Preview
DOLORES BASTIAN DALTON, siaie Bar #94931
FILE
SAN MATEOcouNTy ~
eaton@gatteptipman:com
ARA E.. KAUTZ, State Bar 231050
bkautz@goldfarblipman.com: DEC = 6 2019
rk
JUSTIN D. BIGELOW, state Bar# 306761 Cle
jbigelow@goldfarblipman.com
GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLP.
0 Clay Street, Eleventh Floor
akland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 836-6336
Faesimile; (510) 836-1035
[Exempt from Filing Fee (Gov. Code § 6103)}
SHAWN MASON, state Bar# 115996
CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Attorney's Office
330 West'20th Avenue
10 San. Mateo, CA 94403
ql Attorneys for Respondents
CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY
12 COUNCIL, and CITY OF SAN MATEQ
PLANNING COMMISSION 5
\
13
SUPERIOR COURT.OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
15
16 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS Case No.: 18-CIV-02105
FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS LEGAL
17 ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION FUND, NOTICE OF ENTRY. OF JUDGMENT|
VICTORIA FIERCE AND JOHN MOON;
18
Geldtorb & Petitiorier,
19 Action Filed: April.26, 2017
Vomod WP 20
vs.
1300 Clay Steet ‘CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY
21 COUNCIL, AND-CITY OF SAN MATEO
Elevésith:Floor PLANNING COMMISSION,
22
‘oklond Respondents.
23
Calioraio TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR Vv.
24 GUNDOGDU,
oabt2
25 Real Parties in Interest.
510'936.6336
26
510 836-1035 FAX
Qie
27 Mt q
28
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
660\0712724588.1
4
s
|
i
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: i
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Judgment was entered in this action on December 4, 2019.
lA copy of the Judgment is attached as Exhibit A.
DATED: December _, 2019 GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLP
oy DOWIE IO
DOLORES BASTIAN DALTON
Attorneys for Respondents,
CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY
COUNCIL, AND CITY OF SAN MATEO:
10 PLANNING COMMISSION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17.
18
Goldiar &
19
20
Upmon UP
1300.Cioy Street
21
22
Eleventh Flocr
Oaklond
23
Cahlomnio
24
94612
25
510 836.6336 26
510 836:1035 FAK 27
28
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
660\07\2724588, 1 .
“
10
i
12
13
14
15
16,
17
18
Goldiarb &
19
20
{ipmon UP
2i
1300 Cloy Steet
- 22
Eleventh Floor
23
Coklond
Colforaio
24
EXHIBIT A
25
94012
516 026.0020 26
510'836.1035 FAX
7
28
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
6600712724588. 1
_
\Y
FILED
DOLORES. BASTIAN DALTON, siate Bar # 94931 SAN MATEO COUNTY
“dalton@goldfarblipman.com
BARBARA e
Bar #231059
E. KAUTZ, stat DEC 04 2019
bkaurz@goldfarblipman.com
k]OTYTIERK
# 306761 lerk off Superior Court
JUSTIN D. BIGELOW, state Bar
jbigelow@zoldfarblipoiin.com
GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLP LY
1300 Clay Street, Eleventh Floor
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 836-6336
Facsimile: (510) 836-1035.
[Exempt from Filing Fee (Gov. Code § 61' 03)]
SHAWN MASON, state iar #115996
CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Attorney's Office
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403 i
10
Attomeys for Respondents
Tl CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO cITY sl
aa
COUNCIL, and CITY OF SAN.MATEO ES
oO
12 PLANNING COMMISSION
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3
14 FOR THE‘COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, UNLIMITED JURISDICT ON
15 ©
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS Case No.: 18*CIV-02105
16 FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS
LEGAL ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION JUDGMENT -
7 FUND, VICTORIA FIERCE AND-JOHN MOO!
18 Petitioner, Action Filed: April 26; 2017
Goldait & 19 Hearing Date: October 24; 2019
VS;
Hearing Tim 2:00 p.m.
pina 20 i Department: 28
CITY OF SAN-MATEO, SAN-MATEO CITY
COUNCIL, AND CITY OF SAN MATEO Judge: Hon. GeorgeA. Miram
1300 Choy Sect 21 PLANNING COMMISSION,
-
evenh Fle
22 Respondents.
Ooktond
23 TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR Mea
CoMaicie GUNDOGDU, |
24
ani? Real Parties in Interest,
25
=+ =
sin e298370 ‘£
26 rearing on, October
The Petition for Writ of Mandate came regularly before this Court tor
sie 32102510 27 &
24, 2019, the Honorable George A. Miram presiding. Dolores Bastian Daltoniof Goldtarb
28
TUDGMI
660\6712711223.1
1 ]|Lipman LLP, and Shawn Mason, City Attorney for the City of San Mateo, appeared for
Planning|
2 Respondents City of San Mateo, the San Mateo City Council and the City of San Mateo
&
3 | {Commission (Respondents). Ryan Patterson and Sarah ‘Hoffman of Zacks, Freedman
4 Patterson, PC, appeared for Petitioners San Francisco Bay Area Rénters Federation, California
s).
5 [Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, Victoria Fier ce and John Moon (Petitioner
Mehmet’
6 David Finkelstein of Finkelstein & Fujii LLP appeared for Real Partics in Interést Tony
74 Gundogdu and Aynur V. Gundogdu (Real Parties).
8 A tive and correct copy of the Court's final Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
9 incorporated by this reference into this Judgment. -
10 In accoidance with the Order:
It IT IS ORDERED,.ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
12 1 The Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED:
13 2. Judgment is entered-in favor of Respondents;
14 3 Respondents are awarded costs of suit.
15
DEC 6 8 2019
16 | DATED:
17
November 2019
fi (lien
‘GEOR A. MIRAM
18 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
19
Goldie s
ipsa 20 Approved as to Form
1200 Coy Sect 21
DATED: November. 2019 ZACKS, FREEDMAN& PATTERSON; PC
22
Steven Fics
Oakes 23
RYAN PATTERSON
Cotteria 24 Attorneys for Petitioners
engl? 25
sro es 26
21g eSeatest tar 27
28
IGDGMENT
GGUNO712711285.1
Ne
10
MW
12
13 ITA
14
15
16
17
18
19
Geislove 8
20
Uavan iF
Coy Sees 21
22
Boeck fe
23
Salen
24 {— =ss
Cabioests
sie 25
a 26
oF: Bek 27
28
SOBGHENTY
6601072715223.
NY
KS
FEL ED
SAN MATEO:
NOV
,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
TN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 San Francisco Bay Area Renters Case No. 18-CIV-02105
n Federation, California Renters Legal Order ‘or Writ of
dra
12 Advocacy and Education Fund, Victoria
43 Fierce and John Moon
14 Petitioners October 24, 2019
1s V
16
City of San Mateo and City of San on. GeorgeA. Miram
17 Mateo Planning Commission
18 Respondents
19
20
2.
! The Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate brought by San F:
22 Bay Area Renters Federation, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education|
23
Fund, Victoria Fierce and John Moon came on regularly for hearing at 2:00. PM)
24
on October 24, 2019 in Department 28 of the San Mateo Superior Court, the Hon,
George A. Miram presiding.
25
‘ Ryan J. Patterson, Esq. and James B. Kraus, Esq. of Zacks, Freedman &
26
Patterson, PC appeared on behalf of Petitioners. Barbara E. Kautz, Esq. -and
27
28
Dolores Bastian Dalton, Esq. appeared on behalf of the City of San Mateo City
Council and the City of San Mateo Planning Commission. '
ie civ 02108 |
1 | Sie Denying
in l at
\ ee
Se
1
‘After receiving the papers filed by the parties, hearing the oral argurnents off
counsel, and after the court granted all requests for judicial notice, the matter was
submitted.
The City of Sari Mateo bases its opposition to the Petition for Writ of {
Mandaté on two grounds (1) a finding that the project Violated the City’ 's Multi
Family Design Guidelines, requiring upper floors of a project that exceeds the
height of neighboring structures be stepped back to avoid changes in building
height greater than one story, a finding that was expressly included in the City’s
denial resolution; and (2) the failure of the project to comply with City’s parking
10
standards, a grounds for denial that was not addressed in the denial résolution,
~
al Since the denial resolution did not include any findings concerning the alleged
12 failure to comply with parking standards, the matter must be remanded to the City
43 so that such findings can be made unless this court finds that the findings that the
14 project violated the City’s Multi-Family Design Guidelines comply with thet
is. enforceable provisions ‘of the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code §
16 65589.5 et seq. (hereafter “HAA”), and is, by itself, an appropriate grounds for
a Denial of the project by the San Mateo Planning Commission, Denial. of thé
18 Appeal of such denial by the City of San Mateo City Council, and Denial of’thig
13 Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate by this court.
20 ‘Thus, the’ issue before this court is whether the finding that the project
21 Violated the City’s Multi-Family Design Guidelines requiring upper floors of a
22 project that exceeds the height of neighboring structures be stepped back to avoid}
23 changes in building height greater than one story satisfies the HAA, and if not,
24 whether any provisions of the HAA; that are not satisfied are enforceable
28 Petitioner contends that “the City bears the burden of proving that the
26 Project failed to comply with “applicable, objective general plan and zoning.
27 standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time thai
28 the housing development project’s application was determined to be. complete]
+2
WG XY
'
(Petitioner’s Opening Brief at 6:11-14 [quoting Honchariw y. County of Stanislaug
(2011) 200 Cal.App.4" 1066, 1081.].) Petitioner contends that the Multi-F
Design Guidelines (hereafter “MFDGs”) are not applicable objective general.
zoning or subdivision standards or criteria, and therefore denial of a project due to
any failure of the project to satisfy the guidelines violates the HAA. (Petitioner's
Opening Brief at 10:18-11:14.) Respondent contends that “The City:
interpreted the standard to mean that all floors of a proposed building that
exceeded the height of a neighboring structure needed to be-stepped back” and
“Because the project did not comply, the Council denied the project.’
10 (Respondent’s Supplemental Brief at 13:2-4 [citing Administrative Record at 28+
a 31].) Respondent contends that the interpretation of MFDGs standard is an issn¢
12 of pure law and that the city’s interpretation of its own ordinance is entitled ta
13 great weight. (Respondent’s Supplemental Brief at 13:5-8 [quoting Harrington v.
14 City of Davis (2017) 16 Cal.App.5” 420, 434 and citing Ocean Park Associates
15 Santa Monica Rent Control Bd, (2004) 114 Cal.App- 4" 1050, 1062; Yamaha Ce
16 y. State Bd. Of Equilzation (1998) 19 Cal. 4 1.) Respondent contends that s
nv thréshold legal issues should be decided by this court under the éndeni
18 judgment standard. (Respondent? 's Supplemental Brief at 11:9-10.)
13 Exercising its independent judgment, and giving difference to the city’s
20 interpretation of its own Multi-Family Design Guidelines, this court finds that th
2 Multi-Family Design Guidelines qualify as “applicable, objective general plan
22 zoning standards and criteria, including design teview standards, in effect at the
23 development project's. application was determined to be
time ‘that the housing
2a complete.” (Honchariw v. County of Sanislaus, (2011) 200 Cal.App.4" 1066,
25 1081:) This court finds this issue to be an issue of pure law and that the
26 reasonable interpretation/substantial evidence standard provided in Government
27 Code § 65589.5((4) does not apply to this court’s determination of this sj fi
28 Jegal issue.
Xu
NS
>
‘Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED because the city}
did not violate the HAA when it denied approval of the project because tbe project
failed to satisfy the Multi-Family Design Guidelines, as interpreted by the city and}
confirmed by this court in the’exercise ofiits independent judgment.
Petitioners contend that the HAA effectively precludes the use of
discretionary guidelines to deny residential housing development project permits,
because such guidelines are not objective standards. (Petitioners Supplemental
Brief at page 2:24-26 (citing Government Code § 65589.5())(1); Honchariw v.
County of Sanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.App. 4" 1066, 1076 [HAA takes“ “away at}
10
fagencies ability to use what might be called a. ‘subjective’ development *policy’
(for example ‘suitability’ to exempt a proposed housing project from the reach off
12 subdivision GY’]-) Petitioners note that in January 2000, subdivision (j) was
43 changed from “[w]hen a proposed housing development project complies. with the
14 applicable general -plan, zoning and development polices in effect” to includg
15
“objective...standards and criteria.” (Petitioners Supplemental brief at 11: 16-22.)
16 Petitioners contend that the MFDGs are not applicable objective general
17 plan, zoning or subdivision standards. First, Petitioners contend that a desigtl
18 review standard can only be used to deny a project if it is included in an appli
1s General Plan, zoning code or subdivision code and, the MFDGs are not
20 incorporated into San Mateo’s General Plan or Codes, but were adopted as separate.
21 guidelines. (Petitioners Opening Brief at page 10:23 11:03.) Second, Petitioners
22 contend that the MFDGs are discretionary, and as discussed above, argue tha
23 discretionary guidelines may not be used to deny a project to which the HAA|
24 applies. (Id: at 11:04~ 07:) Petitioners note that the City’s Urban Design Policy
25 simply recommends that projects “substantially conform” to the MEDGS; they are
26 not a mandatory checklist. (Id. at 11:09-14 [citing U.D. 2.1]. )
27 Respondents -contend that such ‘a sweeping negation of local agence:
the}
28 discretion interferes with core municipal decision-making ability and violates
Preview
DOLORES BASTIAN DALTON, siaie Bar #94931 FILE SAN MATEOcouNTy ~ eaton@gatteptipman:com ARA E.. KAUTZ, State Bar 231050 bkautz@goldfarblipman.com: DEC = 6 2019 rk JUSTIN D. BIGELOW, state Bar# 306761 Cle jbigelow@goldfarblipman.com GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLP. 0 Clay Street, Eleventh Floor akland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 836-6336 Faesimile; (510) 836-1035 [Exempt from Filing Fee (Gov. Code § 6103)} SHAWN MASON, state Bar# 115996 CITY OF SAN MATEO City Attorney's Office 330 West'20th Avenue 10 San. Mateo, CA 94403 ql Attorneys for Respondents CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY 12 COUNCIL, and CITY OF SAN MATEQ PLANNING COMMISSION 5 \ 13 SUPERIOR COURT.OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 15 16 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS Case No.: 18-CIV-02105 FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS LEGAL 17 ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION FUND, NOTICE OF ENTRY. OF JUDGMENT| VICTORIA FIERCE AND JOHN MOON; 18 Geldtorb & Petitiorier, 19 Action Filed: April.26, 2017 Vomod WP 20 vs. 1300 Clay Steet ‘CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY 21 COUNCIL, AND-CITY OF SAN MATEO Elevésith:Floor PLANNING COMMISSION, 22 ‘oklond Respondents. 23 Calioraio TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR Vv. 24 GUNDOGDU, oabt2 25 Real Parties in Interest. 510'936.6336 26 510 836-1035 FAX Qie 27 Mt q 28 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 660\0712724588.1 4 s | i TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: i PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Judgment was entered in this action on December 4, 2019. lA copy of the Judgment is attached as Exhibit A. DATED: December _, 2019 GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLP oy DOWIE IO DOLORES BASTIAN DALTON Attorneys for Respondents, CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY OF SAN MATEO: 10 PLANNING COMMISSION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. 18 Goldiar & 19 20 Upmon UP 1300.Cioy Street 21 22 Eleventh Flocr Oaklond 23 Cahlomnio 24 94612 25 510 836.6336 26 510 836:1035 FAK 27 28 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 660\07\2724588, 1 . “ 10 i 12 13 14 15 16, 17 18 Goldiarb & 19 20 {ipmon UP 2i 1300 Cloy Steet - 22 Eleventh Floor 23 Coklond Colforaio 24 EXHIBIT A 25 94012 516 026.0020 26 510'836.1035 FAX 7 28 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 6600712724588. 1 _ \Y FILED DOLORES. BASTIAN DALTON, siate Bar # 94931 SAN MATEO COUNTY “dalton@goldfarblipman.com BARBARA e Bar #231059 E. KAUTZ, stat DEC 04 2019 bkaurz@goldfarblipman.com k]OTYTIERK # 306761 lerk off Superior Court JUSTIN D. BIGELOW, state Bar jbigelow@zoldfarblipoiin.com GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLP LY 1300 Clay Street, Eleventh Floor Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 836-6336 Facsimile: (510) 836-1035. [Exempt from Filing Fee (Gov. Code § 61' 03)] SHAWN MASON, state iar #115996 CITY OF SAN MATEO City Attorney's Office 330 West 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 i 10 Attomeys for Respondents Tl CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO cITY sl aa COUNCIL, and CITY OF SAN.MATEO ES oO 12 PLANNING COMMISSION 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 14 FOR THE‘COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, UNLIMITED JURISDICT ON 15 © SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RENTERS Case No.: 18*CIV-02105 16 FEDERATION, CALIFORNIA RENTERS LEGAL ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION JUDGMENT - 7 FUND, VICTORIA FIERCE AND-JOHN MOO! 18 Petitioner, Action Filed: April 26; 2017 Goldait & 19 Hearing Date: October 24; 2019 VS; Hearing Tim 2:00 p.m. pina 20 i Department: 28 CITY OF SAN-MATEO, SAN-MATEO CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY OF SAN MATEO Judge: Hon. GeorgeA. Miram 1300 Choy Sect 21 PLANNING COMMISSION, - evenh Fle 22 Respondents. Ooktond 23 TONY MEHMET GUNDOGDU and AYNUR Mea CoMaicie GUNDOGDU, | 24 ani? Real Parties in Interest, 25 =+ = sin e298370 ‘£ 26 rearing on, October The Petition for Writ of Mandate came regularly before this Court tor sie 32102510 27 & 24, 2019, the Honorable George A. Miram presiding. Dolores Bastian Daltoniof Goldtarb 28 TUDGMI 660\6712711223.1 1 ]|Lipman LLP, and Shawn Mason, City Attorney for the City of San Mateo, appeared for Planning| 2 Respondents City of San Mateo, the San Mateo City Council and the City of San Mateo & 3 | {Commission (Respondents). Ryan Patterson and Sarah ‘Hoffman of Zacks, Freedman 4 Patterson, PC, appeared for Petitioners San Francisco Bay Area Rénters Federation, California s). 5 [Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, Victoria Fier ce and John Moon (Petitioner Mehmet’ 6 David Finkelstein of Finkelstein & Fujii LLP appeared for Real Partics in Interést Tony 74 Gundogdu and Aynur V. Gundogdu (Real Parties). 8 A tive and correct copy of the Court's final Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and 9 incorporated by this reference into this Judgment. - 10 In accoidance with the Order: It IT IS ORDERED,.ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 12 1 The Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED: 13 2. Judgment is entered-in favor of Respondents; 14 3 Respondents are awarded costs of suit. 15 DEC 6 8 2019 16 | DATED: 17 November 2019 fi (lien ‘GEOR A. MIRAM 18 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 19 Goldie s ipsa 20 Approved as to Form 1200 Coy Sect 21 DATED: November. 2019 ZACKS, FREEDMAN& PATTERSON; PC 22 Steven Fics Oakes 23 RYAN PATTERSON Cotteria 24 Attorneys for Petitioners engl? 25 sro es 26 21g eSeatest tar 27 28 IGDGMENT GGUNO712711285.1 Ne 10 MW 12 13 ITA 14 15 16 17 18 19 Geislove 8 20 Uavan iF Coy Sees 21 22 Boeck fe 23 Salen 24 {— =ss Cabioests sie 25 a 26 oF: Bek 27 28 SOBGHENTY 6601072715223. NY KS FEL ED SAN MATEO: NOV , SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. TN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 San Francisco Bay Area Renters Case No. 18-CIV-02105 n Federation, California Renters Legal Order ‘or Writ of dra 12 Advocacy and Education Fund, Victoria 43 Fierce and John Moon 14 Petitioners October 24, 2019 1s V 16 City of San Mateo and City of San on. GeorgeA. Miram 17 Mateo Planning Commission 18 Respondents 19 20 2. ! The Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate brought by San F: 22 Bay Area Renters Federation, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education| 23 Fund, Victoria Fierce and John Moon came on regularly for hearing at 2:00. PM) 24 on October 24, 2019 in Department 28 of the San Mateo Superior Court, the Hon, George A. Miram presiding. 25 ‘ Ryan J. Patterson, Esq. and James B. Kraus, Esq. of Zacks, Freedman & 26 Patterson, PC appeared on behalf of Petitioners. Barbara E. Kautz, Esq. -and 27 28 Dolores Bastian Dalton, Esq. appeared on behalf of the City of San Mateo City Council and the City of San Mateo Planning Commission. ' ie civ 02108 | 1 | Sie Denying in l at \ ee Se 1 ‘After receiving the papers filed by the parties, hearing the oral argurnents off counsel, and after the court granted all requests for judicial notice, the matter was submitted. The City of Sari Mateo bases its opposition to the Petition for Writ of { Mandaté on two grounds (1) a finding that the project Violated the City’ 's Multi Family Design Guidelines, requiring upper floors of a project that exceeds the height of neighboring structures be stepped back to avoid changes in building height greater than one story, a finding that was expressly included in the City’s denial resolution; and (2) the failure of the project to comply with City’s parking 10 standards, a grounds for denial that was not addressed in the denial résolution, ~ al Since the denial resolution did not include any findings concerning the alleged 12 failure to comply with parking standards, the matter must be remanded to the City 43 so that such findings can be made unless this court finds that the findings that the 14 project violated the City’s Multi-Family Design Guidelines comply with thet is. enforceable provisions ‘of the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code § 16 65589.5 et seq. (hereafter “HAA”), and is, by itself, an appropriate grounds for a Denial of the project by the San Mateo Planning Commission, Denial. of thé 18 Appeal of such denial by the City of San Mateo City Council, and Denial of’thig 13 Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate by this court. 20 ‘Thus, the’ issue before this court is whether the finding that the project 21 Violated the City’s Multi-Family Design Guidelines requiring upper floors of a 22 project that exceeds the height of neighboring structures be stepped back to avoid} 23 changes in building height greater than one story satisfies the HAA, and if not, 24 whether any provisions of the HAA; that are not satisfied are enforceable 28 Petitioner contends that “the City bears the burden of proving that the 26 Project failed to comply with “applicable, objective general plan and zoning. 27 standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time thai 28 the housing development project’s application was determined to be. complete] +2 WG XY ' (Petitioner’s Opening Brief at 6:11-14 [quoting Honchariw y. County of Stanislaug (2011) 200 Cal.App.4" 1066, 1081.].) Petitioner contends that the Multi-F Design Guidelines (hereafter “MFDGs”) are not applicable objective general. zoning or subdivision standards or criteria, and therefore denial of a project due to any failure of the project to satisfy the guidelines violates the HAA. (Petitioner's Opening Brief at 10:18-11:14.) Respondent contends that “The City: interpreted the standard to mean that all floors of a proposed building that exceeded the height of a neighboring structure needed to be-stepped back” and “Because the project did not comply, the Council denied the project.’ 10 (Respondent’s Supplemental Brief at 13:2-4 [citing Administrative Record at 28+ a 31].) Respondent contends that the interpretation of MFDGs standard is an issn¢ 12 of pure law and that the city’s interpretation of its own ordinance is entitled ta 13 great weight. (Respondent’s Supplemental Brief at 13:5-8 [quoting Harrington v. 14 City of Davis (2017) 16 Cal.App.5” 420, 434 and citing Ocean Park Associates 15 Santa Monica Rent Control Bd, (2004) 114 Cal.App- 4" 1050, 1062; Yamaha Ce 16 y. State Bd. Of Equilzation (1998) 19 Cal. 4 1.) Respondent contends that s nv thréshold legal issues should be decided by this court under the éndeni 18 judgment standard. (Respondent? 's Supplemental Brief at 11:9-10.) 13 Exercising its independent judgment, and giving difference to the city’s 20 interpretation of its own Multi-Family Design Guidelines, this court finds that th 2 Multi-Family Design Guidelines qualify as “applicable, objective general plan 22 zoning standards and criteria, including design teview standards, in effect at the 23 development project's. application was determined to be time ‘that the housing 2a complete.” (Honchariw v. County of Sanislaus, (2011) 200 Cal.App.4" 1066, 25 1081:) This court finds this issue to be an issue of pure law and that the 26 reasonable interpretation/substantial evidence standard provided in Government 27 Code § 65589.5((4) does not apply to this court’s determination of this sj fi 28 Jegal issue. Xu NS > ‘Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED because the city} did not violate the HAA when it denied approval of the project because tbe project failed to satisfy the Multi-Family Design Guidelines, as interpreted by the city and} confirmed by this court in the’exercise ofiits independent judgment. Petitioners contend that the HAA effectively precludes the use of discretionary guidelines to deny residential housing development project permits, because such guidelines are not objective standards. (Petitioners Supplemental Brief at page 2:24-26 (citing Government Code § 65589.5())(1); Honchariw v. County of Sanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.App. 4" 1066, 1076 [HAA takes“ “away at} 10 fagencies ability to use what might be called a. ‘subjective’ development *policy’ (for example ‘suitability’ to exempt a proposed housing project from the reach off 12 subdivision GY’]-) Petitioners note that in January 2000, subdivision (j) was 43 changed from “[w]hen a proposed housing development project complies. with the 14 applicable general -plan, zoning and development polices in effect” to includg 15 “objective...standards and criteria.” (Petitioners Supplemental brief at 11: 16-22.) 16 Petitioners contend that the MFDGs are not applicable objective general 17 plan, zoning or subdivision standards. First, Petitioners contend that a desigtl 18 review standard can only be used to deny a project if it is included in an appli 1s General Plan, zoning code or subdivision code and, the MFDGs are not 20 incorporated into San Mateo’s General Plan or Codes, but were adopted as separate. 21 guidelines. (Petitioners Opening Brief at page 10:23 11:03.) Second, Petitioners 22 contend that the MFDGs are discretionary, and as discussed above, argue tha 23 discretionary guidelines may not be used to deny a project to which the HAA| 24 applies. (Id: at 11:04~ 07:) Petitioners note that the City’s Urban Design Policy 25 simply recommends that projects “substantially conform” to the MEDGS; they are 26 not a mandatory checklist. (Id. at 11:09-14 [citing U.D. 2.1]. ) 27 Respondents -contend that such ‘a sweeping negation of local agence: the} 28 discretion interferes with core municipal decision-making ability and violates