Telephone: (S 1 U}83 6—6336 wFacsimile: (5-10) 836—1035 MG [Exempffiom Filing Fee (Gav. Code § 6} 03)] f SHAWN M. MASON, SEN #115996 CITY OF SAN MATEO :;City Attorney's Office 330 West 20th Avenue ‘ San Mateo, CA 94403 10 Attornays for Reapnndents ll CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY COUNCIL, and CITY OF SAN MATEO 12 PLANNING COMMISSION l3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14‘ FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 15 1f) SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS Case N0; lS—CIV-UEIUS IFEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS LEGAL ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION FUND, DECLARATION 0F DOLORES B. ZVICTORIA FIERCE AND JOHN MOON. DALTON IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE 0R TAX Petitioner, COSTS “lull III h‘ ‘ vs. Dated: March 19, 2020 a Time: 2 p.111. CITY OF SAN MATEO. SAN MATEO CITY Judge: Honorable George A. Miram COUNCIL, AND CITY OF SAN MATEO Department 28 PLANNING COMMISSION, Respondents. Atrium Filed: April 26, 2m 7 ‘‘‘‘‘ TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR V. ~ GUNDOGDU, Real Palfies in Interest. m OPPD. m MOTIONT’O smmE-"J'Ax COSTS. ] mitt. 66$}st DAL'IUN ”HMHM MJH‘H'T I DECLARATION OF DOLORES BASTIAN DALTON IN OPPOSITION T0 MOTION TD STRIKEITAX COSTS Id I, DOLDRES BASTIAN DALTON. declare: 1. lam a partner in the law firm, Goldfarb 8L Lipman, LLP. This firm reprasents Respondents City 0f San Mateo, San Mateo City Council, and City 0f San Mateo Planning ? Commission (the City) in this action. As such, I-have obtained persona] knuwledgc as to the facts ‘ D&DmflGfiLh-bm described in this declaration. 1 make this declaration in support 0f the City‘s request for an award 'of costs reasonably and necessarily incurred in the preparation 0f the administrative record in this acfion. 2. For the Court‘s convenience, certain papers filed in this action that are cited in H Respondent's Oppnsitiun memorandum are attached t0 this daclaration as Exhibit A through F. m_- II—i 3. Petitioners requested that the City prepare: the administrative record in this action. HM LaJ See Exhibit A, attached hereto, a true and correct copy of an email, dated May 1 l,20] 9, fmm o—I Petitioners“ counsel, stating that Respondents were required to prepara the administrative record. _ db- i— h—l- Lfl Petitioner‘s email stated: "Per HAA section (m). the city must prepare the administl‘ativa record D! within 30 days at its own expense." This document was attached t0 my declaratifln filed with H «J Respondents' Memorandum 0f Costs, .I—l 4. Fur the Court's cn‘nvenienca‘ attached as Exhibit B isa true and correct copy 0f "DO H —l- the Court's August 29, 20 I U Order requesting further briefing 0n particular matters at issue in MO b _-_':‘~:11LI Petitioners‘ claims. MG 5. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy 0f 'Petitiuners' Opening Brief. filed in this action on July 12+ 20W. 6. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Petitiuners‘ Supplemantal Brief, filed in this action {m Septmnber l9, 20 tL3. 7'. Attached ab Exhibit E is a hm: and correct cup}; uf' Petitiuncrs' Raquest for Judicial Notice in support uflheir Supplemental Brief. filed in this actinn on September 19‘ 2019. The exhibits t0 the Request haw: been omitted. 3. Altached as Exhibit F is a true and cnn‘ect campy nt‘Respnndents' Supplemental j DEC'L. DOLDRFS 13A LTDN MflTlflN lfil—[JJ‘P’Pf’i’TI'l TC}STRIKE‘TAX L'USTS Mawmnmsfli l Brief, filed in this action 0n October 17, 2019. 9. Logikcull is not an "electronic filing service provider." Logikcull is an important decument management mo] that Goidfarh 85 Lipman routinely 11363 when pr3paring administrative records. The use of Logikcull in the preparation 0f the administrative record in this matter allowed Respundents to efficiently sort and review City records, which originated D‘- from different sources, in preparing the record. Logikcull's automation features fur document *4 review reduced the number 0f attorney and paralegal hours and ultimately lowered the cost 0f DO record preparation. ND Ideclare undar panalry of perjury under the laws 0f tha State 0f California that the “D foregoing is trua and corract. Executed March 5, 202:0, at Oakland, California. 11 12 Dwm DOLORES BASTIAN DALTON EPILM v 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 Lnlrflmb r$ 20 Ipmnll II? 21 £on Emmy LJp El 22 h I'qu‘h Hi .' v. 23 hklnnr‘ 24 .nhirn nu:- 25 JAM? v.4m n am 9-: 26 ' VIE. Hm; |Iii.I' 28 3 DECL. DOLGRES DALTON IN DPPO. TO MOTION TO SVTRIKEFTAX COSTS fififlhflflfififlflll Exhibit A Konni Stalica From: Ryan Patterson Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 5:53 PM To: Dolores Dalton Cc: Barbara Kautz Subject: RE: SF BARF v. San Mateo Thanks, Dolores. It was nice talking with you, and I'm glad to hear you and Barbara will be handling this case. Per HAA section (m), the city must prepare the administrative record within 30 days at its own expense, but we're happy to stipulate to an extra 10 days. If you need more time, please let me know and we can discuss. Best, Ryan Ryan J. Patterson Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 956-8100 Facsimile: (415) 288-9755 Email: ryan@zfplaw.com www.zfplaw.com This communication and its contents may contain confidential and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Unless expressly stated, nothing inthis communication should be regarded as tax advice. 5 Exhibit B Case Number: 18-ClV-02105 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center 1050 Mission Road Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 www.sanmateocourt.org Minute Order SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS FEDERATION, et al vs. CITY OF 18-ClV—02105 SAN MATEO, et al 08/29/2019 2:00 PM Petition for Writ of Mandate Hearing Result: Held Judicial Officer: Scott, Joseph C. Location: Courtroom ZG Courtroom Clerk: Linda Makela Courtroom Reporter: Jocelyne Fakhouri Parties Present Exhibits Minutes Journals - No appearance by any parties herein or their counsel of record. Tentative ruling adopted as follows: The Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by Petitioners, San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, Victoria Fierce and John Moon is CONTINUED TO Thursday October 24, 2019 for further briefing on the matters listed below. Petitioner's Supplemental Brief due by September 19, 2019, Respondent's Brief due by October 17- 2019. No Reply. Issue 1:The Burden of Proof on a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate seeking to overturn a City Council Decision Denying An Appeal on a Residential Housing Development Project Permit on the Grounds that Such Decision violates the California Housing Accountability Act, Government Code 65589.5 et seq. California Code of CivilProcedure 1094.5(c) provides: ”Where claimed that the findings are not supported it is by the evidence, in cases inwhich the court is authorized by law to exercise itsindependent judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established ifthe court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. In allother cases, abuse of discretion is established ifthe court determines that findings isnot supported findings by substantial e evidence in light of the whole record." Government Code 65589.5(f)(4) provides: ”For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, or inconformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision ifthere is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter isconsistent, compliant, or in conformity." Case Number: 18-ClV-02105 In itsReply Brief, Petitioners state: "In non—HAA cases, the substantial evidence test usually favors public agencies whose decisions are challenged. Ifthere isany substantial evidence inthe record supporting an agency's decision, it must be upheld. The HAA reverses this, so that project applicants must be afforded the benefit of the doubt. If there isany substantial evidence supporting approval of the housing project, it must be approved." (Reply Brief at 3:18—22 [italics in original[.) The parties are ordered to provide their respective contentions concerning the burden of proof applicable to this matter and to provide allauthority, including case law, statutes, legislative history, rules of construction, and treatises relevant to the extent, ifany, that the above quoted provision of Government Code 65589.5(f)(4) should be deemed to modify or replace the above quoted provision of California Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5(c). Ifeither party contends that some aspect of Government Code 65589.5(f)(4) isor isnot enforceable or is or isnot applicable to this action, the parties are ordered to provide allauthority supporting that contention. Ifeither party contends that Government Code 65589.5(f)(4) eliminates the power of a government entity to exercise discretion in determining which "plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision" isapplicable or eliminates the power of a government entity to exercise discretion to deny a project ifthere issome substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity, the parties are ordered to provide allauthority supporting that contention. Ifeither party contends that a Superior Court ruling on a Petition for Writ of Mandate alleging a violation of Government Code 65589.5(f)(4) by a government entity must or must not give any deference to the Government entities' findings, the parties are ordered to provide all authority supporting that contention. Issue 2: The Extent to Which the HAA precludes the use of discretionary guidelines. The parties are ordered to provide their respective contentions concerning whether the HAA precludes the use of discretionary guidelines in evaluating Residential Housing Development Project Permits and to provide all authority, including case law, statutes, legislative history,rules of construction, and treatises that supports such contention. Issue 3: The Appropriate Remedy ifA Writ of Mandate Should Issue The parties are ordered to provide their respective contentions concerning the appropriate remedy where a court finds that a government entities' actions failed to comply with the HAA; e.g. whether the appropriate remedy is an order commanding the government entity to approve the project in question or an order remanding the matter to the government entity for further consideration, including but not limited to considerations not addressed in the original hearings, and to provide allauthority, including case law, statutes, legislative history, rules of construction, and treatises that supports such contention. Case Events - Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order: Others Comments: Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings Exhibit C H RYAN J. PATTERSON (SBN 277971) SARAH M. K. HOFFMAN (SBN 308568) F I LfiE D Aflo‘ g w? «rm ZACKS FREEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC SAN “M7? a 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 JUL I 2 2019-. San Francisco, CA 94104 . Tel: (415) 956—8100 Fax: (415) 288—9755 Attorneys for Petitioners San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation, \DOOQQU‘I-PUJN California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, Victoria Fierce, and John Moon SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS CASE NO. 18CIV02105 FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS PC LEGAL ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION PETITIONERs’ OPENING BRIEF FUND, VICTORIA PIERCE, and JOHN MOON, 400 94104 Petitioners (CCP § 1094.5; Govt. Code § 65589.5) SUITE PATIERSON, C-IV— 02105 CALIFORNIA VS. i18- STREET, & Plaintiafi' s Brief re: CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY , COUNCIL, and CITY OF SAN MATEO EH 3mm“ “l.“ llllllllillfll‘lljll FRANCISCO, MONTGOMERY FREEDMAN PLANNNG COMMISSION, SAN 235 ZACKs, Respondents, NNNNNNNNHHHr—IHn—‘Hn—‘HH 31H TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR V. A8 GUNDOGDU, g‘dQM&WNHO\DOOQO\M-PWNHO WA Real Parties in Interest. PETITIONERS’ OPENING BRIEF 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 #UJN II. FACTS ................................................................................................................................. 1 III.ARGUMENT 4 ....................................................................................................................... QQUI A. California’s Housing Accountability Act Requires Approval of Housing Development Proj ects ................................................................................................. 4 B. Standard of Review and Burden of Proof................................................................... 5 1.Standard 0f Review ................................................................................................. 5 10 2. In an HAA Case, the City Bears the Burden 0f Proof 5 ............................................ 11 C. San Mateo Violated the Housing Accountability Act by Disapproving the Proj ect PC Without Making the Required Findings ..................................................................... 6 400 12 94104 SUITE PATTERSON, 13 1.There is Substantial Evidence that Would Allow a Reasonable Person t0 Conclude that the Proj ect is Code-Compliant ........................................................ 6 CALIFORNIA STREET 14 & 2. The MFDGS are not Applicable Objective General Plan, Zoning 0r Subdivision 15 Standards ............................................................................................................... 10 FRANCISCO, MONTGOMERY FREEDMAN 16 SAN 3. Even if the MFDGS were Applicable Objective Standards, the “Height” 235 ZACKS, 17 Guideline relied on by San Mateo to Deny the Proj ect isnot Obj ective ............... 11 18 i. An “Objective Standard” must be Uniformly Verifiable and Involve n0 Subj ective Judgement 11 ................................................................................. 19 20 ii. The “Height” Guideline is Subjective and Discretionary, and Cannot be Invoked t0 Deny the Proj ect 12 ........................................................................ 21 4. In any Event, There is Clearly Substantial Evidence that Would Allow a 22 Reasonable Person to Conclude that the Proj ect Complies with the Height Guideline ............................................................................................................... 14 23 24 IV. CONCLUSION 15 .................................................................................................................. 25 26 27 28 11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases #UJN Bam, Inc. v. Board ofPolice Com'rs (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1343 15 ............................................... Bixby v. Piemo (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130 5 ............................................................................................... Broadway, Laguna, Vallejo Ass'n v.Board ofPermit Appeals ofCily and Coumfy ofSan QQUI Francisco (1967) 66 Ca1.2d 767 5 .................................................................................................. East West Bank. v. Rio School District (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2015) 235 Ca1.App.4th 742 11 .......... Harroman C0. v. Town ofTiburon (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 388 5 ................................................... Honchariw v. Coumfy ofStanislaus (201 1) 200 Ca1.App.4th 1066 4, 5, 6, ............... 10, 11, 12, 13 Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City ofLos Angeles (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 927 4 ...................................... 10 Northcross v. Board ofEducation (1973) 412 U.S. 427 12 .............................................................. 11 PC Schellinger Bros. v. City ofSebastopol (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1245 1 ......................................... 400 12 94104 SUITE PATTERSON, Statutes 13 CALIFORNIA STREET Cal. Code Regs. § 15332 8 ................................................................................................................... 14 & Code CiV. Proc. § 1094.5 5 .................................................................................................................. 15 FRANCISCO, MONTGOMERY FREEDMAN Code Civ. Proc. § 5, 6 1094.5(b) .......................................................................................................... 16 235 SAN GOV. Code §65589.5 1, 4, 6 ................................................................................................................. ZACKS, 17 Gov. Code §65589.5(b) 4 .................................................................................................................... 18 Gov. Code §65589.5(j) 4 ..................................................................................................................... 19 Gov. Code 11 §65589.5(a)(1)(K) ........................................................................................................ 20 Gov. Code §65589.5(a)(1)(L) 11 ........................................................................................................ 21 Gov. Code §65589.5(a)(2)(J) 1 ........................................................................................................... 22 23 GOV. Code §65589.5(f)(4) 5, 6, 10, 14 ................................................................................................ 24 Gov. Code §65589.5(j) 4 ..................................................................................................................... 25 Gov. Code §65589.5(j)(1) 10 .............................................................................................................. 26 Gov. Code §65589.5(k) 5 .................................................................................................................... 27 Gov. Code §65589.5(m) 5 ................................................................................................................... 28 Gov. Code §65589.6 6 ......................................................................................................................... 12 1 GOV. Code §65913.4 12 2 Gov. Code §659134(a)(5) 12 3 4 5 6 7 0 0 9 10 1 1 O m. Z c o 12 o m w 3 m 2 M b $ M a H m £ 7 13 H H 2 < m m m y 8 mg 5 4 mfi 5 1 5 d 3 u m 15 g 8 m fi m 3 z m 2 g 6 m 0 m 1 m. 2m7 m 2 M m m m 17 u < N 0 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 200 13 I. INTRODUCTION California’s housing shortage has “reached a crisis 0f historic proportions.” (Gov. Code #UJN § 65589.5(a)(2)(J).) Yet attempts to build housing are routinely opposed by neighbors, NIMBYs,1 and local municipalities. Here, the City of San Mateo illegally denied a local property owner’s proposal t0 build ten new housing units (the “Proj ect”) 0n a lot that is zoned for residential use. San QQUI Mateo’s own Planning Division determined that the Proj ect was code-compliant and recommended approval. However, in response t0 neighbors’ opposition, the City yielded t0 political pressure and used a spurious basis t0 deny the Proj ect. This isa case study 0f the precise situation the California legislature sought to prevent in 10 enacting, and subsequently strengthening, the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA,” GOV’t Code PC 11 § 65589.5). The HAA — often referred t0 as the “Anti-NIMBY law” — compels local agencies to 400 12 approve code-compliant housing development proj ects, unless specific health and safety findings are 94104 SUITE HAA promotes new housing by restricting local agencies’ PATTERSON, 13 made. The discretion to deny 0r condition CALIFORNIA STREET 14 housing development projects. & 15 FRANCISCO, The Project is code-compliant, and the HAA compels approval. (Schellinger Bros. v. City 0f MONTGOMERY FREEDMAN 16 Sebastopol (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1253, fn. 9.)The Petitioners seek an order reversing San SAN 235 ZACKS, 17 Mateo’s wrongful denial of the Proj ect and directing the City t0 approve the Proj ect as proposed. 18 II. FACTS 19 On February 23, 2015, Tony and Aynur Gundogdu (the “Real Parties”), a local couple Who 20 live in San Mateo county, submitted an application to construct a new, 15,322 square foot, lO-unit 21 residential condominium project at 4 West Santa Inez and 1 Engle Road. (#PA15-104, AR, 1254.) 22 The San Mateo General Plan designates the Project parcel as “High Density Multi-Family,” and the 23 Zoning Code land designation isR4 — “Multiple Family High Density.” (AR, 886.) 24 After years 0f discussions with City Planning staff, and revisions in response to staff” s 25 requests, the Project was presented to the City Planning Commission on August 8, 2017. The Staff 26 27 28 1 “Not In My Backyard.” 14 Report recommended approval 0f the Proj ect. (AR, 885.) The proposed “Findings for Approval” (AR, #UJNr—t 891—907) state that the Proj ect: meets all applicable standards as adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, conforms t0 the General Plan, and will correct any Violations to the Uniform Building Code, Zoning Code, and 0r municipal codes in that: QQUI a) The project meets the development standards of the R4 zoning district with respect t0 density, setbacks, floor area, building height, and vehicular parking and bicycle parking; b) The project complies with the City’s Multi-Family Dwelling Design Guidelines; c) The project complies With the recommendations 0f the City’s Design Review consultant, as conditioned; and 10 d) The project will be constructed to meet all applicable 11 provisions of the Uniform Building Code. PC 400 12 (AR, 896.) 94104 SUITE PATTERSON, At the August 8, 2017 Planning Commission hearing, neighbors spoke in opposition t0 the 13 CALIFORNIA STREET Proj ect. One neighbor proposed a listof conditions for approval of the proj ect, and presented itto the 14 & Real Parties shortly before the hearing commenced. (AR, 1199.) The Project architect stated that the 15 FRANCISCO, MONTGOMERY FREEDMAN 16 conditions proposed by the neighbor were generally acceptable, and that the Real Parties were SAN 235 “Willing t0 work with city staff to meet the spirit 0f those conditions.” (AR, 1214-15.) The City ZACKS, 17 Attorney stated that the Planning Commission could either “approve the Proj ect with the 18 understanding that city staff Will be working With the applicant t0 finalize the conditions [0f 19 approval],” or continue the hearing “until all the conditions 0f approval have been hammered out.” 20 (AR, 12 1 5 .) 21 At the August 8 meeting, there was no suggestion from staff or the Planning Commission that 22 the Proj ect failed to comply With any applicable requirement. The Flaming Commission continued 23 the hearing so that the Real Parties could continue this discussion With the neighbors, and passed a 24 motion t0 “limit the public comment at that future meeting t0 only the conditions of approval.” (AR, 25 1237.) In other words, at the close of this meeting, the only outstanding issues related t0 the 26 conditions attached to the approval, rather than whether the Project should be approved. 27 28 15 Further Planning Commission meetings were held 0n September 26, and October 10, 2017. At the September 26 meeting, Planning staff again #UJNr—t recommended approval 0f the Project, with revised conditions of approval to address the neighbors’ concerns. (AR, 574.) However, caving t0 pressure from neighbors, the Planning Commission contrived subj ective concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility. The City’s General Plan and Planning Code contain n0 objective standards that would QQUI allow denial of a proj ect 0n this basis, but the Planning Commission nevertheless voted to deny the Proj ect and directed Staff t0 “prepare findings for denial” t0 be presented at a future meeting. (AR, 87 1 .) On October 10, 2017, the Planning