{"generated_at":"2026-10-22T07:18:47.391Z","license":"CC BY 4.0","license_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","citation_format":"Who Killed the Building?, [case name], whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/[slug], accessed [date]","count":52,"cases":[{"id":37,"slug":"beverly-hills-linden-2022","name":"125-129 S. Linden Drive Mixed-Use Tower (Beverly Hills)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/beverly-hills-linden-2022","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/beverly-hills-linden-2022/brief","address":"125-129 South Linden Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212","latitude":34.0572,"longitude":-118.4002,"jurisdiction":{"id":36,"slug":"beverly-hills-los-angeles","city":"Beverly Hills","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/beverly-hills-los-angeles"},"city":"Beverly Hills","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"In Review","units_proposed":165,"units_affordable":33,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":36,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2022-10-24","date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2024-06-27","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":48,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"The first Builder's Remedy application filed in Beverly Hills. Developer: Leo Pustilnikov (SLH Investments) — the same developer who filed the first SoCal Builder's Remedy application at the Redondo Beach AES power plant in August 2022. Pustilnikov submitted a preliminary application on October 24, 2022 for a 16-story, 200-unit residential tower with hotel at 125-129 South Linden Drive, a surface parking lot one block south of Wilshire Boulevard. Beverly Hills's Housing Element was not HCD-certified at the time. The project was redesigned to 19 stories with 165 apartments (33 affordable at 20%) and a 73-room hotel. Beverly Hills issued an incompleteness determination requiring a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change (GPA/ZC) — the same requirement applied to ALL ten Builder's Remedy applications filed in Beverly Hills, totaling 981 units and 198 affordable units. HCD specifically found this GPA/ZC requirement was NOT required for Builder's Remedy projects. On June 27, 2024, the Beverly Hills City Council voted 5-0 to deny Pustilnikov's appeal of an October 2023 incompleteness determination. HCD had sent the city a letter of support and technical assistance the day before, and Urbanize LA reported that a last-minute HCD letter dismissed as \"absurd\" the rationale of an earlier HCD letter to Compton that city staff had relied on. Governor Newsom called out the city: \"Now is a time to build more housing, not cave to the demands of NIMBYs.\" HCD issued a Notice of Violation on August 22, 2024, then a second notice on December 2, 2024 covering all 10 blocked projects. On August 12, 2025, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin ruled that Beverly Hills had violated state housing law and ordered it to reverse its denials and keep reviewing the project. Beverly Press reported that the developer then doubled the project from 19 to 36 stories. In March 2026, to comply with the ruling, the council rescinded its 2024 denial; the ruling requires the city to treat the preliminary application as complete. In May 2026 Cushman & Wakefield listed the site for sale, describing \"a clear path to finalize entitlements\" and showing two concepts: a 38-story tower with 84 hotel rooms and 55 condominiums, and the 19-story plan with 165 apartments and 73 hotel rooms. In March 2026 the council also approved, on appeal, the separate 26-story 8844 Burton Way builder's remedy project, which the Planning Commission had denied.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"City of Beverly Hills","date_invoked":"2023-01-01","description":"Beverly Hills's primary obstruction mechanism: issuing incompleteness determinations to ALL ten Builder's Remedy applications received during its 2.5-year Housing Element non-compliance period, citing a requirement for General Plan Amendments and Zoning Changes (GPA/ZC). HCD specifically found this GPA/ZC requirement was NOT required for Builder's Remedy projects. For Linden Drive specifically: incompleteness determination upheld by City Council June 2024, overturned by LA Superior Court August 2025. For all 10 projects: 981 units (198 affordable) blocked using the same mechanism. Beverly Hills used quiet bureaucratic incompleteness rather than an explicit ban (unlike Huntington Beach) or a mountain lion (unlike Woodside) — the most durable form of obstruction in this database because it requires no affirmative vote and generates no single galvanizing moment.","added_delay_months":31,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2025/08/14/beverly-hills-must-let-165-unit-builders-remedy-project-proceed-court-ruling/"},{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"City of Beverly Hills","date_invoked":"2023-01-01","description":"Beverly Hills required all Builder's Remedy applicants to undergo General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change processes (GPA/ZC) as a condition of application completeness. This imposed a discretionary review burden — the same review process that Builder's Remedy is specifically designed to bypass. HCD's August 2024 NOV and December 2024 letter both explicitly found the GPA/ZC requirement was pretextual and not legally required. The mechanism achieved its purpose for 31 months before the court ruling.","added_delay_months":31,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/beverly-hills-nov-120224.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"Leo Pustilnikov","organization":"Next Century Power LLC / SLH Investments","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / Applicant","stated_arguments":"\"Everything that the state has told the city we communicated with them, and we begged them to work with state law, but they rejected it.\" (Dave Rand, Pustilnikov's attorney). Won court ruling August 2025 ordering Beverly Hills to process the application. Doubled project to 36 stories immediately after. Has 7 pending Builder's Remedy projects in Beverly Hills alone.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2024/08/22/state-sends-notice-of-violation-letter-to-city-in-linden-drive-matter/"},{"name":"Californians for Homeownership","organization":"Californians for Homeownership (CFH)","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Plaintiff / Housing Advocate","stated_arguments":"Filed lawsuit against Beverly Hills in June 2024 after the City Council rejected Pustilnikov's appeal. Had previously won a separate lawsuit in 2023 against Beverly Hills over failure to adopt a certified Housing Element. Counsel Matt Gelfand on the 140 S. Camden Drive denial (2025): \"The city's latest builder's remedy denial was based on transparently pretextual grounds and was unlawful.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2025/08/14/beverly-hills-must-let-165-unit-builders-remedy-project-proceed-court-ruling/"},{"name":"Kenneth A. Goldman","organization":"Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Adjacent Homeowner / Opposition Spokesperson","stated_arguments":"\"None of us are opposed to affordable housing... but you don't have to be a NIMBY to say that's just so far out of line.\" A tower of this height on a block of low-rise apartments does not fit the neighborhood. The scale is what residents object to, not the principle of affordable housing.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.aol.com/news/beverly-hills-dragging-heels-building-100059716.html"},{"name":"Judge Curtis Kin","organization":"Los Angeles County Superior Court","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Judge in the Linden Drive cases","stated_arguments":"Ruled on Aug. 12, 2025 that Beverly Hills violated state housing law and ordered it to reverse its denials and keep reviewing the project: \"The court is unconvinced by the city's claim that the petitions should be denied.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2025/08/14/beverly-hills-must-let-165-unit-builders-remedy-project-proceed-court-ruling/"},{"name":"City of Beverly Hills","organization":"City of Beverly Hills","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Non-Complying Local Government / Serial Incompleteness Determinator","stated_arguments":"Issued incompleteness determinations citing GPA/ZC requirements to ALL ten Builder's Remedy applications. HCD found this requirement was pretextual. City Council rejected Pustilnikov's appeal June 2024. City statement: \"The city's action on the Linden project was procedural in nature and unrelated to the certification date of the Housing Element.\" After the August 2025 ruling its Planning Commission denied 8844 Burton Way against staff recommendation; in March 2026 the council approved that project on appeal and rescinded its Linden Drive denial to comply with the ruling.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2024/08/22/state-sends-notice-of-violation-letter-to-city-in-linden-drive-matter/"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"State Housing Regulator / Notice of Violation Issuer","stated_arguments":"HCD Notice of Violation (August 22, 2024): Beverly Hills's GPA/ZC requirement is NOT required for Builder's Remedy projects. HCD second letter (December 2, 2024) extended these findings to all 10 blocked projects (981 units, 198 affordable). Director Velasquez: \"Every city, including those with the most expensive homes, has a legal and moral responsibility to comply with state housing law.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/beverly-hills-nov-120224.pdf"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2021-10-15","event_type":"Beverly Hills Housing Element Deadline Missed","description":"Beverly Hills misses the October 15, 2021 deadline to adopt a compliant 6th Cycle Housing Element. The city begins a 2.5-year period of non-compliance during which Builder's Remedy applies to all qualifying housing projects.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.beverlyhills.org/1526/Builders-Remedy-Information","source_label":"City of Beverly Hills"},{"event_date":"2022-10-24","event_type":"First Beverly Hills Builder's Remedy Application Filed — 125-129 S. Linden Drive","description":"Leo Pustilnikov submits a preliminary application under SB 330 / Builder's Remedy for a 16-story, 200-unit residential tower at 125-129 South Linden Drive — a surface parking lot one block south of Wilshire Boulevard. This is the first Builder's Remedy application filed in Beverly Hills.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2024/08/22/state-sends-notice-of-violation-letter-to-city-in-linden-drive-matter/","source_label":"Beverly Hills Courier"},{"event_date":"2023-04-01","event_type":"Project Redesigned to 19 Stories — Incompleteness Determination Issued","description":"Pustilnikov redesigns and resubmits the Linden Drive project as a 19-story building with 165 apartments (33 affordable) and a 73-room hotel. City staff deem the application incomplete in May 2023 and again in October 2023 and tell the applicant to apply for a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change. HCD will later specifically find this requirement is NOT required for Builder's Remedy projects.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/more-housing-projects-way-beverly-hills","source_label":"Urbanize LA"},{"event_date":"2024-05-01","event_type":"HCD Certifies Beverly Hills Housing Element — 2.5 Years Late","description":"HCD certifies Beverly Hills's 6th Cycle Housing Element on May 1, 2024 — 2.5 years after the October 15, 2021 deadline. The certification closes the Builder's Remedy window for new applications. All projects submitted before this date retain vested rights under SB 330.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.beverlyhills.org/1526/Builders-Remedy-Information","source_label":"City of Beverly Hills"},{"event_date":"2024-06-26","event_type":"HCD Urges City To Grant Appeal","description":"HCD sends the city a letter of support and technical assistance. Urbanize LA reports that a last-minute HCD letter dismissed as \"absurd\" the rationale of HCD's April 2024 letter to Compton, which city staff had cited, and recommended granting the appeal.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/beverly-hills-blocks-19-story-builders-remedy-development","source_label":"Urbanize LA"},{"event_date":"2024-06-27","event_type":"City Council Denies Appeal, 5-0","description":"On June 27, 2024 the council votes 5-0 to deny Pustilnikov's appeal of the October 2023 incompleteness determination, citing among other reasons a late filing, mootness and a finding that the project does not qualify for builder's remedy protections. The developer and Californians for Homeownership later sue.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.aol.com/news/beverly-hills-dragging-heels-building-100059716.html","source_label":"LA Times / LAist"},{"event_date":"2024-08-22","event_type":"HCD Issues Notice of Violation — GPA/ZC Not Required for Builder's Remedy","description":"HCD issues a formal Notice of Violation to Beverly Hills. Key finding: the incompleteness determination requiring a GPA/ZC is NOT required for Builder's Remedy projects. Governor Newsom: \"We can't solve homelessness without addressing our housing shortage. Now is a time to build more housing, not cave to the demands of NIMBYs.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2024/08/22/state-sends-notice-of-violation-letter-to-city-in-linden-drive-matter/","source_label":"Beverly Hills Courier"},{"event_date":"2024-12-02","event_type":"HCD Second Letter Covers All 10 Beverly Hills Builder's Remedy Projects","description":"HCD issues a second expanded letter specifically addressing all ten Beverly Hills Builder's Remedy applications (981 units total, 198 affordable). HCD confirms all ten qualify for Builder's Remedy and the GPA/ZC argument is invalid for all of them.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/beverly-hills-nov-120224.pdf","source_label":"HCD NOV letter"},{"event_date":"2025-08-12","event_type":"Court Rules: Beverly Hills Violated State Law — Must Process Linden Drive","description":"Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin rules on Aug. 12 that Beverly Hills violated state housing law in its handling of the 125-129 S. Linden Drive project and orders the city to reverse its denials and keep processing the application. Dave Rand: \"I can't begin to tell you how validating it is. A lot of these legal questions — they're new.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2025/08/14/beverly-hills-must-let-165-unit-builders-remedy-project-proceed-court-ruling/","source_label":"The Real Deal LA"},{"event_date":"2025-10-21","event_type":"8844 Burton Way Denied by Planning Commission Against Staff Recommendation","description":"The Beverly Hills Planning Commission votes to draft a resolution of denial for the Builder's Remedy project at 8844 Burton Way (Crescent Heights, 26-story building). The denial is against the recommendation of both staff and the Beverly Hills city attorney. Commissioner Gary Ross invokes an allegation about state anti-segregation laws regarding placement of affordable units — a novel and contested legal argument. Dave Rand: if the City Council upholds the denial, the developer plans to file litigation. A nearby resident: \"The community will not relent in its effort to prevent the project from being built.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/builders-remedy-high-rise-rejected-8844-burton-way-beverly-hills","source_label":"Urbanize LA"},{"event_date":"2025-10-22","event_type":"Developer Doubles Project to 36 Stories After Court Ruling","description":"After the August 2025 ruling, Beverly Press reports, the developer doubles the project from 19 to 36 stories. No formal approval has been granted.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://beverlypress.com/2025/10/beverly-hills-commission-denies-burton-way-project/","source_label":"Beverly Press"},{"event_date":"2026-03-26","event_type":"Council Rescinds Denial After Court Ruling","description":"Beverly Hills Weekly reports that the council has reversed its June 2024 decision denying the appeal, to comply with Judge Curtis Kin's ruling. The ruling requires the city to treat the preliminary application as complete and proceed with its review.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://bhweekly.com/issues/pdf/2026_1382.pdf","source_label":"Beverly Hills Weekly"},{"event_date":"2026-05-12","event_type":"Site Listed for Sale","description":"Cushman & Wakefield lists 129 S. Linden Drive for sale, citing \"a clear path to finalize entitlements\" and showing two concepts: a 38-story tower with 84 hotel rooms and 55 condominiums, and the 19-story plan with 165 apartments and 73 hotel rooms.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/129-S-Linden-Dr-Beverly-Hills-CA/40503665/","source_label":"LoopNet"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2024-06-27","body":"City Council","action":"appeal_rejected","action_label":"appeal rejected","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":5,"vote_against":0,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/beverly-hills-blocks-19-story-builders-remedy-development","source_label":"Urbanize LA","notes":"Denied the developer's appeal of the October 2023 incompleteness determination."},{"decision_date":"2025-08-12","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2025/08/14/beverly-hills-must-let-165-unit-builders-remedy-project-proceed-court-ruling/","source_label":"The Real Deal","notes":"Judge Curtis Kin ruled that the city violated state housing law and ordered it to reverse its denials and continue reviewing the project."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Beverly Hills blocks 19-story Builder's Remedy development","url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/beverly-hills-blocks-19-story-builders-remedy-development","publication":"Urbanize LA","author":"Steven Sharp","date_published":"2024-07-01","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"City Council Denies Linden Drive Appeal","url":"https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2024/07/04/city-council-denies-linden-drive-appeal","publication":"Beverly Hills Courier","author":"Joey Waldinger","date_published":"2024-07-04","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Beverly Hills is Dragging Its Heels on a Development with Affordable Apartments","url":"https://www.aol.com/news/beverly-hills-dragging-heels-building-100059716.html","publication":"Los Angeles Times","author":null,"date_published":"2024-08-01","notes":"Best source for Goldman (\"not opposed to affordable housing... just so far out of line\") and broader community opposition. Confirms Newsom's direct intervention and Pustilnikov's full SoCal portfolio."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"State Sends Notice of Violation Letter to City in Linden Drive Matter","url":"https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2024/08/22/state-sends-notice-of-violation-letter-to-city-in-linden-drive-matter/","publication":"Beverly Hills Courier","author":null,"date_published":"2024-08-23","notes":"Best source for the HCD Notice of Violation. Confirms October 2022 preliminary application date, June 2024 City Council rejection, and Governor Newsom response."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"HCD Notice of Violation Letter — All 10 Beverly Hills Builder's Remedy Projects","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/beverly-hills-nov-120224.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":null,"date_published":"2024-12-04","notes":"HCD's second letter covering all 10 Beverly Hills Builder's Remedy projects (981 units, 198 affordable). Confirms the GPA/ZC argument is invalid for all of them. Primary government source for the systemic nature of the blocking."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Beverly Hills Must Let 165-Unit Builder's Remedy Project Proceed, Court Ruling","url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2025/08/14/beverly-hills-must-let-165-unit-builders-remedy-project-proceed-court-ruling/","publication":"The Real Deal LA","author":null,"date_published":"2025-08-14","notes":"Best single source for the August 2025 court ruling. Contains Rand quote, Pustilnikov's background across 12 projects, and context for what the ruling means for other BH Builder's Remedy projects."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Builder's Remedy Tower Faces Review In Beverly Hills","url":"https://www.credaily.com/briefs/builders-remedy-tower-faces-review-in-beverly-hills/","publication":"CRE Daily","author":null,"date_published":"2025-08-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Beverly Hills Wrestles with Builder's Remedy Projects After Legal Ruling","url":"https://www.bisnow.com/los-angeles/news/construction-development/beverly-hills-builders-remedy-approvals-denial-131522","publication":"Bisnow","author":null,"date_published":"2025-10-24","notes":"Coverage after the August 2025 ruling and the Planning Commission's October 2025 denial of 8844 Burton Way. Good for the timeline of how BH moved from court ruling back to denial within 3 months."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Builder's Remedy High-Rise Rejected at 8844 Burton Way in Beverly Hills","url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/builders-remedy-high-rise-rejected-8844-burton-way-beverly-hills","publication":"Urbanize LA","author":null,"date_published":"2025-11-06","notes":"Best source for the 8844 Burton Way denial (October 2025). Confirms denial was against staff and city attorney recommendation and that the anti-segregation argument was novel and contested."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Beverly Hills Rescinds Prior Denial of Linden Drive Project Following Court Order","url":"https://bhweekly.com/issues/pdf/2026_1382.pdf","publication":"Beverly Hills Weekly","author":null,"date_published":"2026-03-26","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Previously Denied Towers Now a Go in Beverly Hills","url":"https://elevatorworld.com/?p=73373","publication":"Elevator World","author":"Kaija Wilkinson","date_published":"2026-04-09","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"129 S Linden Dr 0.5 Acres of Residential Land in Beverly Hills, CA 90212","url":"https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/129-S-Linden-Dr-Beverly-Hills-CA/40503665/","publication":"LoopNet (Cushman & Wakefield)","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-12","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Beverly Hills Official Builder's Remedy Information Page","url":"https://www.beverlyhills.org/1526/Builders-Remedy-Information","publication":"City of Beverly Hills","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Official city page listing all pending Builder's Remedy projects, HCD letters, and city legal positions. Confirms HCD certification date (May 1, 2024) and the city's determinations for each project."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Unprecedented Unlimited Height Hotel and Branded Residences Development, Beverly Hills, California","url":"https://images.loopnet.ca/d2/qYX-IjZsw5wrQQ60HGjUBvlXW9chQ4SM5xvIMIrjkaA/129%20S%20Linden%20Teaser.pdf","publication":"Cushman & Wakefield","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 125-129 S. Linden Drive Mixed-Use Tower (Beverly Hills), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/beverly-hills-linden-2022, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:38:25.607413+00:00"},{"id":51,"slug":"palo-alto-156-california-2023","name":"156 California Avenue Towers (Mollie Stone's Site)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/palo-alto-156-california-2023","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/palo-alto-156-california-2023/brief","address":"156 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306","latitude":37.4291,"longitude":-122.1427,"jurisdiction":{"id":27,"slug":"palo-alto-santa-clara","city":"Palo Alto","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/palo-alto-santa-clara"},"city":"Palo Alto","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"In Review","units_proposed":382,"units_affordable":77,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":17,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2023-11-08","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":35,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"Redco Development and Mollie Stone's owner Mike Stone proposed redeveloping the Mollie Stone's grocery site at 156 California Avenue, plus a small lot at Park Boulevard and Cambridge Avenue, in Palo Alto (city file 24PLN-00100). The SB 330 preliminary application, filed November 8, 2023 by Midar Investment Co. through Holland & Knight, invoked the builder's remedy: 382 units, 77 of them income-restricted at 80 percent of area median income, in buildings of 17, 11 and 7 stories (177, 120 and 77 feet) on land with a 50-foot height limit. The city said on November 21, 2023 that the builder's remedy did not apply because it had an adopted housing element it believed was compliant. HCD certified that element on August 20, 2024. The city began an environmental impact report in December 2024 and on August 20, 2025 rejected the developer's request for a CEQA exemption under AB 130; the developer answered with an AB 1633 notice and accused the city of slow-walking the project. The city later found the project exempt (date not confirmed). A council ad hoc committee then negotiated an alternative: 390 units, 50 of them affordable, in towers of 14, 12 and 12 stories with a two-level grocery store. On May 18, 2026 the council voted 4-2 to pursue it, with Pat Burt and Keith Reckdahl opposed and Mayor Vicki Veenker absent. The alternative still needs an Architectural Review Board courtesy review and a later council vote, and the original application remains on file with its deadlines paused. Unit and floor figures above are for the original application.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"City of Palo Alto","date_invoked":"2023-11-21","description":"The city stated that the builder's remedy did not apply because it had an adopted housing element it believed was compliant; HCD did not certify that element until Aug. 20, 2024. The claim did not stop the application, and the city later negotiated an alternative.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/News-Articles/City-Manager/Prescreening-Development-Application-Under-SB330-Submitted-156-California-Avenue"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"City of Palo Alto","date_invoked":"2024-12-17","description":"The city began an EIR and on Aug. 20, 2025 rejected the developer's AB 130 exemption request; it later found the project exempt (date not confirmed). The developer accused the city of slow-walking the project.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2025/08/18/developer-behind-mollie-stones-towers-accuses-city-of-slow-walking-proposal/"},{"short_name":"Height Limit","full_name":"Height and Density Limits","invoked_by":"Palo Alto City Council ad hoc committee","date_invoked":"2026-05-07","description":"The 50-foot height limit framed the negotiation. The committee got the tallest tower cut from 177 to 144 feet, while income-restricted units fell from 77 to 50.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/News-Articles/City-Manager/Two-156-California-Avenue-Housing-Development-Options-Now-Available-For-Council-Review"}],"actors":[{"name":"Jonathan Lait","organization":"City of Palo Alto","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"neutral","role":"Planning director","stated_arguments":"Said the alternative goes next to an Architectural Review Board courtesy review, then back to the council.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/05/18/split-council-ok-with-14-story-towers-at-mollie-stones/"},{"name":"Michael Eager","organization":null,"actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Evergreen Park resident","stated_arguments":"\"It is still a huge, massive structure which looms over the neighborhood.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/05/18/split-council-ok-with-14-story-towers-at-mollie-stones/"},{"name":"Pat Burt","organization":"Palo Alto City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Council member; voted no on May 18, 2026","stated_arguments":"\"I don't think we came out with a net (gain) for the community with that tradeoff.\" Objected that the deal cut income-restricted units from 77 to 50.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/05/18/split-council-ok-with-14-story-towers-at-mollie-stones/"},{"name":"Daniel Golub","organization":"Holland & Knight LLP","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Counsel for applicant Midar Investment Co. (with Genna Yarkin)","stated_arguments":"Letters for the applicant sought a CEQA exemption under AB 130 (Aug. 6, 2025) and served an AB 1633 notice (Sept. 23, 2025). \"Communication with staff has been, and continues to be, spotty.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2025/08/18/developer-behind-mollie-stones-towers-accuses-city-of-slow-walking-proposal/"},{"name":"Keith Reckdahl","organization":"Palo Alto City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Council member; voted no on May 18, 2026","stated_arguments":"Called the original builder's remedy proposal \"the lesser of the two evils.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/05/18/split-council-ok-with-14-story-towers-at-mollie-stones/"},{"name":"Ed Lauing","organization":"Palo Alto City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"deciding","role":"Council member; led the ad hoc committee that negotiated the alternative","stated_arguments":"\"The state's Builder Remedy law provides authority to a developer for massive height and density without local control.\" (May 7, 2026.) After the vote: \"You don't always get everything you want in a negotiation.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/05/18/split-council-ok-with-14-story-towers-at-mollie-stones/"},{"name":"Chris Freise","organization":"Redco Development","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Managing partner, Redco Development (with Mollie Stone's owner Mike Stone)","stated_arguments":"Of the negotiated alternative: \"we've agreed together on a set of steps to expeditiously process\" the project (city release, May 7, 2026).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/News-Articles/City-Manager/Two-156-California-Avenue-Housing-Development-Options-Now-Available-For-Council-Review"},{"name":"Greer Stone","organization":"Palo Alto City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"support","role":"Vice mayor; voted for the alternative","stated_arguments":"Supported the alternative and said the city's negotiators had no leverage.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/05/18/split-council-ok-with-14-story-towers-at-mollie-stones/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2023-11-08","event_type":"Developer Files Builder's Remedy Application for 382 Units","description":"Holland & Knight, for Midar Investment Co., files an SB 330 preliminary application arguing that Palo Alto's May 2023 housing element did not comply with state law.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/new-development-projects/156-california/sb-330-preliminary-application_156-california.pdf","source_label":"Holland & Knight letter"},{"event_date":"2023-11-21","event_type":"City Says Builder's Remedy Does Not Apply","description":"The city says it has an adopted housing element \"which it believes is compliant.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/News-Articles/City-Manager/Prescreening-Development-Application-Under-SB330-Submitted-156-California-Avenue","source_label":"City of Palo Alto"},{"event_date":"2024-03-12","event_type":"Alternative Pre-Application Filed","description":"The developer files a pre-application for an alternative design without withdrawing the original.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/156-California-Avenue","source_label":"City of Palo Alto"},{"event_date":"2024-08-20","event_type":"State Certifies Palo Alto Housing Element","description":"HCD finds the adopted housing element in substantial compliance, nine months after the city said it already complied.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/city-manager/slo-palo-alto-adopt-in-082024.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2024-12-17","event_type":"City Begins Environmental Impact Report","description":"The city posts a notice of preparation for an EIR, with comments open until Jan. 16, 2025.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2024120754","source_label":"CEQAnet"},{"event_date":"2025-08-06","event_type":"Developer Seeks CEQA Exemption Under AB 130","description":"The city rejects the request on Aug. 20. The Daily Post reports that the developer's letter raised the possibility of a lawsuit.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2025/08/18/developer-behind-mollie-stones-towers-accuses-city-of-slow-walking-proposal/","source_label":"Palo Alto Daily Post"},{"event_date":"2025-09-23","event_type":"Developer Serves AB 1633 Notice","description":"The notice follows the city's Aug. 20 ruling that the exemption does not apply.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/new-development-projects/156-california/midar-156-california-ab-1633-notice-9-23-2025-1.pdf","source_label":"Holland & Knight letter"},{"event_date":"2026-05-07","event_type":"Negotiated Deal Cuts Top Tower to 14 Stories","description":"A council ad hoc committee led by Ed Lauing and the developer announce an alternative: 390 units, 50 affordable, in towers of 14, 12 and 12 stories.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/News-Articles/City-Manager/Two-156-California-Avenue-Housing-Development-Options-Now-Available-For-Council-Review","source_label":"City of Palo Alto"},{"event_date":"2026-05-18","event_type":"Split Council Backs 14-Story Alternative, 4-2","description":"Pat Burt and Keith Reckdahl vote no; Mayor Vicki Veenker is absent. The alternative still needs an Architectural Review Board review and a final council vote.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/05/18/split-council-ok-with-14-story-towers-at-mollie-stones/","source_label":"Palo Alto Daily Post"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"SB 330 preliminary application cover letter, 156 California Avenue","url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/new-development-projects/156-california/sb-330-preliminary-application_156-california.pdf","publication":"City of Palo Alto","author":null,"date_published":"2023-11-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Prescreening Development Application Under SB330 Submitted: 156 California Avenue","url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/News-Articles/City-Manager/Prescreening-Development-Application-Under-SB330-Submitted-156-California-Avenue","publication":"City of Palo Alto","author":null,"date_published":"2023-11-21","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"HCD review of Palo Alto adopted housing element","url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/city-manager/slo-palo-alto-adopt-in-082024.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":"Melinda Coy","date_published":"2024-08-20","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Notice of preparation, 156 California Avenue EIR","url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2024120754","publication":"CEQAnet","author":null,"date_published":"2024-12-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developer behind Mollie Stone's towers accuses city of slow-walking proposal","url":"https://padailypost.com/2025/08/18/developer-behind-mollie-stones-towers-accuses-city-of-slow-walking-proposal/","publication":"Palo Alto Daily Post","author":"Braden Cartwright","date_published":"2025-08-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"AB 1633 notice for 156 California Avenue (Holland & Knight for Midar)","url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/new-development-projects/156-california/midar-156-california-ab-1633-notice-9-23-2025-1.pdf","publication":"City of Palo Alto","author":null,"date_published":"2025-09-23","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Two 156 Cal Ave. Development Options Now Available For Council Review","url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/News-Articles/City-Manager/Two-156-California-Avenue-Housing-Development-Options-Now-Available-For-Council-Review","publication":"City of Palo Alto","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-07","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Split council OK with 14-story towers at Mollie Stone's","url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/05/18/split-council-ok-with-14-story-towers-at-mollie-stones/","publication":"Palo Alto Daily Post","author":"Braden Cartwright","date_published":"2026-05-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"156 - 164 California Avenue project page","url":"https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/156-California-Avenue","publication":"City of Palo Alto","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 156 California Avenue Towers (Mollie Stone's Site), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/palo-alto-156-california-2023, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:15:46.188907+00:00"},{"id":80,"slug":"santa-barbara-1609-grand-2023","name":"1609 Grand Avenue Apartments (Lower Riviera)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-barbara-1609-grand-2023","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-barbara-1609-grand-2023/brief","address":"1609-1615 Grand Avenue, Santa Barbara, CA 93103","latitude":34.4345,"longitude":-119.7012,"jurisdiction":{"id":48,"slug":"santa-barbara-santa-barbara","city":"Santa Barbara","county":"Santa Barbara","region":"Central Coast","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/santa-barbara-santa-barbara"},"city":"Santa Barbara","county":"Santa Barbara","region":"Central Coast","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"In Review","units_proposed":53,"units_affordable":11,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":6,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":null,"date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":41,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"Industrial Partners Group, a Los Angeles investment company founded by Craig Martin Smith and Stephanie Smith, filed an SB 330 preliminary application in May 2023 for a 30-unit apartment building, with six low-income units, on two vacant lots at 1609 and 1615 Grand Avenue on Santa Barbara's Lower Riviera. It was the first builder's remedy filing in the city, made before HCD found Santa Barbara's housing element in substantial compliance on February 13, 2024. A city planner said at the time that the preliminary application had been accepted, not approved. In June 2024 Councilmember Kristen Sneddon said the formal application had been deemed incomplete; the city later said the application (city file PLN2024-00181) was deemed complete before January 1, 2025, which keeps it under the Housing Accountability Act as it stood when the preliminary application was filed. By June 2025 the proposal had grown to 53 units, 11 of them affordable, in a building of up to six stories. The city sent its latest consistency determination on March 27, 2025. On July 31, 2025 it told the applicant, Ben Eilenberg, that the project does not appear to qualify for the new AB 130 CEQA exemption because it is not consistent with the General Plan and zoning, and that it would prepare a focused environmental impact report. Eilenberg answered on August 1 with a Housing Accountability Act notice asserting that the city's course of conduct amounted to disapproval. After receiving nearly 300 public comments, the city issued findings on October 30, 2025 that its conduct was necessary and reasonable, that actions taken to comply with CEQA cannot count as disapproval, and that the project's density of 104 units per acre exceeds the 36 units per acre the city calculates as the maximum under the builder's remedy definition added by AB 1893. It listed 11 technical studies for the environmental review. The Santa Barbara Independent links the Smiths and Eilenberg to The Mission LLC, which is pursuing the builder's remedy project at 505 East Los Olivos Street. As of October 2026 no environmental impact report or hearing on 1609 Grand Avenue has been reported. Noozhawk reported in 2024 that zoning would allow only two units on the site and the developer said four; the city puts the General Plan density at 12 units per acre.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"City of Santa Barbara","date_invoked":"2025-03-27","description":"Councilmember Kristen Sneddon said in June 2024 that the formal application had been deemed incomplete. After it was deemed complete, the city sent a consistency determination on March 27, 2025, and in October 2025 asked the applicant to respond to it.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-10/HAA%20Notice%20Response%20Letter%20w%20public%20comment.pdf"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"City of Santa Barbara","date_invoked":"2025-07-31","description":"The city found the project ineligible for the AB 130 exemption because it conflicts with the General Plan and zoning, and said a focused EIR would study most if not all CEQA topics. Its Oct. 30, 2025 findings list six studies the city expects to commission and five the applicant may prepare. No EIR has been reported.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/AB%20130%20Response.pdf"},{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"City of Santa Barbara","date_invoked":"2025-10-30","description":"The city says the project, at 104 units per acre, exceeds the 36 units per acre it calculates under the builder's remedy definition added by AB 1893, so it cannot be deemed consistent with city plans or exempt from CEQA. The city concedes that the older builder's remedy rules govern the application.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-10/HAA%20Notice%20Response%20Letter%20w%20public%20comment.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"Craig Martin Smith","organization":"Industrial Partners Group","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Founding principal of Industrial Partners Group, with Stephanie Smith","stated_arguments":"\"We are following the state's lead and using the Builder's Remedy law to overcome bureaucratic obstruction and NIMBYism to build affordable housing for the people of Santa Barbara.\" (May 2023)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.independent.com/2023/05/31/lipodiesel-weed-wars-whos-behind-santa-barbaras-first-builders-remedy-project/"},{"name":"Ben Eilenberg","organization":"Woodside Community Housing","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Applicant; city letters on the project are addressed to him at The Mission LLC","stated_arguments":"\"Therefore, as there is no issue that exists, the CEQA analysis is now complete and there is no further CEQA action necessary.\" (Aug. 1, 2025, invoking Gov. Code 65589.5(h)(6)(D))","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/EnvironmentalReview-PLN2024-00181_1609-1615_GrandAve.pdf"},{"name":"Kristen Sneddon","organization":"Santa Barbara City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Council member","stated_arguments":"\"Anything more than that should at the very least trigger CEQA analysis for significant concerns.\" (June 2024) She said the project raised \"significant neighborhood impact and safety concerns\" and that the application had been deemed incomplete.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.noozhawk.com/30-unit-affordable-apartment-project-proposed-for-santa-barbaras-lower-riviera/"},{"name":"Stephanie Swanson","organization":"City of Santa Barbara","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"neutral","role":"City planner who processed the preliminary application","stated_arguments":"\"It is, instead, as the name suggests, very preliminary and does not contain much of the substantive information that is required of a formal complete planning application for a development project.\" (May 2023)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.independent.com/2023/05/31/lipodiesel-weed-wars-whos-behind-santa-barbaras-first-builders-remedy-project/"},{"name":"Cass Ensberg","organization":"Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission","actor_type":"Government Official","stance":"oppose","role":"Historic Landmarks Commission member","stated_arguments":"\"It is the wrong place for a project of that scale.\" She called the project \"shockingly insensitive to the direct neighborhood and also to the broader community.\" (June 2024)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.noozhawk.com/30-unit-affordable-apartment-project-proposed-for-santa-barbaras-lower-riviera/"},{"name":"Rob Fredericks","organization":"Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara","actor_type":"Government Official","stance":"oppose","role":"Executive director of the Housing Authority","stated_arguments":"\"We certainly need more housing, specifically affordable, but projects should adhere to where they fit.\" (June 2024)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.noozhawk.com/30-unit-affordable-apartment-project-proposed-for-santa-barbaras-lower-riviera/"},{"name":"Stephanie Smith","organization":"The Mission LLC","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Co-founder of Industrial Partners Group","stated_arguments":"The Santa Barbara Independent describes Craig and Stephanie Smith as the development team behind the 1609 Grand Avenue project, working with Ben Eilenberg.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.independent.com/2026/08/09/county-of-santa-barbara-hits-snag-in-mission-llcs-lawsuit-seeking-tax-exemption-on-religious-grounds/"},{"name":"Allison DeBusk","organization":"City of Santa Barbara","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"deciding","role":"Community development director (interim in July 2025); signed the city letters","stated_arguments":"\"In sum, the City has not 'disapproved' the Project by causing an unreasonable delay, as the City continues to work with its environmental consultant to determine and complete the appropriate level of environmental review as the Project progresses.\" (Oct. 30, 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-10/HAA%20Notice%20Response%20Letter%20w%20public%20comment.pdf"},{"name":"SAGE","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Smart Action for Growth & Equity, Santa Barbara; commented through attorney Marc Chytilo","stated_arguments":"In a Sept. 30, 2025 letter included with the city's findings: \"The Project proposes to add 53 residential units on a narrow hillside road (Grand Avenue) that serves as an evacuation route, as identified by the City's Community Wildfire Protection Plan ('CWPP') and the County.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-10/HAA%20Notice%20Response%20Letter%20w%20public%20comment.pdf"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2023-05-31","event_type":"City's First Builder's Remedy Application Reported","description":"The Santa Barbara Independent reports that Industrial Partners Group submitted an SB 330 preliminary application the week before for 30 apartments, six of them low-income, on two vacant Grand Avenue lots.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.independent.com/2023/05/31/lipodiesel-weed-wars-whos-behind-santa-barbaras-first-builders-remedy-project/","source_label":"Santa Barbara Independent"},{"event_date":"2024-02-13","event_type":"State Certifies Santa Barbara Housing Element","description":"HCD tells the city its 2023-2031 housing element is in substantial compliance, nine months after the filing.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/HEU","source_label":"City of Santa Barbara"},{"event_date":"2024-06-18","event_type":"Councilmember Says Application Deemed Incomplete","description":"Kristen Sneddon tells Noozhawk the formal application has been deemed incomplete and says the project should at least trigger CEQA analysis.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.noozhawk.com/30-unit-affordable-apartment-project-proposed-for-santa-barbaras-lower-riviera/","source_label":"Noozhawk"},{"event_date":"2025-03-27","event_type":"City Sends Consistency Determination","description":"The city's latest consistency determination goes to the applicant. In October 2025 the city asks for a response to it.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-10/HAA%20Notice%20Response%20Letter%20w%20public%20comment.pdf","source_label":"City of Santa Barbara"},{"event_date":"2025-06-22","event_type":"Architects and Planners Oppose 53-Unit Plan","description":"A group of local architects and planners says the proposal, now 53 units with 11 affordable and up to six stories, conflicts with the city's general plan and design standards.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.noozhawk.com/architects-planners-band-together-to-fight-two-housing-projects-on-santa-barbara-riviera/","source_label":"Noozhawk"},{"event_date":"2025-07-31","event_type":"City Says Project Does Not Qualify for AB 130","description":"The city finds the project inconsistent with its General Plan and zoning and says a focused EIR will study most if not all CEQA topics.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/AB%20130%20Response.pdf","source_label":"City of Santa Barbara"},{"event_date":"2025-08-01","event_type":"Applicant Invokes Housing Accountability Act","description":"Ben Eilenberg says no further CEQA action is necessary and invokes Gov. Code 65589.5(h)(6)(D), under which an improper course of conduct, such as unnecessary delay, can count as disapproval.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/EnvironmentalReview-PLN2024-00181_1609-1615_GrandAve.pdf","source_label":"City of Santa Barbara"},{"event_date":"2025-10-30","event_type":"City Finds Its Review Necessary and Reasonable","description":"After nearly 300 public comments, the city finds that the project's 104 units per acre exceeds the builder's remedy maximum it calculates at 36, and lists 11 studies needed before a decision.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-10/HAA%20Notice%20Response%20Letter%20w%20public%20comment.pdf","source_label":"City of Santa Barbara"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"LipoDiesel & Weed Wars: Who's Behind Santa Barbara's First 'Builder's Remedy' Project?","url":"https://www.independent.com/2023/05/31/lipodiesel-weed-wars-whos-behind-santa-barbaras-first-builders-remedy-project/","publication":"Santa Barbara Independent","author":"Ryan P. Cruz","date_published":"2023-05-31","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Builder's Remedy Apartment Project Proposed on Grand Avenue for Santa Barbara's Lower Riviera","url":"https://www.noozhawk.com/30-unit-affordable-apartment-project-proposed-for-santa-barbaras-lower-riviera/","publication":"Noozhawk","author":"Joshua Molina","date_published":"2024-06-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Architects, Planners Band Together to Fight Two Housing Projects on Santa Barbara Riviera","url":"https://www.noozhawk.com/architects-planners-band-together-to-fight-two-housing-projects-on-santa-barbara-riviera/","publication":"Noozhawk","author":"Joshua Molina","date_published":"2025-06-22","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"1609 Grand Avenue (PLN2024-00181): Qualification for AB 130 CEQA Exemption","url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/AB%20130%20Response.pdf","publication":"City of Santa Barbara","author":"Allison DeBusk","date_published":"2025-07-31","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Applicant notice email, environmental review for PLN2024-00181","url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/EnvironmentalReview-PLN2024-00181_1609-1615_GrandAve.pdf","publication":"City of Santa Barbara","author":"Ben Eilenberg","date_published":"2025-08-01","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"1609 Grand Avenue: HAA Notice Regarding Alleged Project Disapproval (findings letter with public comments)","url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-10/HAA%20Notice%20Response%20Letter%20w%20public%20comment.pdf","publication":"City of Santa Barbara","author":"Allison DeBusk","date_published":"2025-10-30","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge Dismisses Mission LLC's Lawsuit Against City of Santa Barbara","url":"https://www.independent.com/2026/04/24/judge-dismisses-mission-llcs-lawsuit-against-city-of-santa-barbara/","publication":"Santa Barbara Independent","author":"Christina McDermott","date_published":"2026-04-24","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Neighbors Raise Alarm About 8-Story Project Near Mission Santa Barbara","url":"https://www.noozhawk.com/neighbors-raise-alarm-about-8-story-project-near-mission-santa-barbara/","publication":"Noozhawk","author":"Rebecca Caraway","date_published":"2026-06-30","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"County of Santa Barbara Hits Snag in Mission LLC's Lawsuit Seeking Tax Exemption on Religious Grounds","url":"https://www.independent.com/2026/08/09/county-of-santa-barbara-hits-snag-in-mission-llcs-lawsuit-seeking-tax-exemption-on-religious-grounds/","publication":"Santa Barbara Independent","author":"Christina McDermott","date_published":"2026-08-09","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Environmental Documents","url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/services/construction-land-development/development-activity/environmental-documents","publication":"City of Santa Barbara","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Housing Accountability Act Notice of Environmental Delay for 1609 Grand Ave.","url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/services/construction-land-development/development-activity/environmental-documents/housing","publication":"City of Santa Barbara","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Housing Element Update","url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/HEU","publication":"City of Santa Barbara","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 1609 Grand Avenue Apartments (Lower Riviera), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-barbara-1609-grand-2023, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:15:35.052353+00:00"},{"id":11,"slug":"berkeley-1900-fourth-2018","name":"1900 Fourth Street Mixed-Use Apartments","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/berkeley-1900-fourth-2018","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/berkeley-1900-fourth-2018/brief","address":"1900 Fourth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710","latitude":37.8703,"longitude":-122.2997,"jurisdiction":{"id":11,"slug":"berkeley-alameda","city":"Berkeley","county":"Alameda","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/berkeley-alameda"},"city":"Berkeley","county":"Alameda","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Withdrawn","units_proposed":260,"units_affordable":130,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2018-03-01","date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2018-09-04","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":72,"cost_of_delay_usd":4000000,"data_quality":3,"description":"A 260-unit mixed-use apartment complex proposed on a 2.2-acre surface parking lot (the former Spenger's Fish Grotto parking lot) in West Berkeley, two blocks from an Amtrak Capitol Corridor station. The SB 35 application, filed March 2018, proposed 130 market-rate apartments, 130 affordable apartments (80% AMI), and ground-floor retail. After Berkeley denied it twice in 2018, property owners Ruegg & Ellsworth sued. Berkeley won at trial court (November 2019) but the First District Court of Appeal reversed in April 2021, in the first published California appellate opinion interpreting SB 35, and the California Supreme Court declined to review that decision on July 28, 2021, after which Berkeley issued the SB 35 permit. In February 2022 Judge Frank Roesch found that the city had violated the Housing Accountability Act; in February 2024 he fined it $2.6 million, and the city paid $1.4 million of the developer's attorney fees under a settlement. Before any housing was built, the Berkeley City Council unanimously voted on March 12, 2024 to buy the site for $27 million and transfer it to the Sogorea Te' Land Trust, which paid $25.5 million of the price with help from a $20 million Kataly Foundation contribution; the city paid $1.5 million from its general fund. 260 apartments were never built. On April 28, 2026 the land trust announced that removal of the pavement was beginning.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Hist Pres","full_name":"Historic Preservation Designation","invoked_by":"City of Berkeley","date_invoked":"2018-06-05","description":"Berkeley invoked the site's designation within the West Berkeley Shellmound historic landmark district as the primary basis for denying the SB 35 application, arguing the state constitution prohibits SB 35 from overriding a city landmark designation. The First District Court of Appeal definitively rejected this argument in 2021 — the first published SB 35 opinion. Berkeley was fined $2.6M and paid $1.4M attorney fees. However, the six-year legal delay gave time for a $27M philanthropic land purchase to occur, preventing the housing from ever being built. NOTE: city lost in court but housing was not built — this is analytically the most contested was_successful flag in the database.","added_delay_months":72,"added_cost_usd":4000000,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/04/21/court-rules-a-260-unit-apartment-complex-can-go-up-at-1900-fourth-st-a-site-the-ohlone-consider-sacred"},{"short_name":"SB 35","full_name":"SB 35 Ministerial Streamlining","invoked_by":"City of Berkeley","date_invoked":"2018-06-05","description":"Berkeley denied the SB 35 ministerial application on two additional grounds: mixed-use projects with ground-floor retail are excluded from SB 35 (city argued it covers housing-only projects), and the project didn't meet Berkeley's very low-income unit requirements. The Court of Appeal rejected the mixed-use argument. Both denials together created a six-year litigation delay that allowed a philanthropic intervention to prevent construction.","added_delay_months":72,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2019/09/17/judge-to-rule-on-whether-berkeley-illegally-nixed-a-housing-complex-on-spengers-parking-lot"}],"actors":[{"name":"Ruegg & Ellsworth","organization":"Ruegg & Ellsworth / Rue-Ell Enterprises","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / Property Owner / Plaintiff","stated_arguments":"\"Extensive archeological and historical investigations at the parking lot site revealed no evidence of any intact cultural resources, nor even remnants recognizable as part of a structure. While there were shellmounds in the area, the overwhelming evidence is that no shellmound was ever present at the parking lot/development site.\" (Jeffrey Anhalt, risk manager, after April 2021 appellate victory)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/04/21/court-rules-a-260-unit-apartment-complex-can-go-up-at-1900-fourth-st-a-site-the-ohlone-consider-sacred"},{"name":"Blake Griggs Properties / West Berkeley Investors","organization":"Blake Griggs Properties","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Original Developer (withdrew Aug 2018)","stated_arguments":"Berkeley is \"trying to undermine a new state law that fast-tracks certain kinds of construction.\" The SB 35 application meets all legal requirements. Berkeley's denial based on historic landmark status is an improper use of preservation law to override a state housing statute.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/06/29/developer-of-1900-fourth-st-says-it-will-sue-unless-berkeley-fast-tracks-development"},{"name":"Jennifer Hernandez","organization":"Holland & Knight LLP","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Lead Counsel for Ruegg & Ellsworth (Holland & Knight)","stated_arguments":"Argued at a 2019 court hearing that SB 35 \"usurped\" Berkeley's authority over its landmarks — the legal argument the Court of Appeal later rejected. Subsequently secured the appellate victory and the $1.4M attorney fee award.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2019/09/17/judge-to-rule-on-whether-berkeley-illegally-nixed-a-housing-complex-on-spengers-parking-lot"},{"name":"City of Berkeley","organization":"City of Berkeley","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Respondent / Permitting Authority","stated_arguments":"The West Berkeley Shellmound is a city-designated historic landmark; applying SB 35 would unconstitutionally strip the city of authority over its own landmarks. SB 35 only applies to housing-only projects; a mixed-use building with ground-floor retail is ineligible. Project does not meet Berkeley's very low-income unit requirements. Traffic standards are not met.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.dailycal.org/archives/developers-of-1900-fourth-st-sue-city-of-berkeley-over-alleged-state-law-violation/article_a7ed57c5-6e97-5c1e-8f7e-cda4c22d3145.html"},{"name":"Corrina Gould","organization":"Confederated Villages of Lisjan / Sogorea Te' Land Trust","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Tribal Chair, Lisjan Nation / Co-Founder, Sogorea Te' Land Trust","stated_arguments":"\"In 2018, a developer announced plans for a massive new project that would upturn and destroy what was left of the site. A new fast-track housing law allowed the developers to bypass environmental review and Tribal cultural consultation and proceed with their plans, bringing imminent destruction of the remaining cultural landscape.\" After the land return: \"To have this place saved forever, I am beyond words.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sogoreate-landtrust.org/let-the-land-breathe/"},{"name":"Campaign to Save the West Berkeley Ohlone Shellmound","organization":"Campaign to Save the West Berkeley Ohlone Shellmound","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Opposition Coalition","stated_arguments":"The West Berkeley Shellmound is a 2,700-year-old Ohlone burial and village site — the oldest and most significant such site on the San Francisco Bay. The parking lot at 1900 Fourth Street covers the last undeveloped portion of this sacred landscape. Construction here would be permanent, irreversible desecration.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://shellmound.org/2018/09/berkeley-rejects-sb-35-application-again/"},{"name":"California First District Court of Appeal","organization":"California Courts of Appeal","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Appellate Court — Issued First Published SB 35 Opinion","stated_arguments":"Berkeley improperly denied the SB 35 application. Mixed-use projects with ground-floor retail qualify for SB 35. Historic landmark designations cannot override SB 35 ministerial review rights. (Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley, April 20, 2021)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/04/21/court-rules-a-260-unit-apartment-complex-can-go-up-at-1900-fourth-st-a-site-the-ohlone-consider-sacred"},{"name":"Judge Frank Roesch","organization":"Alameda County Superior Court","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Trial Court Judge (Alameda County Superior Court)","stated_arguments":"November 2019: ruled for Berkeley. February 2024 (after appellate reversal): imposed $2.6M HAA fine directed to Housing Trust Fund and $1.4M attorney fee award. At 2019 hearing: \"Whatever the case is, I don't make decisions about whether projects are approved, ever.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2019/09/17/judge-to-rule-on-whether-berkeley-illegally-nixed-a-housing-complex-on-spengers-parking-lot"},{"name":"California Supreme Court","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Declined review in Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley","stated_arguments":"Declined on July 28, 2021 to hear the city's appeal of the Court of Appeal decision for the project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/07/29/development-spengers-parking-lot-can-proceed-ohlone-shellmound-ruling"},{"name":"Sogorea Te' Land Trust","organization":"Sogorea Te' Land Trust","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Owner of the site since the 2024 settlement","stated_arguments":"\"Removing the concrete and daylighting Strawberry Creek furthers our vision for cultural revitalization, securing a sacred space for the Lisjan people in perpetuity.\" (April 28, 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sogoreate-landtrust.org/let-the-land-breathe/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2013-01-01","event_type":"First Development Proposal","description":"Blake Griggs Properties first proposes an apartment complex at 1900 Fourth Street through Berkeley's normal development process. The proposal is controversial from the start due to the site's association with the West Berkeley Shellmound. No permit is issued over the following years.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/06/29/developer-of-1900-fourth-st-says-it-will-sue-unless-berkeley-fast-tracks-development","source_label":"Berkeleyside"},{"event_date":"2018-01-01","event_type":"SB 35 Takes Effect","description":"California SB 35 (Wiener, 2017) takes effect, requiring cities not meeting regional housing goals to provide ministerial approval for projects with at least 50% affordable units. Berkeley has not met its regional housing obligations. Blake Griggs begins restructuring its proposal to qualify.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/06/29/developer-of-1900-fourth-st-says-it-will-sue-unless-berkeley-fast-tracks-development","source_label":"Berkeleyside"},{"event_date":"2018-03-01","event_type":"SB 35 Application Filed (260 Units)","description":"West Berkeley Investors (Blake Griggs subsidiary) submits an SB 35 application for 260 units: 130 market-rate apartments and 130 affordable (80% AMI), plus ground-floor retail. The project is redesigned larger than the earlier proposal specifically to meet SB 35's 50% affordable threshold. Architect: TCA Architects.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/06/29/developer-of-1900-fourth-st-says-it-will-sue-unless-berkeley-fast-tracks-development","source_label":"Berkeleyside"},{"event_date":"2018-06-05","event_type":"Berkeley's First SB 35 Denial","description":"Berkeley denies the SB 35 application, asserting the site is within the West Berkeley Shellmound historic landmark, that mixed-use projects don't qualify for SB 35, and that Berkeley's very low-income unit requirements aren't met.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/06/29/developer-of-1900-fourth-st-says-it-will-sue-unless-berkeley-fast-tracks-development","source_label":"Berkeleyside"},{"event_date":"2018-06-29","event_type":"Developer Threatens Lawsuit with 400-Page Rebuttal","description":"West Berkeley Investments sends a 400-page rebuttal to Berkeley's denial letter, charging the city is \"trying to undermine a new state law.\" Developer threatens to sue unless Berkeley approves the project under SB 35.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/06/29/developer-of-1900-fourth-st-says-it-will-sue-unless-berkeley-fast-tracks-development","source_label":"Berkeleyside"},{"event_date":"2018-08-23","event_type":"Blake Griggs Drops the Project","description":"West Berkeley Investors and Blake Griggs Properties notify Ruegg & Ellsworth that they are withdrawing from the project and returning all development rights. Spokesperson Ron Heckmann confirms the withdrawal but declines to give a reason.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/09/04/developers-drop-controversial-fourth-street-project-hand-it-over-to-owners","source_label":"Berkeleyside"},{"event_date":"2018-09-04","event_type":"Berkeley's Second and Final Denial","description":"On the same day Blake Griggs drops the project, Berkeley sends a letter to property owner Dana Ellsworth issuing a final denial of the SB 35 application, stating SB 35 \"cannot be applied to the property without violating the state constitution\" because the site is a city-designated historical landmark.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://shellmound.org/2018/09/berkeley-rejects-sb-35-application-again/","source_label":"Shellmound.org"},{"event_date":"2018-11-28","event_type":"Property Owners File Lawsuit","description":"Ruegg & Ellsworth and Frank Spenger Company file a petition for writ of mandate against the City of Berkeley, represented by Holland & Knight (Jennifer Hernandez and Daniel Golub). The lawsuit argues Berkeley's SB 35 denial violates state law and the HAA.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.dailycal.org/archives/developers-of-1900-fourth-st-sue-city-of-berkeley-over-alleged-state-law-violation/article_a7ed57c5-6e97-5c1e-8f7e-cda4c22d3145.html","source_label":"Daily Californian"},{"event_date":"2019-11-01","event_type":"Trial Court Rules for Berkeley","description":"Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch rules in favor of Berkeley, finding the city was within its rights to deny the SB 35 application. Roesch: \"Whatever the case is, I don't make decisions about whether projects are approved, ever.\" Developers appeal to the First District Court of Appeal.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2019/09/17/judge-to-rule-on-whether-berkeley-illegally-nixed-a-housing-complex-on-spengers-parking-lot","source_label":"Berkeleyside"},{"event_date":"2021-03-20","event_type":"Ohlone Protest at Site","description":"The Campaign to Save the West Berkeley Ohlone Shellmound holds a gathering on Fourth Street to protest a fence erected around the parking lot — a signal the developer was preparing to move forward following the pending appellate ruling.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/03/12/berkeley-shellmound-spengers-lot-sogorea-te-settlement","source_label":"Berkeleyside"},{"event_date":"2021-04-20","event_type":"Court of Appeal Issues First Published SB 35 Opinion (Developer Wins)","description":"The California First District Court of Appeal issues Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley — the first published California appellate opinion interpreting SB 35. The court reverses the trial court. Key holdings: mixed-use projects with ground-floor retail qualify for SB 35; historic landmark designations cannot override SB 35 ministerial review. The ruling establishes binding statewide precedent.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/04/21/court-rules-a-260-unit-apartment-complex-can-go-up-at-1900-fourth-st-a-site-the-ohlone-consider-sacred","source_label":"Berkeleyside"},{"event_date":"2021-07-28","event_type":"State Supreme Court Declines To Hear City's Appeal","description":"The California Supreme Court declines to hear Berkeley's appeal of the Court of Appeal decision, clearing the way for construction under SB 35.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/07/29/development-spengers-parking-lot-can-proceed-ohlone-shellmound-ruling","source_label":"Berkeleyside"},{"event_date":"2021-10-08","event_type":"City Issues SB 35 Permit","description":"The Campaign to Save the West Berkeley Ohlone Shellmound reports that the city has issued the SB 35 zoning permit. Berkeley renews the permit for three years in September 2022.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://shellmound.org/2021/10/city-of-berkeley-forced-to-issue-permit/","source_label":"Shellmound.org"},{"event_date":"2022-03-01","event_type":"Berkeley Appeals; Supreme Court Also Rules for Developer","description":"After Judge Frank Roesch rules in February 2022 that Berkeley violated the Housing Accountability Act, the city appeals in March 2022, and Berkeleyside later reports that the Court of Appeal and the state Supreme Court both found the violation. Roesch also orders the city and the Confederated Villages of Lisjan to post a $15 million bond against the developer's damages; the appeal courts find the order is not appealable, and the city still has not posted it in February 2024.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/02/16/court-ruling-1900-fourth-street","source_label":"Berkeleyside"},{"event_date":"2024-02-16","event_type":"Judge Fines Berkeley $2.6M, Orders $1.4M Attorney Fees","description":"Judge Roesch imposes a $2.6 million HAA fine on Berkeley (developer had sought $39 million); the fine is directed into Berkeley's Housing Trust Fund for affordable housing construction. Berkeley also pays $1.4 million to reimburse the developer's attorney fees under a settlement. Total city cost: $4 million. Housing was never built.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/02/16/court-ruling-1900-fourth-street","source_label":"Berkeleyside"},{"event_date":"2024-03-08","event_type":"Settlement Reached: $27M Site Purchase by Sogorea Te' Land Trust","description":"The Sogorea Te' Land Trust — funded primarily by a $20M donation from the Kataly Foundation (Regan Pritzker, Hyatt family) — offers $25.5M to purchase 1900 Fourth Street. Combined with $1.5M from Berkeley and $5.5M from two other donors, the $27M total settles all outstanding litigation. Ruegg & Ellsworth agrees.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sacredland.org/the-west-berkeley-shellmound-is-free/","source_label":"Sacred Land Film Project"},{"event_date":"2024-03-12","event_type":"Berkeley City Council Unanimously Approves Purchase and Land Transfer","description":"Berkeley City Council votes unanimously to purchase 1900 Fourth Street for $27M and immediately transfer title to the Sogorea Te' Land Trust. Berkeley becomes among the first cities in the US to formally return land to Indigenous people. The vote ends eight years of legal disputes. 260 apartments were never built.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/03/12/berkeley-shellmound-spengers-lot-sogorea-te-settlement","source_label":"Berkeleyside"},{"event_date":"2024-04-30","event_type":"Escrow Closes; Title Transferred to Sogorea Te' Land Trust","description":"Escrow closes on the $27M purchase. Title transfers immediately to the Sogorea Te' Land Trust — the largest known urban Indigenous land return in US history. All legal claims settled. The site remains a surface parking lot, with Sogorea Te' conducting cultural assessments and planning a commemorative park and cultural center.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sacredland.org/the-west-berkeley-shellmound-is-free/","source_label":"Sacred Land Film Project"},{"event_date":"2026-04-28","event_type":"Land Trust Begins Removing Pavement","description":"The Sogorea Te' Land Trust announces that \"the removal of the pavement at West Berkeley Shellmound is beginning.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sogoreate-landtrust.org/let-the-land-breathe/","source_label":"Sogorea Te' Land Trust"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2021-07-28","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/07/29/development-spengers-parking-lot-can-proceed-ohlone-shellmound-ruling","source_label":"Berkeleyside","notes":"The California Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeal decision in Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developer of 1900 Fourth St. Says It Will Sue Unless Berkeley Fast-Tracks Development","url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/06/29/developer-of-1900-fourth-st-says-it-will-sue-unless-berkeley-fast-tracks-development","publication":"Berkeleyside","author":"Frances Dinkelspiel","date_published":"2018-06-29","notes":"Best source for SB 35 application details (260 units, 130 affordable at 80% AMI, ground-floor retail), developer's 400-page rebuttal, and Blake Griggs development history."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"City of Berkeley Issues Final Rejection of SB-35 Development Application","url":"https://shellmound.org/2018/09/berkeley-rejects-sb-35-application-again/","publication":"Shellmound.org","author":null,"date_published":"2018-09-06","notes":"Opposition coalition site. Contains Corrina Gould quote after denial. Primary source for opposition perspective."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developers of 1900 Fourth St. Sue City of Berkeley Over Alleged State Law Violation","url":"https://www.dailycal.org/archives/developers-of-1900-fourth-st-sue-city-of-berkeley-over-alleged-state-law-violation/article_a7ed57c5-6e97-5c1e-8f7e-cda4c22d3145.html","publication":"Daily Californian","author":null,"date_published":"2018-12-03","notes":"Coverage of November 28, 2018 lawsuit. Confirms Holland & Knight representation and city's stated denial reasons."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge to Rule on Whether Berkeley Illegally Nixed a Housing Complex on Spenger's Parking Lot","url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2019/09/17/judge-to-rule-on-whether-berkeley-illegally-nixed-a-housing-complex-on-spengers-parking-lot","publication":"Berkeleyside","author":null,"date_published":"2019-09-17","notes":"Pre-trial-court-ruling coverage. Contains Judge Roesch's quote; best source for Jennifer Hernandez's \"usurped\" framing."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Court Rules a 260-Unit Apartment Complex Can Go Up at 1900 Fourth St.","url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/04/21/court-rules-a-260-unit-apartment-complex-can-go-up-at-1900-fourth-st-a-site-the-ohlone-consider-sacred","publication":"Berkeleyside","author":null,"date_published":"2021-04-21","notes":"Coverage of the landmark First District Court of Appeal ruling. Contains Jeffrey Anhalt quote on absence of intact cultural resources."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Spenger's development can proceed on site of Ohlone shellmound, court rules","url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/07/29/development-spengers-parking-lot-can-proceed-ohlone-shellmound-ruling","publication":"Berkeleyside","author":null,"date_published":"2021-07-29","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"California Supreme Court Denies Review in Berkeley Shellmound Case Paving the Way for Housing Under SB 35","url":"https://www.fennemorelaw.com/california-supreme-court-denies-review-in-berkeley-shellmound-case-paving-the-way-for-housing-under-sb-35","publication":"Fennemore","author":"Patricia E. Curtin","date_published":"2021-08-02","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"City of Berkeley Forced to Issue SB-35 Zoning Permit for 1900 4th St","url":"https://shellmound.org/2021/10/city-of-berkeley-forced-to-issue-permit/","publication":"Shellmound.org","author":null,"date_published":"2021-10-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Berkeley Must Pay $4M After Illegally Blocking Housing Project at Ohlone Shellmound Site","url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/02/16/court-ruling-1900-fourth-street","publication":"Berkeleyside","author":null,"date_published":"2024-02-16","notes":"Primary source for $2.6M HAA fine and $1.4M attorney fees. Confirms developer sought $39M; judge imposed $2.6M to Housing Trust Fund."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Berkeley Will Buy Ohlone Shellmound Site, Return It to Indigenous Land Trust","url":"https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/03/12/berkeley-shellmound-spengers-lot-sogorea-te-settlement","publication":"Berkeleyside","author":"Ally Markovich","date_published":"2024-03-12","notes":"Primary source for the March 2024 settlement. Confirms $27M purchase, Kataly Foundation $20M donation, city's $1.5M, unanimous council vote, and land transfer to Sogorea Te'."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"The West Berkeley Shellmound Is Free!","url":"https://sacredland.org/the-west-berkeley-shellmound-is-free/","publication":"Sacred Land Film Project","author":null,"date_published":"2024-04-30","notes":"April 30, 2024 escrow close summary. Confirms $27M total, $20M Kataly, $5.5M from two other donors, title transfer details. Best source for final settlement figures."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Let the Land Breathe — Sogorea Te' Land Trust","url":"https://sogoreate-landtrust.org/let-the-land-breathe/","publication":"Sogorea Te' Land Trust","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Official Sogorea Te' Land Trust account of the history and 2024 land return. Primary source for Land Trust's voice and post-settlement site status."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Resolution authorizing acquisition of 1900 Fourth Street and transfer to the Sogorea Te Land Trust","url":"https://www.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-03-19%20Item%20A%20Acquisition%20of%20Real%20Property.pdf","publication":"City of Berkeley","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 1900 Fourth Street Mixed-Use Apartments, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/berkeley-1900-fourth-2018, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:36:34.46143+00:00"},{"id":32,"slug":"atherton-oakwood-2021","name":"23 Oakwood Boulevard Townhomes","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/atherton-oakwood-2021","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/atherton-oakwood-2021/brief","address":"23 Oakwood Boulevard, Atherton, CA 94027","latitude":37.4536,"longitude":-122.2006,"jurisdiction":{"id":31,"slug":"atherton-san-mateo","city":"Atherton","county":"San Mateo","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/atherton-san-mateo"},"city":"Atherton","county":"San Mateo","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Stalled","units_proposed":15,"units_affordable":3,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":3,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2021-01-01","date_approved":"2025-05-05","date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":51,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"A proposed townhome development on a 1.52-acre parcel at 23 Oakwood Boulevard in Atherton — the most expensive zip code in the United States. Owner and developer: David Arata, who inherited the property from his mother approximately 2020. Arata first brought plans for townhomes to the Atherton Planning Commission approximately 2021. His plans froze as Atherton began its contentious 6th Cycle Housing Element update. The town submitted and had rejected two Housing Elements (October 2022 and April 2023). During the January 31, 2023 emergency council meeting, Steph Curry and his wife Ayesha wrote a letter opposing the project, asking the town to exclude 23 Oakwood. The council rejected the Currys request but downzoned the parcel from 20 du/ac (up to 30 units) to 10 du/ac (up to 15 units) — cutting the project in half. HCD rejected the first Housing Element partly because 10 du/ac is below the density needed for meaningful affordable housing production. The town finally received HCD certification on May 5, 2025 — 2 years and 3 months past deadline. As of May 2026, the zoning is in place. No construction permits have been confirmed filed.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"Town of Atherton","date_invoked":"2023-01-31","description":"Atherton 3-year refusal to adopt a compliant Housing Element — submitting and receiving rejection on two versions (October 2022 and April 2023), operating in violation from January 2023 through May 2025 — froze the 23 Oakwood townhome project in limbo. The town comprehensive failure to plan for any multifamily housing contributed to years of delay. Unlike most cases in this database, the primary mechanism is systemic: not a targeted challenge to a specific project, but a municipality refusing to follow state housing law at all.","added_delay_months":28,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/atherton/2025/05/27/atherton-housing-element-certified-by-state/"},{"short_name":"Downzoning","full_name":"Downzoning","invoked_by":"Atherton City Council","date_invoked":"2023-01-31","description":"At the January 31, 2023 emergency Housing Element meeting, the council initially voted 4-1 to rezone 23 Oakwood at 20 du/ac (up to 30 units), then revoted 5-0 to reduce to 10 du/ac (up to 15 units) under organized neighbor pressure and the Currys letter. This halved the project potential unit count and contributed to HCD rejecting the Housing Element because 10 du/ac is below the density needed for meaningful affordable housing. This downzoning was the direct consequence of celebrity and neighbor opposition — the most politically visible example in this database of a project being reduced in size rather than killed by organized opposition.","added_delay_months":6,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/02/01/atherton-guts-most-of-multifamily-housing-from-plan-its-sending-to-state/"}],"actors":[{"name":"David Arata","organization":null,"actor_type":"Landowner / Philanthropist","stance":"support","role":"Landowner / Developer","stated_arguments":"\"It would be more a little village than a big apartment building. When you mention housing element people snap; they think it is going to be low income and massive buildings stuck together.\" Plans to build regardless of what the housing element says. Has warned the town about Builder Remedy implications if it remained non-compliant.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/01/16/facing-mounting-pressure-atherton-adds-multi-family-housing-back-into-its-housing-plans/"},{"name":"Steph Curry","organization":null,"actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Adjacent Property Owner / Celebrity Opponent","stated_arguments":"\"We hesitate to add to the not-in-our-backyard rhetoric, but we wanted to send a note before today meeting. Safety and privacy for us and our kids continues to be our top priority and one of the biggest reasons we chose Atherton as home. With the density being proposed for 23 Oakwood, there are major concerns in terms of both privacy and safety with three-story townhomes looming directly behind us. We kindly ask that the town adopts the new housing element without the inclusion of 23 Oakwood.\" (Letter to Mayor Widmer, January 18, 2023)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/01/27/steph-and-ayesha-curry-oppose-upzoning-of-atherton-property-near-their-home/"},{"name":"Town of Atherton City Council","organization":"Town of Atherton","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"neutral","role":"Approving / Downzoning Authority","stated_arguments":"Council rejected the Currys request to remove 23 Oakwood from the Housing Element — but downzoned from 20 to 10 du/ac under pressure, cutting potential unit count in half. Mayor Widmer: \"I had felt we made some concessions in zoning but it seems that it is not enough for HCD.\" The council reluctant compliance with state law, watered down to the minimum possible, characterizes Atherton approach throughout.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2023/02/05/atherton-rejects-plea-of-the-currys-will-keep-controversial-development-in-housing-plan/"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"State Housing Regulator","stated_arguments":"Rejected Atherton Housing Element twice (October 2022 and April 2023). Threatened $10,000-$100,000/month fines. Formally found Atherton in violation of housing element law in July 2024. Considered 10 du/ac at 23 Oakwood insufficient for affordable housing production. Certified the third Housing Element on May 5, 2025 — 2+ years past deadline.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/atherton/2025/05/27/atherton-housing-element-certified-by-state/"},{"name":"Atherton Residents (generalized opposition)","organization":"Atherton residents","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Community Opposition","stated_arguments":"Wore matching green protest shirts at the January 31, 2023 meeting. Resident John: \"The issues of having 10 families, or potentially more, sitting that close, with all of their activities makes the town a hellhole.\" Stephanie Sargent: \"This is over my fence and yes, I am NIMBY, whatever everybody wants to call me.\" Planning Commission unanimously called multifamily at Bay Road sites \"bad urban planning.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://slate.com/business/2023/02/steph-curry-ayesha-atherton-california-housing-low-income-opposed.html"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2020-06-01","event_type":"David Arata Inherits 23 Oakwood Boulevard","description":"David Arata inherits a 1.52-acre single-family parcel at 23 Oakwood Boulevard from his mother, who died approximately mid-2020. He begins exploring plans to develop the property into townhomes, knowing the town has historically resisted all forms of multifamily housing.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/01/16/facing-mounting-pressure-atherton-adds-multi-family-housing-back-into-its-housing-plans/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2021-01-01","event_type":"Arata Brings Townhome Plans to Planning Commission","description":"David Arata brings his townhome plans to the Atherton Planning Commission. He knows townhouses would not fly in Atherton but pursues the project through the Housing Element process. Plans freeze as Atherton begins its contentious 6th Cycle update. The town has never built multifamily housing in its history.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/01/16/facing-mounting-pressure-atherton-adds-multi-family-housing-back-into-its-housing-plans/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2022-10-31","event_type":"HCD Rejects First Housing Element","description":"HCD rejects Atherton first Housing Element submission, finding the town is overestimating ADU production and has insufficient multifamily sites. Council Member Bob Polito: HCD gave Atherton an F. Mayor Widmer: \"I had felt we made some concessions in zoning but it seems that it is not enough for HCD.\" Staff and consultants had predicted this outcome from the start.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/11/07/atherton-councilman-says-state-gave-town-an-f-for-housing-element-draft/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2023-01-18","event_type":"Steph and Ayesha Curry Write Letter Opposing 23 Oakwood","description":"Steph and Ayesha Curry write a letter to Mayor Bill Widmer and Town Manager George Rodericks opposing the rezoning of 23 Oakwood Boulevard. They ask the town to exclude 23 Oakwood or commit to considerably taller fencing and landscaping to block sight lines. The letter becomes national news — republished by the SF Chronicle, Slate, KTVU, and dozens of national outlets.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/01/27/steph-and-ayesha-curry-oppose-upzoning-of-atherton-property-near-their-home/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2023-01-31","event_type":"Emergency Council Meeting — Currys Rejected, 23 Oakwood Kept But Downzoned","description":"In a four-hour emergency meeting, residents in matching green protest shirts oppose multifamily housing. The council initially votes 4-1 for 20 du/ac at 23 Oakwood (up to 30 units), then revotes 5-0 for 10 du/ac (up to 15 units) under neighbor pressure — cutting the project in half. The resulting plan relies almost entirely on ADUs and institutional sites for its 348-unit RHNA obligation.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/02/01/atherton-guts-most-of-multifamily-housing-from-plan-its-sending-to-state/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2023-04-01","event_type":"HCD Rejects Second Housing Element","description":"HCD rejects Atherton second Housing Element. The rejection partly reflects HCD concern that 10 du/ac at 23 Oakwood is below the density needed for meaningful affordable housing production. The January 31, 2023 deadline has now passed; Atherton is officially in violation.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/04/13/atherton-to-take-another-stab-at-housing-element/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2024-07-02","event_type":"HCD Issues Formal Violation Warning","description":"HCD formally warns Atherton it is in violation of housing element law — now 18 months past the January 2023 deadline. HCD warns noncompliance could result in $10,000-$100,000/month fines that a court can multiply by six.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/atherton/2024/09/04/atherton-is-still-working-to-get-its-housing-plans-approved-in-the-wake-of-enforcement-letter-from-the-state/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2024-08-28","event_type":"Planning Commission Unanimously Recommends Removing Bay Road Sites","description":"The Atherton Planning Commission unanimously recommends removing four Bay Road/Ringwood Avenue multifamily sites from the Housing Element following neighbor objections about traffic, privacy, and proximity to schools. The commission calls multifamily housing there bad urban planning. One neighbor: \"Please maximize the height of the screening.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/atherton/2024/09/04/atherton-is-still-working-to-get-its-housing-plans-approved-in-the-wake-of-enforcement-letter-from-the-state/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2024-10-16","event_type":"Third Housing Element Adopted","description":"At a five-hour meeting that at times got rowdy, the Atherton City Council unanimously votes to adopt the third version of its Housing Element and submit to HCD. The plan includes 23 Oakwood as the primary private multifamily opportunity site at 10 du/ac.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/atherton/2024/10/17/atherton-approves-newest-housing-element/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2025-05-05","event_type":"HCD Certifies Housing Element — 2+ Years Past Deadline","description":"HCD certifies Atherton Housing Element as compliant — 2 years and 3 months after the January 31, 2023 statutory deadline. The certification includes 23 Oakwood as a multifamily opportunity site at 10 du/ac with a 20% affordability requirement. Atherton did not receive any Builder Remedy applications during its period of non-compliance. As of March 2025, Atherton had allowed 111 new units including 28 very-low/extremely-low income, mostly ADUs. The 23 Oakwood townhomes have not broken ground.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/atherton/2025/05/27/atherton-housing-element-certified-by-state/","source_label":"The Almanac"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Atherton Councilman Says State Gave Town an F for Housing Element Draft","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/11/07/atherton-councilman-says-state-gave-town-an-f-for-housing-element-draft/","publication":"The Almanac","author":null,"date_published":"2022-11-07","notes":"First HCD rejection coverage. Polito F characterization. Primary source for October 31, 2022 rejection."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Facing Mounting Pressure, Atherton Adds Multifamily Housing Back Into Its Plans","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/01/16/facing-mounting-pressure-atherton-adds-multi-family-housing-back-into-its-housing-plans/","publication":"The Almanac","author":"Angela Swartz","date_published":"2023-01-16","notes":"Best source for Arata background — inherited from mother, 2-year Planning Commission history, little village quote, and the 20 du/ac initial proposal."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Steph and Ayesha Curry Oppose Upzoning of Atherton Property Near Their Home","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/01/27/steph-and-ayesha-curry-oppose-upzoning-of-atherton-property-near-their-home/","publication":"The Almanac","author":"Angela Swartz","date_published":"2023-01-27","notes":"Primary source for the Curry letter. Contains full letter text excerpt, project background, and the January 31 deadline context."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Atherton Guts Most of Multifamily Housing From Plan","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/02/01/atherton-guts-most-of-multifamily-housing-from-plan-its-sending-to-state/","publication":"The Almanac","author":"Angela Swartz","date_published":"2023-02-01","notes":"Best source for the January 31, 2023 emergency council meeting. Documents the downzoning from 20 to 10 du/ac, the gutting of other multifamily sites, the protest shirts, and tearful neighbor comments."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Steph and Ayesha Curry Oppose Mixed-Income Housing in Atherton","url":"https://slate.com/business/2023/02/steph-curry-ayesha-atherton-california-housing-low-income-opposed.html","publication":"Slate","author":null,"date_published":"2023-02-01","notes":"Best national media analysis. After 20-25 public meetings over two years, Atherton rezoned one parcel. Contains the hellhole quote and protest shirt detail."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Atherton Rejects Plea of the Currys","url":"https://padailypost.com/2023/02/05/atherton-rejects-plea-of-the-currys-will-keep-controversial-development-in-housing-plan/","publication":"Palo Alto Daily Post","author":null,"date_published":"2023-02-05","notes":"Best summary of the council decision to keep 23 Oakwood in the plan. Confirms Arata plans to build regardless."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Facing State Punishment, Atherton Approves Housing Plan in the Eleventh Hour","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/atherton/2024/10/17/atherton-approves-newest-housing-element/","publication":"The Almanac","author":null,"date_published":"2024-10-17","notes":"October 16, 2024 council meeting coverage. Rowdy meeting description. Confirms planning for 433 units (348 required plus buffer). Third Housing Element adoption."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Atherton Housing Element Certified by State","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/atherton/2025/05/27/atherton-housing-element-certified-by-state/","publication":"The Almanac","author":"Arden Margulis","date_published":"2025-05-27","notes":"Confirms May 5, 2025 HCD certification — 2+ years past deadline. Confirms no Builder Remedy applications received. As of March 2025: 111 units allowed, including 28 very-low/extremely-low income."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 23 Oakwood Boulevard Townhomes, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/atherton-oakwood-2021, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-06-01T20:32:08.698152+00:00"},{"id":79,"slug":"mountain-view-tyrella-2023","name":"294-296 Tyrella Avenue Condominiums","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/mountain-view-tyrella-2023","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/mountain-view-tyrella-2023/brief","address":"294-296 Tyrella Avenue, Mountain View, CA 94043","latitude":37.3981,"longitude":-122.0651,"jurisdiction":{"id":69,"slug":"mountain-view-santa-clara","city":"Mountain View","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/mountain-view-santa-clara"},"city":"Mountain View","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"For-Sale Residential","status":"Litigated","units_proposed":80,"units_affordable":null,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":7,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2023-02-01","date_approved":"2025-04-08","date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":26,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"Forrest Linebarger of Tower Investments owns a 0.48-acre corner lot at 294 and 296 Tyrella Avenue and Middlefield Road in Mountain View, where the council had approved an 11-unit rowhouse plan he proposed in 2021 and where he proposed 33 units in April 2022. On February 1, 2023, the day after the state housing element deadline, he submitted a six-story, 85-unit builder's remedy proposal with 17 affordable units; the site's development standards allow 17 units. HCD found the city's housing element compliant on May 26, 2023. Staff first told him to withdraw the earlier application, then said he could keep both, and the city said it was waiting for deposits it requires of all \"complex projects\" rather than delaying him. In 2024 YIMBY Law and the California Housing Defense Fund threatened to sue over the city's proposed conditions of approval, and on November 13, 2024 staff postponed a recommendation after the developer's attorney asked for more than 30 substantive revisions to the more than 200 conditions. After a March 12, 2025 hearing at which the planning division recommended approval with conditions, the council approved a seven-story, 80-unit version on April 8, 2025 by a 6-1 vote, with John McAlister opposed, and declined to extend the permit term. On May 14, 2025 neighbors organized as the Whisman Action Committee sued the city and the developer, alleging violations of CEQA, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and the city's affordable housing ordinance, and asked for a stay; the suit says the site is in a documented liquefaction zone and objects that all the affordable units are studios. The city says it does not believe it violated those laws. No ruling had been reported as of October 2026.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"City of Mountain View","date_invoked":"2024-11-13","description":"More than 200 proposed conditions of approval, some of which the developer said made the project infeasible, and a postponed hearing. The council approved the project on April 8, 2025, 26 months after filing, and kept the standard permit term.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2024/12/02/developer-digs-in-with-threats-of-litigation-over-builders-remedy-project-in-mountain-view/"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Whisman Action Committee","date_invoked":"2025-05-14","description":"The suit says the city wrongly found the project exempt from CEQA, approved it without a prior geotechnical report under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and broke its affordable housing ordinance by allowing all-studio affordable units. It seeks a stay. No ruling has been reported.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/05/20/mountain-view-residents-sue-city-to-halt-seven-story-builders-remedy-project/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Whisman Action Committee","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Neighbors who sued the city and the developer on May 14, 2025","stated_arguments":"The suit alleges \"adverse impacts relating to seismic hazards given its location on a site in a documented liquefaction zone,\" challenges the CEQA exemption and objects to all-studio affordable units. It seeks a stay.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/05/20/mountain-view-residents-sue-city-to-halt-seven-story-builders-remedy-project/"},{"name":"YIMBY Law","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Threatened to sue the city over its proposed conditions of approval","stated_arguments":"April 2024 letter: the city has attempted to \"execute an end run around\" the builder's remedy by imposing \"unlawful conditions of approval.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/city-government/2024/06/24/mountain-view-lawsuit-threat-builders-remedy-project-yimby-law/"},{"name":"California Housing Defense Fund","organization":"California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF)","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Sent litigation-threat and support letters","stated_arguments":"Wrote to the city in 2024 threatening litigation if it imposed unlawful conditions of approval, and urged approval without infeasible conditions before the April 8, 2025 vote.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2024/12/02/developer-digs-in-with-threats-of-litigation-over-builders-remedy-project-in-mountain-view/"},{"name":"Alison Hicks","organization":"Mountain View City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"deciding","role":"Voted to approve on April 8, 2025","stated_arguments":"\"I'm not happy with this project. I don't think that it fits into our community well for any number of reasons or fits Mountain View values.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/04/09/mountain-view-reluctantly-approves-seven-story-builders-remedy-project/"},{"name":"Forrest Linebarger","organization":null,"actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Owner and applicant; named in the neighbors' suit","stated_arguments":"\"Frivolous lawsuits are often CEQA related.\" He calls the suit a NIMBY tactic: \"Why let the gate close behind them and leave out all the other people?\" (May 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/05/20/mountain-view-residents-sue-city-to-halt-seven-story-builders-remedy-project/"},{"name":"John McAlister","organization":"Mountain View City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Cast the only vote against approval on April 8, 2025","stated_arguments":"\"I do not want this to go forward until we get clarity on what's required because cities are required to be very clear what they're doing, but the state legislature isn't giving us that ability to interpret it.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/04/09/mountain-view-reluctantly-approves-seven-story-builders-remedy-project/"},{"name":"Lenka Wright","organization":"City of Mountain View","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"neutral","role":"City spokesperson","stated_arguments":"\"Currently, the city does not believe its actions with regard to the 294-296 Tyrella Ave. development project violated the California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the California Environmental Quality Act ('CEQA'), or the city's Affordable Housing Program Ordinance.\" The city also \"acknowledges the uncertainty in the law\" on how those laws interact with the builder's remedy. (May 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/05/20/mountain-view-residents-sue-city-to-halt-seven-story-builders-remedy-project/"},{"name":"Amber Blizinski","organization":"City of Mountain View","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"neutral","role":"Assistant community development director","stated_arguments":"\"The city is not required to obtain a geotechnical study for a project prior to approval of a planning permit if it is determined there is no potential undue hazard.\" (April 3, 2025 email.) A site geotechnical report will be prepared at building plan check.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/05/20/mountain-view-residents-sue-city-to-halt-seven-story-builders-remedy-project/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2023-02-01","event_type":"Developer Files 85-Unit Builder's Remedy Proposal","description":"The day after the housing element deadline, Linebarger submits a six-story, 85-unit plan with 17 affordable units.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/02/17/what-does-builders-remedy-mean-for-mountain-view-a-local-developer-is-trying-to-find-out/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice"},{"event_date":"2023-05-26","event_type":"State Certifies Mountain View Housing Element","description":"HCD finds the housing element in substantial compliance, closing the city to new builder's remedy filings.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/05/27/state-approves-mountain-views-housing-element/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice"},{"event_date":"2024-04-09","event_type":"YIMBY Law Threatens To Sue","description":"A YIMBY Law letter accuses the city of imposing \"unlawful conditions of approval\" and urges approval without them.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/city-government/2024/06/24/mountain-view-lawsuit-threat-builders-remedy-project-yimby-law/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice"},{"event_date":"2024-11-13","event_type":"Hearing Recommendation Postponed Over Conditions","description":"The developer's attorney asks for more than 30 substantive revisions to more than 200 conditions of approval, and staff postpone a recommendation.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2024/12/02/developer-digs-in-with-threats-of-litigation-over-builders-remedy-project-in-mountain-view/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice"},{"event_date":"2025-03-12","event_type":"Staff Recommend Approval With Conditions","description":"At a planning division hearing, staff recommend that the council approve an 80-unit version with conditions; Linebarger says the latest conditions make it infeasible.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/03/13/seven-story-mountain-view-builders-remedy-project-nears-approval/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice"},{"event_date":"2025-04-08","event_type":"Council Approves 80 Condos, 6-1","description":"John McAlister votes no. The council declines to extend the permit term.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/04/09/mountain-view-reluctantly-approves-seven-story-builders-remedy-project/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice"},{"event_date":"2025-05-14","event_type":"Neighbors Sue To Halt Project","description":"The Whisman Action Committee alleges violations of CEQA, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and the city's affordable housing ordinance and seeks a stay. The city is served May 16.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/05/20/mountain-view-residents-sue-city-to-halt-seven-story-builders-remedy-project/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2025-04-08","body":"City Council","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"approve","vote_for":6,"vote_against":1,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/04/09/mountain-view-reluctantly-approves-seven-story-builders-remedy-project/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice","notes":"Approved the 80-unit condominium project; John McAlister voted no."},{"decision_date":"2025-05-14","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/05/20/mountain-view-residents-sue-city-to-halt-seven-story-builders-remedy-project/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice","notes":"Whisman Action Committee suit against the city, also naming the developer; seeks a stay."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"What does builder's remedy mean for Mountain View? A local developer is trying to find out","url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/02/17/what-does-builders-remedy-mean-for-mountain-view-a-local-developer-is-trying-to-find-out/","publication":"Mountain View Voice","author":"Malea Martin","date_published":"2023-02-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Mountain View becomes one of two Santa Clara County cities with a compliant housing element","url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/05/27/state-approves-mountain-views-housing-element/","publication":"Mountain View Voice","author":"Malea Martin","date_published":"2023-05-27","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Mountain View faces threat of lawsuit over alleged 'end run' around builder's remedy for seven-story project","url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/city-government/2024/06/24/mountain-view-lawsuit-threat-builders-remedy-project-yimby-law/","publication":"Mountain View Voice","author":"Emily Margaretten","date_published":"2024-06-24","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developer digs in with threats of litigation over builder's remedy project in Mountain View","url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2024/12/02/developer-digs-in-with-threats-of-litigation-over-builders-remedy-project-in-mountain-view/","publication":"Mountain View Voice","author":"Emily Margaretten","date_published":"2024-12-02","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Seven-story Mountain View builder's remedy project nears approval","url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/03/13/seven-story-mountain-view-builders-remedy-project-nears-approval/","publication":"Mountain View Voice","author":"Emily Margaretten","date_published":"2025-03-13","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Mountain View reluctantly approves seven-story builder's remedy project","url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/04/09/mountain-view-reluctantly-approves-seven-story-builders-remedy-project/","publication":"Mountain View Voice","author":"Emily Margaretten","date_published":"2025-04-09","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Mountain View residents sue city to halt seven-story builder's remedy project","url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/05/20/mountain-view-residents-sue-city-to-halt-seven-story-builders-remedy-project/","publication":"Mountain View Voice","author":"Emily Margaretten","date_published":"2025-05-20","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Year in Review: Taking a look back at 2025 in Mountain View","url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/mountain-view/2025/12/29/year-in-review-taking-a-look-back-at-2025-in-mountain-view/","publication":"Mountain View Voice","author":"Emily Margaretten","date_published":"2025-12-29","notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 294-296 Tyrella Avenue Condominiums, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/mountain-view-tyrella-2023, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:14:18.67142+00:00"},{"id":52,"slug":"los-altos-40-main-2018","name":"40 Main Street Apartments (SB 35)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-altos-40-main-2018","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-altos-40-main-2018/brief","address":"40 Main Street, Los Altos, CA 94022","latitude":37.381,"longitude":-122.1149,"jurisdiction":{"id":52,"slug":"los-altos-santa-clara","city":"Los Altos","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/los-altos-santa-clara"},"city":"Los Altos","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Under Construction","units_proposed":15,"units_affordable":2,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":5,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2018-11-08","date_approved":"2020-09-10","date_denied":"2019-04-09","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":22,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"40 Main Street is a 6,950-square-foot downtown lot in Los Altos where brothers Ted and Jerry Sorensen, through 40 Main Street Offices LLC, proposed a five-story, 66-foot building with ground-floor offices and 15 apartments, two of them affordable to low-income households, over two underground parking levels served by a car lift. They applied for SB 35 streamlined ministerial approval on November 8, 2018. City staff found the project ineligible in letters dated December 7, 2018 and February 6, 2019, citing parking, the residential share of the building, height and an incomplete application. The downtown height limit is 30 feet; the project reached 66 feet with a 35 percent density bonus and an 11-foot local increase. The council upheld the denial on April 9, 2019. The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA, now the California Housing Defense Fund) sued on June 12, 2019, and the case was consolidated with the owners' suit. On April 24, 2020, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Helen E. Williams ruled that the city had violated SB 35, the Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act and ordered it to issue permits; the owners' attorneys said the court also found the city acted in bad faith. The council voted to appeal, then dropped the appeal after the court required a $7 million appeal bond, and in September 2020 it rescinded the denial. In November 2021 the city approved a $1.2 million settlement. The old building was demolished in summer 2025, and construction was underway in May 2026. Disclosure: Los Altos Town Crier co-publisher Dennis Young, whose paper is a source here, is an investor in the project.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"SB 35","full_name":"SB 35 Ministerial Streamlining","invoked_by":"City of Los Altos","date_invoked":"2018-12-07","description":"Staff and then the council denied SB 35 streamlining, citing parking, the residential share, height and an incomplete application. The court found the denial unlawful in April 2020, and the city rescinded it in September 2020.","added_delay_months":22,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/07/28/housing-advocates-file-suit-against-los-altos-for-blocking-project/"},{"short_name":"Height Limit","full_name":"Height and Density Limits","invoked_by":"City of Los Altos","date_invoked":"2018-12-07","description":"Staff cited height. The downtown limit is 30 feet, and the project reached 66 feet with a 35 percent density bonus plus an 11-foot local increase. The court ruled for the owners.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/07/28/housing-advocates-file-suit-against-los-altos-for-blocking-project/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Judge Helen Williams","organization":"Santa Clara County Superior Court","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Santa Clara County Superior Court","stated_arguments":"Ruled April 24, 2020 that the city violated SB 35, the Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act, and ordered it to issue permits.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hklaw.com/en/news/pressreleases/2020/05/holland-knight-first-in-california-to-win-lawsuit-new-housing-law"},{"name":"Neysa Fligor","organization":"Los Altos City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Council member (later mayor)","stated_arguments":"At the April 9, 2019 appeal hearing, urged colleagues to \"disregard\" HCD's guidance on the parking question.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/07/28/housing-advocates-file-suit-against-los-altos-for-blocking-project/"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Advised the city on SB 35","stated_arguments":"An April 9, 2019 email from HCD's Melinda Coy said resident parking counts as residential use under SB 35.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/07/28/housing-advocates-file-suit-against-los-altos-for-blocking-project/"},{"name":"City of Los Altos","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Denied SB 35 streamlining; appealed the ruling, then settled","stated_arguments":"Staff found the project ineligible for SB 35 (Dec. 7, 2018); the council upheld the denial (April 9, 2019) and voted to appeal the ruling (July 2020). City statement: \"The City is open to working with the developer on an alternative project that is better suited for the site.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/page/los-altos-city-council-appeal-court-ruling-40-main-street-case"},{"name":"California Housing Defense Fund","organization":"California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF)","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Plaintiff, as CaRLA (the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund)","stated_arguments":"Sued on June 12, 2019. Dylan Casey: \"We're mainly just trying to get the city to follow its own development standards.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2020/07/08/los-altos-appeals-court-decision-ruling-the-city-must-allow-a-downtown-housing-project-to-proceed/"},{"name":"Ted Sorensen","organization":"40 Main Street Offices LLC","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Co-owner and applicant, with his brother Jerry Sorensen","stated_arguments":"\"We are proceeding with construction drawings for the approved building.\" (November 2021, after the settlement)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/settlement-agreement-ok-d-for-40-main-developers-still-pursuing-5-story-building/article_6ffe7eba-4188-11ec-bb05-efbb0695bbdd.html"},{"name":"Daniel Golub","organization":"Holland & Knight LLP","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Counsel for the owners (with Genna Yarkin)","stated_arguments":"Represented the Sorensens in the consolidated suit, arguing the city violated SB 35, the Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hklaw.com/en/news/pressreleases/2020/05/holland-knight-first-in-california-to-win-lawsuit-new-housing-law"},{"name":"Sonja Trauss","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"CaRLA co-executive director and plaintiff","stated_arguments":"\"The judges and the communities have allowed them to flout the law.\" (July 2019)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/07/28/housing-advocates-file-suit-against-los-altos-for-blocking-project/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2018-11-08","event_type":"Owners File SB 35 Application","description":"Ted and Jerry Sorensen apply for SB 35 streamlining for 15 apartments over offices; an earlier plan for the site was all offices.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/07/28/housing-advocates-file-suit-against-los-altos-for-blocking-project/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice"},{"event_date":"2018-12-07","event_type":"Staff Rejects SB 35 Streamlining","description":"Staff cite an incomplete application, parking, the residential share of the building, and height and density. A second letter follows on Feb. 6, 2019.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/07/28/housing-advocates-file-suit-against-los-altos-for-blocking-project/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice"},{"event_date":"2019-04-09","event_type":"Council Upholds Denial on Appeal","description":"Councilwoman Neysa Fligor urges colleagues to \"disregard\" HCD's guidance on parking. The council adopts Resolution 2019-13 on April 23.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/07/28/housing-advocates-file-suit-against-los-altos-for-blocking-project/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice"},{"event_date":"2019-06-12","event_type":"Renters Group Sues Los Altos","description":"CaRLA sues, arguing the city did not identify objective standards within SB 35's 60-day window. The case is consolidated with the owners' suit.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/07/28/housing-advocates-file-suit-against-los-altos-for-blocking-project/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice"},{"event_date":"2020-04-24","event_type":"Judge Rules City Violated Three State Housing Laws","description":"Judge Helen E. Williams finds violations of SB 35, the Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act and orders the city to issue permits.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hklaw.com/en/news/pressreleases/2020/05/holland-knight-first-in-california-to-win-lawsuit-new-housing-law","source_label":"Holland & Knight"},{"event_date":"2020-07-08","event_type":"Council Votes To Appeal","description":"The city calls the project oversized and the single car lift a safety concern.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/page/los-altos-city-council-appeal-court-ruling-40-main-street-case","source_label":"City of Los Altos"},{"event_date":"2020-09-02","event_type":"Judge Orders $7 Million Appeal Bond","description":"The court sets a $7 million bond for the city's appeal.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hklaw.com/en/news/pressreleases/2020/09/holland-knight-first-in-california-to-secure-housing-approval-through","source_label":"Holland & Knight"},{"event_date":"2020-09-10","event_type":"City Drops Appeal, Votes To Issue Permit","description":"Resolution 2020-33, rescinding the 2019 denial, follows on Sept. 22.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hklaw.com/en/news/pressreleases/2020/09/holland-knight-first-in-california-to-secure-housing-approval-through","source_label":"Holland & Knight"},{"event_date":"2021-11-02","event_type":"Council Approves $1.2 Million Settlement","description":"The deal offers about $800,000 in fee waivers if the owners switch to a four-story design; they keep the five-story plan.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/settlement-agreement-ok-d-for-40-main-developers-still-pursuing-5-story-building/article_6ffe7eba-4188-11ec-bb05-efbb0695bbdd.html","source_label":"Los Altos Town Crier"},{"event_date":"2026-05-04","event_type":"Construction Continues on 66-Foot Building","description":"The old building on the site was demolished in summer 2025.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/construction-continues-at-40-main/article_394921ab-ae26-4066-9491-c98d284d82e9.html","source_label":"Los Altos Town Crier"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2019-04-09","body":"City Council","action":"appeal_rejected","action_label":"appeal rejected","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/07/28/housing-advocates-file-suit-against-los-altos-for-blocking-project/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice","notes":"Upheld the staff denial of SB 35 streamlining; Resolution 2019-13 was adopted April 23, 2019."},{"decision_date":"2019-06-12","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/07/28/housing-advocates-file-suit-against-los-altos-for-blocking-project/","source_label":"Mountain View Voice","notes":"CaRLA sued in Santa Clara County Superior Court; the case was consolidated with the owners' suit."},{"decision_date":"2020-04-24","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.hklaw.com/en/news/pressreleases/2020/05/holland-knight-first-in-california-to-win-lawsuit-new-housing-law","source_label":"Holland & Knight","notes":"Ruled that the city violated SB 35, the Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act and ordered it to issue permits."},{"decision_date":"2020-07-08","body":"City Council","action":"appeal_filed","action_label":"appeal filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/page/los-altos-city-council-appeal-court-ruling-40-main-street-case","source_label":"City of Los Altos","notes":"Voted to appeal the trial court ruling. The appeal was dropped in September 2020."},{"decision_date":"2020-09-10","body":"City Council","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.hklaw.com/en/news/pressreleases/2020/09/holland-knight-first-in-california-to-secure-housing-approval-through","source_label":"Holland & Knight","notes":"Dropped the appeal and voted to issue the permit; Resolution 2020-33 rescinding the denial followed on Sept. 22, 2020."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Housing advocates file suit against Los Altos for blocking project","url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/07/28/housing-advocates-file-suit-against-los-altos-for-blocking-project/","publication":"Mountain View Voice","author":"Kevin Forestieri","date_published":"2019-07-28","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Court rules in favor of Silicon Valley YIMBYs","url":"https://www.bisnow.com/news/san-jose/multifamily/court-rules-in-favor-of-silicon-valley-yimbys-104152","publication":"Bisnow","author":"Dean Boerner","date_published":"2020-04-29","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Holland & Knight First in California to Win Lawsuit Under New Housing Law","url":"https://www.hklaw.com/en/news/pressreleases/2020/05/holland-knight-first-in-california-to-win-lawsuit-new-housing-law","publication":"Holland & Knight","author":null,"date_published":"2020-05-19","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Los Altos appeals court decision ruling the city must allow a downtown housing project to proceed","url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2020/07/08/los-altos-appeals-court-decision-ruling-the-city-must-allow-a-downtown-housing-project-to-proceed/","publication":"Mountain View Voice","author":null,"date_published":"2020-07-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Los Altos City Council to appeal court ruling in 40 Main Street case","url":"https://losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/page/los-altos-city-council-appeal-court-ruling-40-main-street-case","publication":"City of Los Altos","author":null,"date_published":"2020-07-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Holland & Knight press release on the 40 Main Street approval","url":"https://www.hklaw.com/en/news/pressreleases/2020/09/holland-knight-first-in-california-to-secure-housing-approval-through","publication":"Holland & Knight","author":null,"date_published":"2020-09-11","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Resolution rescinding in its entirety Resolution No. 2019-13","url":"https://www.losaltosca.gov/ordinances/resolution-rescinding-its-entirety-resolution-no-2019-13-resolution-denying-appeal","publication":"City of Los Altos","author":null,"date_published":"2020-09-22","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Settlement agreement OK'd for 40 Main; developers still pursuing 5-story building","url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/settlement-agreement-ok-d-for-40-main-developers-still-pursuing-5-story-building/article_6ffe7eba-4188-11ec-bb05-efbb0695bbdd.html","publication":"Los Altos Town Crier","author":"Bruce Barton","date_published":"2021-11-09","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Construction continues at 40 Main","url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/construction-continues-at-40-main/article_394921ab-ae26-4066-9491-c98d284d82e9.html","publication":"Los Altos Town Crier","author":"Christina Casillas","date_published":"2026-05-04","notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 40 Main Street Apartments (SB 35), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-altos-40-main-2018, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:17:17.68395+00:00"},{"id":40,"slug":"woodside-jefferson-builders-remedy-2024","name":"4224 Jefferson Avenue — 16-Story Builder's Remedy Tower","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/woodside-jefferson-builders-remedy-2024","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/woodside-jefferson-builders-remedy-2024/brief","address":"4224 Jefferson Avenue, Woodside, CA 94062","latitude":37.4291,"longitude":-122.2547,"jurisdiction":{"id":35,"slug":"woodside-san-mateo","city":"Woodside","county":"San Mateo","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/woodside-san-mateo"},"city":"Woodside","county":"San Mateo","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Stalled","units_proposed":105,"units_affordable":21,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":16,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2024-10-01","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"A 105-unit, 16-story residential development proposed by Woodside Community Housing (owned by Fullerton-based developer Ben Eilenberg) on a 0.36-acre vacant lot at 4224 Jefferson Avenue in Woodside, one of the wealthiest towns in the United States. The application invokes California's Builder's Remedy, which allows developers to bypass local zoning when a city lacks a state-certified housing element. Preliminary applications were filed in October and December 2024, before HCD certified Woodside's housing element in January 2025. The 16-story proposal would exceed the town's roughly 30-foot residential height limit by nearly seven times. The unit mix is 18 three-bedrooms, 25 two-bedrooms, 47 one-bedrooms, and 15 studios, with 20 percent designated for low-income housing, triggering California's density bonus. The town has repeatedly deemed the application incomplete — issuing incompleteness notices in July, November, and December 2025 and again in April 2026 — citing among other things a lack of available sewer services. The project became entangled in a separate controversy when former Town Manager Jason Ledbetter, after releasing a February 2026 whistleblower report alleging that council members delayed housing projects, wrote to a resident that \"They are also attempting to hide a builder's remedy project at 4224 Jefferson\"; Ledbetter was later fired after an investigation found most of his allegations unsubstantiated. As of June 22, 2026, the town stated no complete application had been submitted and the project's future remained uncertain. Woodside Community Housing told The Almanac it was discussing potential modifications to the project with the town.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"Woodside Community Housing (Ben Eilenberg)","date_invoked":"2024-10-01","description":"The developer invoked the Builder's Remedy by filing preliminary applications in Oct/Dec 2024, during the window before HCD certified Woodside's housing element in January 2025. This is the legal basis allowing the 16-story, 105-unit proposal to bypass the town's ~30-foot residential height limit. (Day of month not specified in source.)","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com"},{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"Town of Woodside","date_invoked":"2025-07-01","description":"The town issued a rolling series of incompleteness determinations — July, November, and December 2025 and April 2026 — repeatedly finding the application not complete and citing, among other things, a lack of available sewer services. The developer characterizes this as imposing requirements that are impractical and legally unsupported; the town characterizes it as procedural. As of June 22, 2026 the town stated no complete application had been submitted.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com"}],"actors":[{"name":"Ben Eilenberg","organization":"Woodside Community Housing","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / Applicant","stated_arguments":"Filed preliminary Builder's Remedy applications October and December 2024. \"The problem is that it seems like the town continues imposing things into the process that both make no sense practically and are unsupported legally.\" (Dec. 26, 2025 email)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/"},{"name":"Woodside Community Housing","organization":"Woodside Community Housing","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer Entity","stated_arguments":"Applicant of record. Declined comment, stating it was discussing potential modifications to the project with the town.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/"},{"name":"Woodside Town Council","organization":"Town of Woodside","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Local Governing Body","stated_arguments":"Accused in Ledbetter's whistleblower report of delaying housing projects, and in a later Ledbetter email of \"attempting to hide\" the 4224 Jefferson project. Independent investigation later found most allegations unsubstantiated.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/"},{"name":"Melissa Cardinale","organization":"Town of Woodside","actor_type":"Government Official","stance":"neutral","role":"Acting Town Manager","stated_arguments":"Stated the preliminary application predated HCD certification of the housing element (January 2025), and that as of June 22, 2026 no complete development application had been submitted — so the town was not required to hold a public meeting or disclose the project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/"},{"name":"Jason Ledbetter","organization":"Town of Woodside (former)","actor_type":"Government Official","stance":"support","role":"Whistleblower / Former Town Manager","stated_arguments":"Released a 14-page whistleblower report in February 2026 alleging that council members delayed housing projects; afterward wrote to a resident: \"They are also attempting to hide a builder's remedy project at 4224 Jefferson.\" Placed on leave after the report and fired April 30, 2026 after an investigation found most allegations unsubstantiated.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2024-10-01","event_type":"Initial Preliminary Application Submitted","description":"Woodside Community Housing submitted its first preliminary Builder's Remedy application for the 105-unit, 16-story Jefferson Avenue project. Under SB 330 the developer then had until late June 2025 to submit a complete development application. (Day of month not specified in source.)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2024-12-01","event_type":"Second Preliminary Application Submitted","description":"A follow-up preliminary application was submitted in December 2024, still before the town's housing element was certified. (Day of month not specified in source.)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2025-01-01","event_type":"Housing Element Certified — Builder's Remedy Window Closes","description":"HCD certified Woodside's housing element in January 2025, closing the Builder's Remedy window for new applications. The Jefferson applications, filed in Oct/Dec 2024, predated certification. (Day of month not specified in source.)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2025-07-01","event_type":"Application Deemed Incomplete","description":"The town deemed the development application incomplete in July 2025, the first in a series of incompleteness determinations. (Day of month not specified in source.)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2025-11-01","event_type":"Incompleteness Notice Issued","description":"After resubmission, the town issued another incompleteness notice in November 2025. (Day of month not specified in source.)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2025-12-26","event_type":"Third Incompleteness Notice; Developer Email","description":"The town issued another incompleteness notice in December 2025. Eilenberg wrote a Dec. 26 email criticizing the town's process as impractical and legally unsupported, and warning of legal fee risk.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2026-02-19","event_type":"Whistleblower Report Released","description":"Former Town Manager Jason Ledbetter released a 14-page whistleblower report alleging that council members delayed housing projects, made racist statements and created a hostile work environment, and was placed on paid leave. Afterward he wrote to a resident: \"They are also attempting to hide a builder's remedy project at 4224 Jefferson.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2026-04-30","event_type":"Whistleblower Fired; Application Still Incomplete","description":"Ledbetter was fired after the town's independent investigation found the majority of his allegations unsubstantiated. Separately, the applicant was notified in April 2026 that the application remained incomplete.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2026-06-22","event_type":"Town Confirms No Complete Application","description":"Acting Town Manager Melissa Cardinale stated the town had not received a complete development application and that no formal proposal had been submitted — meaning, per the town, no public meeting or public disclosure was required.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/","source_label":"The Almanac"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Woodside and SoCal developer wrangle over 16-story housing project's fate","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/woodside/2026/06/26/woodside-and-socal-developer-wrangle-over-16-story-housing-projects-fate/","publication":"The Almanac","author":"Jennifer Yoshikoshi","date_published":"2026-06-26","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Woodside and SoCal developer wrangle over 16-story housing project's fate","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com","publication":"The Almanac","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Primary and only source for this entry. Based on documents obtained through a Public Records Act request. Covers the 105-unit, 16-story Builder's Remedy application, the rolling incompleteness determinations, the sewer-service objection, and the connection to former Town Manager Ledbetter's whistleblower report. SINGLE-SOURCE ENTRY — several details (whistleblower specifics, sewer outcome, exact day-of-month dates) are unconfirmed and should be verified against the town's records. Replace this URL with the exact article URL when available."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 4224 Jefferson Avenue — 16-Story Builder's Remedy Tower, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/woodside-jefferson-builders-remedy-2024, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:46:04.995903+00:00"},{"id":9,"slug":"sf-469-stevenson-2021","name":"469 Stevenson Street Residential Tower","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/sf-469-stevenson-2021","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/sf-469-stevenson-2021/brief","address":"469 Stevenson Street, San Francisco, CA 94103","latitude":37.7832,"longitude":-122.4072,"jurisdiction":{"id":9,"slug":"san-francisco-san-francisco","city":"San Francisco","county":"San Francisco","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/san-francisco-san-francisco"},"city":"San Francisco","county":"San Francisco","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Approved","units_proposed":495,"units_affordable":73,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":27,"sq_ft":535000,"date_filed":"2017-01-01","date_approved":"2023-04-20","date_denied":"2021-10-26","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":24,"cost_of_delay_usd":32000,"data_quality":3,"description":"A 27-story, 290-foot-tall mixed-use residential tower proposed on a Nordstrom valet parking lot in SoMa, two blocks from BART Powell Street Station. Includes 495 residential units (73 on-site affordable, 45 additional off-site), approximately 4,000 sq ft of ground-floor retail, 178 parking spaces, and 227 bicycle spaces. Planning case filed 2017. First Planning Commission EIR certification July 2021. Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 to overturn the EIR in October 2021 on gentrification, shadow, seismic, and displacement grounds. Governor Newsom issued an SB 7 streamlining certification in March 2023. Second Planning Commission approval April 2023. As of early 2026 the site remains a surface parking lot; developer seeking entitlement extension with reduced affordability.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium (TODCO affiliate)","date_invoked":"2021-10-01","description":"TODCO affiliate filed an EIR appeal to the Board of Supervisors. The Board voted 8-3 to overturn the EIR on October 26, 2021. Critics including HCD, the Mayor, and state legislators argued the appeal had no evidentiary basis and was used to launder a policy disagreement through environmental review. Forced a full EIR revision and new certification hearing, adding approximately 18-20 months.","added_delay_months":20,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sfrsanfrancisco-loi-ta-112221.pdf"},{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"San Francisco Board of Supervisors","date_invoked":"2021-10-26","description":"Board exercised its discretionary authority to overturn a Planning Commission EIR certification — an extremely rare use of this power for a project of this type. AB 1633 (Ting) was a direct legislative response to close this specific discretionary pathway.","added_delay_months":20,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2021/10/28/sf-supervisors-reject-builds-monster-on-sixth-street-drawing-mayors-ire/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Build Inc.","organization":"Build Inc.","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / Project Applicant","stated_arguments":"Project replaces a surface parking lot with 495 homes two blocks from BART. Provides 24% affordable units, with 40% of on-site affordable units offered preferentially to community applicants. Ground-floor retail at $1/sq ft for community tenants.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2021/10/28/sf-supervisors-reject-builds-monster-on-sixth-street-drawing-mayors-ire/"},{"name":"Lou Vazquez","organization":"Build Inc.","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Founding Partner, Build Inc.","stated_arguments":"\"This is the right project for the right place. It's close to jobs and transit, it's providing housing for residents at all levels of income.\" Said he was \"blindsided\" by the Board's vote and \"we are not giving up.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2021/10/28/sf-supervisors-reject-builds-monster-on-sixth-street-drawing-mayors-ire/"},{"name":"TODCO (Tenants and Owners Development Corporation)","organization":"TODCO","actor_type":null,"stance":"oppose","role":"Appellant / Affordable Housing Advocate","stated_arguments":"The project provides no housing for Section 8 voucher holders or the working poor most at risk of displacement in SoMa. Its market-rate units will intensify gentrification pressure on the Filipino Cultural Heritage District and the Sixth Street corridor. Legitimate geotechnical questions about a 27-story tower on historic marsh fill haven't been adequately studied.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://48hills.org/2021/10/in-dramatic-move-supes-block-huge-luxury-housing-project-in-soma/"},{"name":"John Elberling","organization":"TODCO","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Executive Director, TODCO / Lead Appellant","stated_arguments":"\"You know there was an old marsh here.\" (On seismic concerns, October 2021 Board hearing). Dubbed project \"The Monster on Sixth Street.\" After the vote: \"I can't remember the last time this happened on a project of this type and magnitude from a developer like this.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfist.com/2021/10/27/supes-shoot-down-27-story-soma-residential-tower-over-earthquake-displacement-concerns/"},{"name":"Dean Preston","organization":"San Francisco Board of Supervisors (District 5)","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Supervisor, District 5 (voted to overturn EIR)","stated_arguments":"Called the developer's environmental study \"biased.\" Stated he wasn't anti-housing but preferred projects with higher affordability ratios to address displacement.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/2021/10/28/supervisors-under-fire-vote-against-proposed-soma-apartment-building-sparks-furor-may-violate-state-law/"},{"name":"Shamann Walton","organization":"San Francisco Board of Supervisors (District 10)","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Supervisor, District 10 (voted to overturn EIR)","stated_arguments":"\"It's very clear to me that this will have a very significant displacement and social economic impact on the Sixth Street corridor, on the Filipino community, and the broader low income community here.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfist.com/2021/10/27/supes-shoot-down-27-story-soma-residential-tower-over-earthquake-displacement-concerns/"},{"name":"Rafael Mandelman","organization":"San Francisco Board of Supervisors (District 8)","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Supervisor, District 8 (voted to overturn EIR)","stated_arguments":"\"It is important that we hear the concerns of marginalized communities who fear displacement.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://missionlocal.org/2021/11/developments-in-development-the-marvel-and-stevenson-are-more-complicated-than-the-good-and-evil-twins-of-sfs-housing-debate/"},{"name":"Matt Haney","organization":"San Francisco Board of Supervisors (District 6) / State Assembly","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"support","role":"Supervisor, District 6 (voted to support project)","stated_arguments":"\"Tonight the Board voted down a 495 unit housing project in my district on a parking lot on Stevenson/6th. It was approximately 24% affordable with 100+ affordable units, near transit, with ground floor community space, and extensive neighborhood support from residents and leaders.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfist.com/2021/10/27/supes-shoot-down-27-story-soma-residential-tower-over-earthquake-displacement-concerns/"},{"name":"London Breed","organization":"City and County of San Francisco","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"support","role":"Mayor of San Francisco","stated_arguments":"\"If you're wondering how we got into our housing crisis, this is how. Supervisors raised vague concerns about gentrification and possible shadows to justify rejecting the analysis of the experts at the Planning Department. We're talking about a parking lot in SoMa surrounded by high-rises.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/2021/10/28/supervisors-under-fire-vote-against-proposed-soma-apartment-building-sparks-furor-may-violate-state-law/"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"State Enforcement Agency","stated_arguments":"SF's EIR appeal process as applied to 469 Stevenson is indicative of a pattern constraining the provision of housing in San Francisco. The Planning Commission's FEIR certification was based on thorough review and found to be consistent with CEQA. (Letter of Inquiry, Nov 22, 2021)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sfrsanfrancisco-loi-ta-112221.pdf"},{"name":"Gavin Newsom","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Governor of California","stated_arguments":"Issued SB 7 Environmental Leadership Development Project certification on March 21, 2023. Certification states the project will invest over $200 million in California, create skilled jobs, use clean energy, and advance sustainable infill development.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.lci.ca.gov/ceqa/judicial-streamlining/docs/20230321-SB&_469_Stevenson_Certification.pdf"},{"name":"Scott Wiener","organization":"California State Senate (District 11)","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"State Senator / Legislative Champion","stated_arguments":"\"This CEQA ruling on the Stevenson St. housing project is every bit as outrageous as the UC Berkeley 'students-are-pollution' CEQA ruling. We must clarify CEQA doesn't give cities the power to ignore state housing law. Better yet, let's remove infill housing from CEQA entirely.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/11/sf-housing-project-fight-may-go-statewide/"},{"name":"YIMBY Law","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Pro-Housing Litigation Organization / Plaintiff","stated_arguments":"The Board violated CEQA, the HAA, SB 330, and the Permit Streamlining Act by overturning an EIR that had no legal basis for being rejected. Using the EIR appeal process to deny projects on policy grounds is \"CEQA laundering\" — a way for cities to evade the Housing Accountability Act.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/469-stevenson"},{"name":"Judge Cynthia Ming-Mei Lee","organization":"San Francisco Superior Court","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Presiding Judge, SF Superior Court","stated_arguments":"October 2022: dismissed most of YIMBY Law's claims. Ruling: state housing laws (HAA, SB 330, Permit Streamlining Act) cannot apply to a project until it completes adequate environmental review under CEQA. This gave the Board's action legal cover under then-existing law.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/yimby-law-mulls-next-steps-after-469-stevenson-ruling/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2017-01-01","event_type":"Planning Application Filed","description":"Build Inc. files initial planning application for a mixed-use residential tower at 469 Stevenson Street on a Nordstrom valet parking lot in SoMa. SF Planning Case No. 2017-014833ENV.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2019100093/3","source_label":"CEQAnet"},{"event_date":"2019-10-01","event_type":"CEQA Review Initiated","description":"Draft Environmental Impact Report preparation begins. State Clearinghouse No. 2019100093 assigned.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2019100093/3","source_label":"CEQAnet"},{"event_date":"2021-07-29","event_type":"Planning Commission EIR Certification (First)","description":"San Francisco Planning Commission certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report, finding it was prepared, publicized, and reviewed consistently with CEQA.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sfrsanfrancisco-loi-ta-112221.pdf","source_label":"HCD Letter of Inquiry"},{"event_date":"2021-10-01","event_type":"EIR Appeal Filed by TODCO Affiliate","description":"The Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium files an EIR appeal to the Board of Supervisors. Arguments: inadequate analysis of gentrification/displacement, shadowing of Mint Plaza, geotechnical/seismic risk, and historic resource impacts.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/2021/10/28/supervisors-under-fire-vote-against-proposed-soma-apartment-building-sparks-furor-may-violate-state-law/","source_label":"SF Standard"},{"event_date":"2021-10-26","event_type":"Board of Supervisors Overturns EIR (8-3)","description":"Board votes 8-3 to uphold appeal and overturn EIR. Voting to overturn: Preston, Chan, Ronen, Melgar, Mar, Peskin, Mandelman, Walton. Voting in favor of project: Haney, Stefani, Safai. Mayor Breed: \"If you're wondering how we got into our housing crisis, this is how.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2021/10/28/sf-supervisors-reject-builds-monster-on-sixth-street-drawing-mayors-ire/","source_label":"The Real Deal SF"},{"event_date":"2021-11-22","event_type":"HCD Issues Letter of Inquiry","description":"HCD sends Letter of Inquiry and Technical Assistance regarding 469 Stevenson, expressing concern that SF's EIR appeal process may be constraining the provision of housing in San Francisco.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sfrsanfrancisco-loi-ta-112221.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2022-01-20","event_type":"YIMBY Law Files Lawsuit","description":"YIMBY Law files suit against the City and County of San Francisco alleging the Board's vote violated CEQA, the HAA, SB 330, and the Permit Streamlining Act.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/press/press-release-yimby-law-sues-san-francisco-and-los-angeles-for-violating-california-housing-laws","source_label":"YIMBY Law"},{"event_date":"2022-08-01","event_type":"HCD Launches Housing Policy Review of San Francisco","description":"HCD launches an unprecedented Housing Policy Review of SF's housing approval practices, citing 469 Stevenson among evidence of systemic obstruction.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.atlas-premier.com/slashing-the-shadow-san-franciscos-new-push-to-end-frivolous-housing-appeals/","source_label":"Atlas Premier"},{"event_date":"2022-10-21","event_type":"Court Dismisses Most YIMBY Law Claims","description":"Judge Cynthia Ming-Mei Lee dismisses most of YIMBY Law's case. Holds that state housing laws can't apply to a project until it completes adequate CEQA review.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/yimby-law-mulls-next-steps-after-469-stevenson-ruling/","source_label":"SF Standard"},{"event_date":"2022-11-02","event_type":"Partially Recirculated Draft EIR Published","description":"Build Inc. publishes a revised Partially Recirculated Draft EIR addressing the Board's concerns about gentrification, geotechnical risk, and historic resources.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/256072-8/","source_label":"CEQAnet"},{"event_date":"2022-11-23","event_type":"HCD Issues Letter of Support for Revised EIR","description":"HCD sends Letter of Support to SF Planning for the Partially Recirculated Draft EIR, indicating the revised analysis adequately addresses prior concerns.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-francisco-LOS-112322.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2023-03-21","event_type":"Governor Newsom Issues SB 7 Streamlining Certification","description":"Governor Newsom issues an Environmental Leadership Development Project certification under SB 7. Limits any legal challenges to a 270-day window. Confirms $200M+ investment, LEED Gold target, 495 units.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.lci.ca.gov/ceqa/judicial-streamlining/docs/20230321-SB&_469_Stevenson_Certification.pdf","source_label":"SB 7 Certification"},{"event_date":"2023-04-20","event_type":"Planning Commission Re-Approves Project (4-2)","description":"Planning Commission votes 4-2 to certify the revised EIR and re-approve the project. Commissioners Moore and Imperial dissent. John Elberling indicates TODCO won't appeal.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://missionlocal.org/2023/04/sf-rebuked-by-state-revives-controversial-housing-projects/","source_label":"Mission Local"},{"event_date":"2024-01-01","event_type":"AB 1633 Takes Effect","description":"AB 1633 (Ting) takes effect. Directly inspired by the 469 Stevenson obstruction. Allows developers to sue local governments that block urban infill housing by requiring unnecessary environmental review — closing the CEQA laundering loophole the Board used.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/2024/04/09/yimby-nimby-nordstrom-469-stevenson-settlement/","source_label":"SF Standard"},{"event_date":"2024-04-09","event_type":"YIMBY Law Lawsuit Settled for $32,000","description":"YIMBY Law settles remaining claims, paying $32,000 to the City of San Francisco. City Attorney's office: \"The City Attorney's Office prevailed in getting all four of the petitioner's claims dismissed by the trial court.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/2024/04/09/yimby-nimby-nordstrom-469-stevenson-settlement/","source_label":"SF Standard"},{"event_date":"2026-03-01","event_type":"Developer Requests Entitlement Extension with Reduced Affordability","description":"Build Inc. requests an entitlement extension for the lapsed 2023 approval, with a reduction in on-site affordable housing from 19% to 15%. Developer cites rising construction costs. Site remains a surface parking lot nine years after planning began.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfyimby.com/2026/03/entitlement-extension-requested-for-469-stevenson-street-in-soma-san-francisco.html","source_label":"SF YIMBY"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"SF Supervisors Reject Build's Monster on Sixth Street, Drawing Mayor's Ire","url":"https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2021/10/28/sf-supervisors-reject-builds-monster-on-sixth-street-drawing-mayors-ire/","publication":"The Real Deal San Francisco","author":null,"date_published":"2021-10-28","notes":"Day-of coverage of the 8-3 vote. Contains named quotes from Lou Vazquez."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Supervisors Under Fire: Vote Against Proposed SoMa Apartment Building Sparks Furor","url":"https://sfstandard.com/2021/10/28/supervisors-under-fire-vote-against-proposed-soma-apartment-building-sparks-furor-may-violate-state-law/","publication":"San Francisco Standard","author":"Annie Gaus","date_published":"2021-10-28","notes":"Best day-of account. Names all 11 supervisors and their votes. Contains Mayor Breed's statement."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"In Dramatic Move, Supes Block Huge Luxury Housing Project in SoMa","url":"https://48hills.org/2021/10/in-dramatic-move-supes-block-huge-luxury-housing-project-in-soma/","publication":"48 Hills","author":null,"date_published":"2021-10-28","notes":"Pro-tenant perspective. Best source for Elberling quotes and TODCO's stated rationale."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"HCD Letter of Inquiry and Technical Assistance — 469 Stevenson Street","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sfrsanfrancisco-loi-ta-112221.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":null,"date_published":"2021-11-22","notes":"Primary government document. HCD concern that SF's EIR appeal process is constraining housing."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"SF Housing Project Fight May Go Statewide","url":"https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/11/sf-housing-project-fight-may-go-statewide/","publication":"CalMatters","author":null,"date_published":"2022-11-02","notes":"Statewide significance analysis. Contains Scott Wiener quote."},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Governor Newsom SB 7 Streamlining Certification — 469 Stevenson Street","url":"https://www.lci.ca.gov/ceqa/judicial-streamlining/docs/20230321-SB&_469_Stevenson_Certification.pdf","publication":"Governor of California","author":"Gov. Gavin Newsom","date_published":"2023-03-21","notes":"Primary document. Grants SB 7 Environmental Leadership streamlining."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"YIMBY Lawsuit Over 469 Stevenson Quietly Settled for $32,000","url":"https://sfstandard.com/2024/04/09/yimby-nimby-nordstrom-469-stevenson-settlement/","publication":"San Francisco Standard","author":null,"date_published":"2024-04-09","notes":"Best source for lawsuit outcome, settlement amount, AB 1633 legacy, and Sonja Trauss comments."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developers, Not CEQA, Are Keeping a SoMa Housing Site as a Parking Lot","url":"https://48hills.org/2024/05/developers-not-ceqa-are-keeping-a-soma-housing-site-as-a-parking-lot/","publication":"48 Hills","author":null,"date_published":"2024-05-13","notes":"Essential opposing view. Argues Build Inc. lacked financing all along and CEQA wasn't the primary obstacle."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Entitlement Extension Requested for 469 Stevenson Street in SoMa","url":"https://sfyimby.com/2026/03/entitlement-extension-requested-for-469-stevenson-street-in-soma-san-francisco.html","publication":"SF YIMBY","author":null,"date_published":"2026-03-01","notes":"Most recent status update. Confirms expired entitlement and reduced affordability request."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"YIMBY Law 469 Stevenson Case Page","url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/469-stevenson","publication":"YIMBY Law","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Official YIMBY Law case page with legal filings and final status."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 469 Stevenson Street Residential Tower, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/sf-469-stevenson-2021, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-05-21T23:10:17.304927+00:00"},{"id":62,"slug":"santa-barbara-505-los-olivos-2024","name":"505 East Los Olivos Street (Behind the Old Mission)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-barbara-505-los-olivos-2024","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-barbara-505-los-olivos-2024/brief","address":"505 E. Los Olivos Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93105","latitude":34.4401,"longitude":-119.7137,"jurisdiction":{"id":48,"slug":"santa-barbara-santa-barbara","city":"Santa Barbara","county":"Santa Barbara","region":"Central Coast","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/santa-barbara-santa-barbara"},"city":"Santa Barbara","county":"Santa Barbara","region":"Central Coast","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Litigated","units_proposed":270,"units_affordable":54,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":8,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2024-01-24","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":32,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"The Mission LLC, whose manager is listed as Ben Eilenberg and whose principals the Los Angeles Times identified as Craig and Stephanie Smith, proposes an eight-story apartment building over three levels of underground parking on nearly five sloping acres at 505 E. Los Olivos Street, behind the Old Mission in Santa Barbara (city file PLN2024-00299). Current plans call for 270 units, 54 of them for low-income households, at a height the city puts at 112 feet, where the City Charter limit is 30 feet; the January 2024 preliminary application described 250 units. The developer filed under the builder's remedy on January 24, 2024, weeks before HCD found Santa Barbara's adopted housing element in substantial compliance on February 13, 2024. The city found the formal application incomplete four times between August 2024 and May 2025 (the first notice demanded a general plan amendment and rezoning, which the city later waived) before deeming it complete on July 3, 2025. On July 31, 2025 the city rejected the developer's request for a CEQA exemption under AB 130, citing zoning inconsistency, wetlands, steelhead habitat and a FEMA floodway. On October 11, 2025 Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 158, a budget trailer bill that removed the exemption from builder's remedy sites meeting a set of population, size, floodway, wetland and landmark tests; the developer says it singles out this project. Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle denied the developer's writ claims on April 22, 2026, and on June 2, 2026 U.S. District Judge Hernán D. Vera dismissed its federal suit against the state and city, with leave to amend, while saying \"there are serious constitutional questions raised here.\" The developer filed an amended federal complaint in June. In July 2026 the city said it has not disapproved the project and listed 12 environmental studies required before hearings. A state court hearing is set for November 4, 2026. Sources differ on the unit count (250 or 270) and height (112 or 90 feet).","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"City of Santa Barbara","date_invoked":"2025-07-31","description":"The city denied the AB 130 exemption, and SB 158 later removed the exemption for sites like this one. The city requires 12 environmental studies before hearings.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/HAA%20Unnecessary%20Delay%20Response%20Letter%2007-08-26.pdf"},{"short_name":"Height Limit","full_name":"Height and Density Limits","invoked_by":"City of Santa Barbara","date_invoked":"2026-04-08","description":"The city's consistency letter cites the 30-foot height limit in City Charter Section 1506; the city puts the project at about 112 feet.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/HAA%20Unnecessary%20Delay%20Response%20Letter%2007-08-26.pdf"},{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"City of Santa Barbara","date_invoked":"2026-07-08","description":"The city's July 2026 letter says the project exceeds current builder's remedy density limits (71.43 versus 30 units per acre), while conceding that the pre-2025 rules apply.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/HAA%20Unnecessary%20Delay%20Response%20Letter%2007-08-26.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"Judge Thomas Anderle","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Santa Barbara County Superior Court","stated_arguments":"Denied the developer's writ claims on April 22, 2026. In a later tentative ruling he wrote that \"there may be issues remaining for trial when reviewed carefully.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/tentative-ruling/25cv03180-1"},{"name":"Richard Jacobs","organization":null,"actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Attorney for The Mission LLC","stated_arguments":"On the fourth incompleteness letter: \"this fourth letter is apparently entirely in bad faith and designed to harass\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.newspress.com/2026/04/29/developers-lose-round-in-court-but-controversial-housing-behind-old-mission-grinds-forward/"},{"name":"Monique Limón","organization":"California State Senate","actor_type":"Government Official","stance":"oppose","role":"State senator; her office said she helped craft SB 158","stated_arguments":"\"Every piece of legislation I author or review, I do so based on the needs of our state but also with the lens of the community I represent\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.aol.com/news/state-lawmakers-targeted-santa-barbara-110000368.html"},{"name":"Ben Eilenberg","organization":"Woodside Community Housing","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Manager of The Mission LLC","stated_arguments":"Listed as manager of the applicant, The Mission LLC; the Los Angeles Times identified Craig and Stephanie Smith as the developers.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.independent.com/2026/06/10/federal-judge-dismisses-mission-llcs-lawsuit-against-state-city-of-santa-barbara/"},{"name":"Judge Hernán D. Vera","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"U.S. District Court","stated_arguments":"Dismissed the federal suit on June 2, 2026 with leave to amend: \"there are serious constitutional questions raised here\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.independent.com/2026/06/10/federal-judge-dismisses-mission-llcs-lawsuit-against-state-city-of-santa-barbara/"},{"name":"Randy Rowse","organization":"City of Santa Barbara","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"oppose","role":"Mayor of Santa Barbara","stated_arguments":"Called the project \"a horrendous nightmare,\" as reported by Noozhawk.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.aol.com/news/state-lawmakers-targeted-santa-barbara-110000368.html"},{"name":"Gregg Hart","organization":"California State Assembly","actor_type":"Government Official","stance":"oppose","role":"Assemblymember","stated_arguments":"\"Proposing projects like this undermines support for building density in Santa Barbara.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.aol.com/news/state-lawmakers-targeted-santa-barbara-110000368.html"},{"name":"Allison DeBusk","organization":"City of Santa Barbara","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"deciding","role":"Community development director","stated_arguments":"\"the City has not 'disapproved' the Project by causing an unreasonable delay.\" (July 8, 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/HAA%20Unnecessary%20Delay%20Response%20Letter%2007-08-26.pdf"},{"name":"Stephanie Smith","organization":"The Mission LLC","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer, according to the Los Angeles Times","stated_arguments":"SB 158 grew from \"protests of wealthy homeowners, many of whom cosplay as housing advocates until the proposed housing is in their neighborhood.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.aol.com/news/state-lawmakers-targeted-santa-barbara-110000368.html"},{"name":"SAGE","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Neighborhood group (attorney Marc Chytilo)","stated_arguments":"\"The biggest concern is public health and safety.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.newspress.com/2026/04/29/developers-lose-round-in-court-but-controversial-housing-behind-old-mission-grinds-forward/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2024-01-24","event_type":"Developer Files Builder's Remedy Bid Behind the Mission","description":"The 54 low-income units mean the city cannot deny the project outright. City records give Jan. 29.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/tentative-ruling/25cv03180-0","source_label":"Santa Barbara Superior Court"},{"event_date":"2024-02-13","event_type":"State Certifies Santa Barbara Housing Element","description":"HCD finds the adopted element in substantial compliance, weeks after the filing.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/HEU","source_label":"City of Santa Barbara"},{"event_date":"2024-08-20","event_type":"City Finds Application Incomplete","description":"The first of four incompleteness findings demands a general plan amendment and rezoning; the city waives that demand on Sept. 13, 2024.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/tentative-ruling/25cv03180-0","source_label":"Santa Barbara Superior Court"},{"event_date":"2025-05-22","event_type":"Developer Sues After Fourth Incomplete Finding","description":"The suit follows the city's May 12, 2025 letter.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.newspress.com/2026/04/29/developers-lose-round-in-court-but-controversial-housing-behind-old-mission-grinds-forward/","source_label":"Santa Barbara News-Press"},{"event_date":"2025-07-03","event_type":"City Deems Application Complete","description":"The application is complete after four incompleteness findings.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/tentative-ruling/25cv03180-0","source_label":"Santa Barbara Superior Court"},{"event_date":"2025-07-31","event_type":"City Denies AB 130 Exemption","description":"The city cites zoning inconsistency, wetlands, steelhead habitat and a FEMA floodway.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/HAA%20Unnecessary%20Delay%20Response%20Letter%2007-08-26.pdf","source_label":"City of Santa Barbara"},{"event_date":"2025-10-11","event_type":"Newsom Signs SB 158","description":"The budget trailer bill removes the CEQA exemption from builder's remedy sites that meet population, size, floodway, wetland and landmark tests.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.bwslaw.com/insights/sb-158-amends-major-ceqa-reform-bills-ab-130-and-sb-131/?pdf=12768","source_label":"Burke, Williams & Sorensen"},{"event_date":"2025-10-24","event_type":"Developer Sues State and City in Federal Court","description":"The Mission LLC says SB 158 singles out its project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.independent.com/2025/11/06/developers-of-eight-story-building-behind-mission-sue-state-city-of-santa-barbara/","source_label":"Santa Barbara Independent"},{"event_date":"2026-04-22","event_type":"Judge Denies Developer's Writ Claims","description":"Judge Thomas Anderle finds the completeness claim moot and the other claims unripe or without merit.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/tentative-ruling/25cv03180-0","source_label":"Santa Barbara Superior Court"},{"event_date":"2026-06-02","event_type":"Federal Judge Dismisses Suit With Leave To Amend","description":"Judge Hernán D. Vera finds the claims unripe and barred by sovereign immunity, while saying \"there are serious constitutional questions raised here.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.independent.com/2026/06/10/federal-judge-dismisses-mission-llcs-lawsuit-against-state-city-of-santa-barbara/","source_label":"Santa Barbara Independent"},{"event_date":"2026-07-08","event_type":"City Rejects Delay Claim, Lists 12 Required Studies","description":"The city says its consistency letter is not a disapproval.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/HAA%20Unnecessary%20Delay%20Response%20Letter%2007-08-26.pdf","source_label":"City of Santa Barbara"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2024-08-20","body":"Staff","action":"deemed_incomplete","action_label":"deemed application incomplete","staff_recommendation":"none","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/tentative-ruling/25cv03180-0","source_label":"Santa Barbara Superior Court","notes":"First of four incompleteness findings (August 2024 to May 2025)."},{"decision_date":"2025-05-12","body":"Staff","action":"deemed_incomplete","action_label":"deemed application incomplete","staff_recommendation":"none","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/tentative-ruling/25cv03180-0","source_label":"Santa Barbara Superior Court","notes":"Fourth incompleteness finding."},{"decision_date":"2025-05-22","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.newspress.com/2026/04/29/developers-lose-round-in-court-but-controversial-housing-behind-old-mission-grinds-forward/","source_label":"Santa Barbara News-Press","notes":"The Mission LLC v. City of Santa Barbara (25CV03180), Santa Barbara County Superior Court."},{"decision_date":"2026-04-22","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/tentative-ruling/25cv03180-0","source_label":"Santa Barbara Superior Court","notes":"Denied the developer's writ claims."},{"decision_date":"2026-06-02","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.independent.com/2026/06/10/federal-judge-dismisses-mission-llcs-lawsuit-against-state-city-of-santa-barbara/","source_label":"Santa Barbara Independent","notes":"U.S. District Court dismissed the federal suit against the state and city with leave to amend."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Monique Limón's key environmental housing bill passes both houses, goes to governor","url":"https://www.independent.com/2025/09/18/monique-limons-key-environmental-housing-bill-passes-both-houses-goes-to-governor/","publication":"Santa Barbara Independent","author":null,"date_published":"2025-09-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developers of eight-story building behind Mission sue state, City of Santa Barbara","url":"https://www.independent.com/2025/11/06/developers-of-eight-story-building-behind-mission-sue-state-city-of-santa-barbara/","publication":"Santa Barbara Independent","author":null,"date_published":"2025-11-06","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"State lawmakers targeted a Santa Barbara development. Then came the fallout","url":"https://www.aol.com/news/state-lawmakers-targeted-santa-barbara-110000368.html","publication":"Los Angeles Times","author":"Dakota Smith and Jack Flemming","date_published":"2025-12-02","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Tentative ruling, The Mission LLC v. City of Santa Barbara (25CV03180)","url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/tentative-ruling/25cv03180-0","publication":"Santa Barbara County Superior Court","author":null,"date_published":"2026-04-22","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developers lose round in court, but controversial housing behind Old Mission grinds forward","url":"https://www.newspress.com/2026/04/29/developers-lose-round-in-court-but-controversial-housing-behind-old-mission-grinds-forward/","publication":"Santa Barbara News-Press","author":"Tom Schultz","date_published":"2026-04-29","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Federal Judge Dismisses Mission LLC's Lawsuit Against State, City of Santa Barbara","url":"https://www.independent.com/2026/06/10/federal-judge-dismisses-mission-llcs-lawsuit-against-state-city-of-santa-barbara/","publication":"Santa Barbara Independent","author":"Christina McDermott","date_published":"2026-06-10","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Housing Accountability Act findings letter with the July 31, 2025 AB 130 letter attached","url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/HAA%20Unnecessary%20Delay%20Response%20Letter%2007-08-26.pdf","publication":"City of Santa Barbara","author":"Allison DeBusk","date_published":"2026-07-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Tentative ruling, The Mission LLC v. City of Santa Barbara (25CV03180), later hearing","url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/tentative-ruling/25cv03180-1","publication":"Santa Barbara County Superior Court","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Housing Element Update","url":"https://santabarbaraca.gov/HEU","publication":"City of Santa Barbara","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Noozhawk report on The Mission LLC complaint","url":"https://www.noozhawk.com/?p=726147","publication":"Noozhawk","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"SB 158 amends major CEQA reform bills AB 130 and SB 131","url":"https://www.bwslaw.com/insights/sb-158-amends-major-ceqa-reform-bills-ab-130-and-sb-131/?pdf=12768","publication":"Burke, Williams & Sorensen","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 505 East Los Olivos Street (Behind the Old Mission), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-barbara-505-los-olivos-2024, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:30:03.863987+00:00"},{"id":17,"slug":"los-angeles-ethel-ave-2023","name":"5501-5511 N. Ethel Avenue Affordable Apartments (ED1)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-angeles-ethel-ave-2023","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-angeles-ethel-ave-2023/brief","address":"5501-5511 N. Ethel Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 91401","latitude":34.1758,"longitude":-118.4137,"jurisdiction":{"id":17,"slug":"los-angeles-los-angeles","city":"Los Angeles","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/los-angeles-los-angeles"},"city":"Los Angeles","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Withdrawn","units_proposed":200,"units_affordable":200,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2023-03-01","date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2023-09-19","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":9,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":2,"description":"A 100% affordable, 200-unit apartment building proposed for a site at the border of North Hollywood and Van Nuys. The developer submitted an application in Spring 2023 using Mayor Karen Bass's Executive Directive 1 (ED1), her signature program to eliminate hearings, appeals, and environmental reviews for 100% affordable developments, cutting approval timelines to approximately 60 days. The project combined ED1 with California's State Density Bonus Law to propose housing on a site zoned for single-family homes but designated in the General Plan for multifamily development. Six months after signing ED1, Bass revised the directive in June 2023 to ban its use on properties in single-family zones — retroactively jeopardizing this application and approximately 9 similar projects already in the pipeline across the San Fernando Valley totaling ~2,400 units. On September 14, 2023, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) wrote a formal letter to the PLUM Committee urging the city to approve the project under the rules in effect when the preliminary application was submitted, warning that blocking it could violate state housing law. PLUM denied the appeal anyway. The project appears to be among the approximately 6 of 10 San Fernando Valley ED1 projects that were abandoned. By February 2025, the LA Times reported that only 4 projects totaling ~800 units were moving forward — and only after court orders — while the majority had been abandoned with none having broken ground.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"City of Los Angeles (Mayor Bass / PLUM Committee)","date_invoked":"2023-06-12","description":"Mayor Bass revised Executive Directive 1 on June 12, 2023 to retroactively exclude properties in single-family zones from the program, despite the applicant at 5501 Ethel having submitted their application under the original program rules. The PLUM Committee denied the developer's appeal on September 19, 2023. HCD wrote a Technical Assistance Letter stating the retroactive application likely violated the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act. The PLUM denial was upheld. A court later ruled (September 2024, Winnetka case) that this same action was illegal — but the Ethel project was not litigated and appears to have been abandoned. NOTE: unlike all other cases in this database, the opposition here was exercised through direct political pressure on the mayor, who changed her own administrative program — not through formal regulatory mechanisms like CEQA or SB 35 denial.","added_delay_months":6,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/los-angeles-ta-prelimapp-091423.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"Karen Bass","organization":"City of Los Angeles","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"neutral","role":"Mayor of Los Angeles / ED1 Program Creator (then Reviser)","stated_arguments":"Initially: ED1 exists to build affordable housing faster, everywhere in the city. After reversal: single-family zones were not intended to be covered by ED1; the program is for sites where multifamily housing is already permitted. The mayor's office did not respond to multiple press inquiries about the policy reversal.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/los-angeles-affordable-housing-ed1-karen-bass-mayor-yimby-law-lawsuit-winnetka"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"State Housing Regulator / Technical Assistance","stated_arguments":"\"HCD urges the City to expeditiously process all ED1 projects in accordance with the rules and regulations that were in effect at the time the preliminary applications were complete.\" (September 14, 2023 Technical Assistance Letter to PLUM). Argued the developer had vested rights under the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/los-angeles-ta-prelimapp-091423.pdf"},{"name":"Bob Blumenfield","organization":"City of Los Angeles (Council District 3 — Western San Fernando Valley)","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Council District 3 Representative / Opponent","stated_arguments":"\"Large scale apartments should not be wedged in-between single family homes by right, especially when there is no guarantee from developers that any mitigation efforts like new traffic lights or improved sidewalks will follow such construction.\" Characterized developers as \"opportunistic\" with a \"disproportionate\" impact.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/los-angeles-affordable-housing-ed1-winnetka-yimby-law-ruling-mayor-bass-blumenfield"},{"name":"Nithya Raman","organization":"City of Los Angeles (Council District 4 — Hollywood Hills/Silver Lake)","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"support","role":"City Council Housing Committee Chair / Supporter","stated_arguments":"\"I feel like Los Angeles is a city where politicians are encouraged to run to stop things from happening, where stopping projects and stopping growth is prized as a political asset here. I think we need to change that culture. We have to move to being a city that says yes to housing to preserve the city's future.\" (February 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/affordable-housing-san-fernando-valley-110056647.html"},{"name":"YIMBY Law","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Pro-Housing Legal Advocates","stated_arguments":"\"When ED1 was first announced, we were so excited to see thousands of affordable homes being proposed throughout the city. But revising the order and retroactively applying new restrictions to projects that have already been submitted is illegal. These homes need to be approved. It's the law, and it's what Angelenos need.\" Sonja Trauss: \"They changed the rules in the middle of the game.\" Filed suit on similar projects; won the Winnetka case.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/press/defending-affordable-homes-la-wilbur-ave"},{"name":"San Fernando Valley Homeowner Groups","organization":"Various homeowner associations / unnamed community groups","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Neighborhood Opposition","stated_arguments":"Apartments in single-family neighborhoods create traffic, parking problems, and are \"out of character\" with the surrounding area. Developers \"exploited a loophole\" in ED1 — the program was never meant for single-family residential streets. Residents should have a voice in what gets built in their neighborhoods.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/affordable-housing-san-fernando-valley-110056647.html"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2022-12-16","event_type":"Mayor Bass Signs Executive Directive 1","description":"On her fourth day in office, Mayor Karen Bass signs Executive Directive 1 (ED1), eliminating hearings, appeals, and environmental reviews for 100% affordable housing projects. The program promises approvals within ~60 days. The original order says nothing about single-family zones, leaving their eligibility ambiguous. Developers begin scouting eligible sites including the San Fernando Valley.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/los-angeles-affordable-housing-ed1-karen-bass-mayor-yimby-law-lawsuit-winnetka","source_label":"LAist"},{"event_date":"2023-03-01","event_type":"Developer Submits ED1 Preliminary Application","description":"The developer files a preliminary application for a 100% affordable 200-unit apartment building at 5501-5511 N. Ethel Avenue under Executive Directive 1, combining ED1 with the California State Density Bonus Law. The site is zoned for single-family homes but designated in the General Plan for multifamily development. Under the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act, submitting a complete preliminary application vests the applicant to the rules in effect at time of submission.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2023/23-0835_misc_2_09-14-2023.pdf","source_label":"LA City Clerk PLUM Report"},{"event_date":"2023-04-20","event_type":"City Issues Housing Referral to Developer","description":"The City of Los Angeles issues an \"Affordable Housing Referral\" to the developer at 5501 Ethel — a step in processing the ED1 application, confirming initial acknowledgment of the application.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2023/23-0835_misc_2_09-14-2023.pdf","source_label":"LA City Clerk PLUM Report"},{"event_date":"2023-06-12","event_type":"Mayor Bass Revises ED1 — Retroactively Excludes Single-Family Zones","description":"Mayor Bass issues a revised \"Clarified ED1\" explicitly prohibiting ED1 ministerial processing for projects on sites in single-family zones. The revision follows backlash from homeowner groups in the San Fernando Valley. The June 12 revision retroactively applies to projects already in the pipeline — jeopardizing this application and approximately 9 similar projects totaling ~2,400 units across the San Fernando Valley.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/los-angeles-affordable-housing-ed1-karen-bass-mayor-yimby-law-lawsuit-winnetka","source_label":"LAist"},{"event_date":"2023-06-22","event_type":"City Issues \"Hold Letter\" — Application Put on Ice","description":"City Planning issues a \"Status of Project Review Letter (Hold Letter)\" putting the 5501 Ethel application on hold pending determination of eligibility under the revised ED1.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2023/23-0835_misc_2_09-14-2023.pdf","source_label":"LA City Clerk PLUM Report"},{"event_date":"2023-09-14","event_type":"California HCD Writes to PLUM: Approve This Project","description":"The California Department of Housing and Community Development writes a formal Technical Assistance Letter to the PLUM Committee specifically about the 5501-5511 N. Ethel Avenue project. HCD argues the developer has vested rights under the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act, and urges the city \"to expeditiously process all ED1 projects in accordance with the rules and regulations that were in effect at the time the preliminary applications were complete.\" HCD warns that denying projects under retroactively applied rules could violate state housing law.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/los-angeles-ta-prelimapp-091423.pdf","source_label":"HCD Technical Assistance Letter"},{"event_date":"2023-09-19","event_type":"PLUM Committee Denies Appeal","description":"The City Council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee hears and denies the appeal of the city's determination that the 5501-5511 N. Ethel Avenue project is ineligible for ED1 processing. Despite HCD's letter the previous day, the committee sides with the city's position that the revised ED1 applies retroactively. This is the effective end of the project's pathway forward.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2023/23-0835_misc_2_09-14-2023.pdf","source_label":"LA City Clerk PLUM Report"},{"event_date":"2024-01-10","event_type":"YIMBY Law Sues on Similar Project — Not This One","description":"YIMBY Law files suit against the City of Los Angeles over the Winnetka Boulevard project (360 units, Canoga Park/Winnetka) — a similar ED1 project in a single-family zone. YIMBY Law does not file suit on behalf of the 5501 Ethel Avenue project. For developers of projects lacking legal resources, the city's denial is effectively final. Some developers \"have already given up on pushing the issue.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/los-angeles-affordable-housing-ed1-karen-bass-mayor-yimby-law-lawsuit-winnetka","source_label":"LAist"},{"event_date":"2024-09-26","event_type":"Court Rules City Violated State Law — But on a Different Project","description":"Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James Chalfant rules that the City violated state law by retroactively denying the Winnetka Boulevard project's ED1 eligibility — the same legal issue as the 5501 Ethel project. \"The city's attempt to require the project to comply with policies not in effect when the preliminary application was submitted is a violation of the Housing Accountability Act.\" The ruling vindicates the legal position HCD had taken a year earlier. However it does not automatically revive the 5501 Ethel project, which had no legal representation.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/los-angeles-affordable-housing-ed1-winnetka-yimby-law-ruling-mayor-bass-blumenfield","source_label":"LAist"},{"event_date":"2025-02-20","event_type":"LA Times Reports: Majority of SFV ED1 Projects Abandoned","description":"The Los Angeles Times reports that 18 months after the ED1 projects were proposed, the majority of the 10 San Fernando Valley single-family zone projects have been abandoned. Only 4 projects (~800 units) are moving forward, and only after intensive court battles. \"None have broken ground.\" The Ethel Avenue project is not among the 4 named survivors, consistent with abandonment.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/affordable-housing-san-fernando-valley-110056647.html","source_label":"LA Times via Yahoo News"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"HCD Technical Assistance Letter: 5501-5511 N. Ethel Avenue (September 14, 2023)","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/los-angeles-ta-prelimapp-091423.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":null,"date_published":"2023-09-14","notes":"Primary source. HCD's formal letter to PLUM specifically about this project. Contains the legal argument for vested rights, policy background, and HCD's recommendation that the city process the project under original ED1 rules."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"City Council PLUM Report: 5501-5511 N. Ethel Avenue Appeal (September 14, 2023)","url":"https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2023/23-0835_misc_2_09-14-2023.pdf","publication":"City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning","author":null,"date_published":"2023-09-14","notes":"Primary government record. Contains full project description, application timeline, project summary (200 units, 100% affordable), case numbers (ADM-2023-3809-DB-VHCA-ED1 and CPC-2023-3809-DB-PHP-VHCA), and legal arguments for both sides."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"YIMBY Law: Defending Affordable Homes on Wilbur Ave","url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/press/defending-affordable-homes-la-wilbur-ave","publication":"YIMBY Law","author":null,"date_published":"2024-01-01","notes":"YIMBY Law's press release for its second ED1 lawsuit. Contains legal theory (vested rights under Housing Crisis Act and HAA) and statement on 1,500+ affordable homes affected by policy reversal."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Housing Advocates Sue City of LA for Stalling Affordable Housing Near Single-Family Homes","url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/los-angeles-affordable-housing-ed1-karen-bass-mayor-yimby-law-lawsuit-winnetka","publication":"LAist","author":null,"date_published":"2024-01-10","notes":"Coverage of YIMBY Law's first lawsuit (Winnetka project). Establishes legal context and Sonja Trauss \"changed the rules in the middle of the game\" quote."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Why Is L.A. Still Letting Single-Family Homeowners Block Solutions to the Housing Crisis?","url":"https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/02/why-is-la-still-letting-single-family-homeowners-block.html","publication":"RAND Corporation","author":null,"date_published":"2024-02-01","notes":"RAND policy commentary on the overall pattern. Notes 75% of LA's residentially zoned land is single-family only. Useful for framing the policy stakes."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge Rules LA Broke State Law by Blocking Affordable Housing in the San Fernando Valley","url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/los-angeles-affordable-housing-ed1-winnetka-yimby-law-ruling-mayor-bass-blumenfield","publication":"LAist","author":null,"date_published":"2024-09-28","notes":"Coverage of Judge Chalfant's ruling that the city violated the HAA in the Winnetka case — the same legal issue as the Ethel project. Key for establishing the policy reversal was ultimately ruled illegal."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Affordable Housing in the San Fernando Valley Advances Despite Opposition from Bass, City Council","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/affordable-housing-san-fernando-valley-110056647.html","publication":"Los Angeles Times (via Yahoo News)","author":null,"date_published":"2025-02-20","notes":"The definitive journalistic account of the overall SFV ED1 controversy. Confirms: 10 projects totaling ~2,400 units; majority abandoned; only 4 (~800 units) moving forward; none have broken ground. Contains Blumenfield and Raman quotes."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"L.A. City Council Forced to Annul Rejections of Three Housing Developments","url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/la-city-council-forced-annul-rejections-three-housing-developments","publication":"Urbanize LA","author":null,"date_published":"2025-05-29","notes":"May 2025 coverage of the 3 projects court-ordered to be un-denied. The Ethel Avenue project is NOT among these, confirming its abandonment."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 5501-5511 N. Ethel Avenue Affordable Apartments (ED1), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-angeles-ethel-ave-2023, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-05-28T16:00:01.828518+00:00"},{"id":27,"slug":"palo-alto-maybell-2013","name":"567 Maybell Avenue Affordable Senior Housing","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/palo-alto-maybell-2013","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/palo-alto-maybell-2013/brief","address":"567-595 Maybell Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306","latitude":37.4024,"longitude":-122.1147,"jurisdiction":{"id":27,"slug":"palo-alto-santa-clara","city":"Palo Alto","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/palo-alto-santa-clara"},"city":"Palo Alto","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Withdrawn","units_proposed":72,"units_affordable":60,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2013-01-01","date_approved":"2013-06-01","date_denied":"2013-11-05","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":5,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"A proposed mixed development on a 2.46-acre former apricot orchard at 567-595 Maybell Avenue in the Barron Park neighborhood of Palo Alto. Developer: Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), a nonprofit. The project included 60 apartment units for very low-income seniors (households earning less than 50% AMI), plus 12 market-rate single-family homes to generate revenue to help subsidize the senior apartments. PAHC acquired the site in December 2012 for $15.6 million with a $5.8 million city loan. The Palo Alto City Council approved the required Planned Community rezoning by a unanimous 9-0 vote in June 2013. Within weeks, the Maybell Action Group organized a referendum petition collecting over 4,000 signatures (2,298 required) to force a citywide vote. In November 2013, with approximately 41% of registered voters participating, voters rejected Measure D by 56% to 44% — 6,437 votes against, 5,036 in favor. PAHC sold the site in April 2014 to Golden Gate Homes LLC for $22 million. Golden Gate Homes proposed 12 single-family homes, which the City Council approved in June 2016 — with support from the same PASZ members who organized the referendum. The 60 senior affordable units were never built. After the referendum, the City Council abolished Planned Community zoning, ensuring similar projects had no future pathway. The case became nationally cited as the archetypal example of a liberal city blocking housing for its poorest residents.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Measure J","full_name":"Voter Approval Requirements (Measure J/R and similar)","invoked_by":"Maybell Action Group (later PASZ)","date_invoked":"2013-07-01","description":"The Maybell Action Group filed a referendum petition collecting over 4,000 signatures (2,298 required) to overturn the Palo Alto City Council's unanimous 9-0 approval of the Planned Community rezoning for the Maybell senior affordable housing project. The council placed the rezoning on the November 2013 ballot as Measure D. Voters rejected it 56-44% in a low-turnout election (41% of registered voters). The referendum killed the project outright — PAHC abandoned it immediately and sold the site. Additionally, the referendum triggered the abolition of PC zoning by the city council, ensuring future affordable projects had no equivalent pathway. The referendum victory became the organizing foundation for PASZ, which elected two council members in 2014 and shaped Palo Alto housing policy for a decade.","added_delay_months":5,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/11/06/voters-shoot-down-maybell-development"}],"actors":[{"name":"Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC)","organization":"Palo Alto Housing Corporation (nonprofit)","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Nonprofit Developer / Applicant","stated_arguments":"\"Maybell was the single greatest tragedy and demonstrated lack of compassion by the local residents in recent Palo Alto history.\" PAHC acquired the site with a city loan, designed a project appropriate for the neighborhood, and won unanimous council approval. After the referendum defeat, recouped costs on a $22M land sale to Golden Gate Homes.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/04/10/pahc-sells-maybell-site-for-22-million"},{"name":"Palo Alto City Council (2013)","organization":"City of Palo Alto","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"support","role":"Approving Body — Unanimous 9-0 Vote","stated_arguments":"Voted unanimously 9-0 to approve the Planned Community rezoning in June 2013. After the referendum defeat, abolished the PC zoning process ensuring future affordable projects had no equivalent pathway. Mayor Scharff personally attempted to negotiate with Maybell Action Group leaders.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/11/06/voters-shoot-down-maybell-development"},{"name":"Maybell Action Group","organization":"Maybell Action Group (later Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning / PASZ)","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Referendum Organizers / Primary Opposition","stated_arguments":"Organized the referendum petition (4,000+ signatures) that forced Measure D. Stated concern: the 12 market-rate single-family homes were \"too large and out of scale\" with the neighborhood. The same organization subsequently supported the Golden Gate Homes 12-unit luxury project on the same site in 2016. Rebranded as PASZ after the victory and helped elect DuBois and Filseth to the council.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/11/06/voters-shoot-down-maybell-development"},{"name":"Palo Alto Voters / Electorate","organization":"City of Palo Alto Registered Voters","actor_type":"Electorate","stance":"oppose","role":"Democratic Decision-Maker (referendum)","stated_arguments":"November 5, 2013: 56% NO, 44% YES on Measure D. 6,437 votes against, 5,036 in favor. ~41% of registered voters participated. Approximately 17% of registered voters determined that 60 low-income seniors would not have homes in Palo Alto.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Palo_Alto_Rezoning_of_Maybell_Avenue,_Measure_D_(November_2013)"},{"name":"Tom DuBois","organization":"Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning / City of Palo Alto","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"PASZ Member / Post-Referendum Council Member","stated_arguments":"PASZ member elected to City Council in 2014 on referendum momentum. In 2016, made the motion to approve the 12-unit luxury Golden Gate Homes development on the same Maybell site: \"I think it's extremely rare that we have a developer and a petition from citizens and a bunch of citizens showing up to say they support a development.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/06/09/maybell-housing-development-wins-approval"},{"name":"Bob Moss","organization":"Palo Alto resident / PASZ","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"PASZ Member / Land-Use Watchdog","stated_arguments":"Known for routinely opposing new development in Palo Alto. Appeared on the supporters' list for the Golden Gate Homes luxury project in 2016 on the same site whose affordable housing he had helped kill in 2013.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/04/18/housing-plan-for-maybell-site-wins-neighborhood-support"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2012-12-01","event_type":"PAHC Acquires Maybell Site","description":"Palo Alto Housing Corporation acquires the 2.46-acre former apricot orchard at 567-595 Maybell Avenue for approximately $15.6 million, including a $5.8 million loan from the City of Palo Alto. PAHC's plan: rezone via Planned Community overlay to build 60 affordable senior apartments plus 12 market-rate single-family homes.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/11/06/voters-shoot-down-maybell-development","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"},{"event_date":"2013-06-01","event_type":"City Council Votes 9-0 to Approve Planned Community Rezoning","description":"The Palo Alto City Council votes unanimously — all nine members — to approve the Planned Community rezoning for the Maybell Avenue senior affordable housing project. The unanimous vote reflects broad council support.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/11/06/voters-shoot-down-maybell-development","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"},{"event_date":"2013-07-01","event_type":"Maybell Action Group Organizes Referendum Petition","description":"Within weeks of the council's 9-0 approval, the Maybell Action Group begins circulating a referendum petition seeking to overturn the rezoning. They collect over 4,000 signatures — nearly double the 2,298 required. The council unanimously chooses to let voters decide.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/11/06/voters-shoot-down-maybell-development","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"},{"event_date":"2013-11-05","event_type":"Measure D Defeated — 56% to 44%","description":"Palo Alto voters reject Measure D by 56% to 44%. Final vote: 6,437 NO, 5,036 YES. Approximately 41% of registered voters participated — meaning approximately 17% of all registered voters made the decisive choice. PAHC announces it will not attempt to bring the project back.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/11/06/voters-shoot-down-maybell-development","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"},{"event_date":"2013-12-01","event_type":"City Council Abolishes Planned Community Zoning Process","description":"In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, the Palo Alto City Council abolishes the Planned Community (PC) zoning overlay process that the Maybell project had used, ensuring similar affordable projects have no equivalent pathway in the future.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/02/nonprofit-housing-execs-palo-alto-process-still-a-problem","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"},{"event_date":"2014-04-10","event_type":"PAHC Sells Maybell Site for $22 Million","description":"PAHC sells the Maybell site to Golden Gate Homes LLC for $22 million — recouping its $15.6 million purchase price plus carrying costs. Executive Director Candice Gonzalez: \"Our goal was to be able to pay back all of our lenders and recover our significant carrying costs, which we have been able to achieve.\" The 60 senior affordable units are permanently dead.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/04/10/pahc-sells-maybell-site-for-22-million","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"},{"event_date":"2014-11-01","event_type":"PASZ Candidates Win City Council Seats","description":"PASZ-aligned candidates Tom DuBois and Eric Filseth win Palo Alto City Council seats in the November 2014 election, riding the momentum of the Maybell referendum victory.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://suburbanstats.substack.com/p/local-politics-is-the-reason-your-suburb-is-still-so-segregated","source_label":"Suburbs Substack"},{"event_date":"2016-04-18","event_type":"PASZ Members Support Luxury Homes on Same Site","description":"Palo Alto Online reports that the Maybell neighborhood — including PASZ members who organized the 2013 referendum — is enthusiastically supporting the Golden Gate Homes proposal for 12 single-family homes on the same site. Bob Moss is among the supporters.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/04/18/housing-plan-for-maybell-site-wins-neighborhood-support","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"},{"event_date":"2016-06-09","event_type":"City Council Approves 12 Luxury Single-Family Homes","description":"The Palo Alto City Council approves Golden Gate Homes' proposal for 12 market-rate single-family homes on the former Maybell site. Councilmember Tom DuBois makes the motion; Councilmember Eric Filseth seconds. DuBois: \"I think it's extremely rare that we have a developer and a petition from citizens and a bunch of citizens showing up to say they support a development.\" The outcome is complete: 60 affordable senior homes replaced by 12 market-rate houses.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/06/09/maybell-housing-development-wins-approval","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Voters Shoot Down Maybell Development","url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/11/06/voters-shoot-down-maybell-development","publication":"Palo Alto Online","author":null,"date_published":"2013-11-06","notes":"Primary source for the Measure D defeat. Confirms 6,437 NO, 5,036 YES, 56-44%, ~41% voter turnout."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"PAHC Sells Maybell Site for $22 Million","url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/04/10/pahc-sells-maybell-site-for-22-million","publication":"Palo Alto Online","author":null,"date_published":"2014-04-10","notes":"Confirms $22M sale price, Candice Gonzalez quote, and Golden Gate Homes as buyer."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Housing Plan for Maybell Site Wins Neighborhood Support","url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/04/18/housing-plan-for-maybell-site-wins-neighborhood-support","publication":"Palo Alto Online","author":null,"date_published":"2016-04-18","notes":"Documents PASZ members including Bob Moss supporting the luxury project — same people who killed affordable housing."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Maybell Housing Development Wins Approval","url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/06/09/maybell-housing-development-wins-approval","publication":"Palo Alto Online","author":null,"date_published":"2016-06-09","notes":"Coverage of June 2016 approval of 12 luxury homes on same site. Contains DuBois motion quote."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Nonprofit Housing Execs: 'Palo Alto Process' Still a Problem","url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/02/nonprofit-housing-execs-palo-alto-process-still-a-problem","publication":"Palo Alto Online","author":null,"date_published":"2018-03-02","notes":"Confirms PC zoning abolition after Maybell. Best source for institutional legacy of the referendum."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Local Politics Is the Reason Your Suburb Is Still So Segregated","url":"https://suburbanstats.substack.com/p/local-politics-is-the-reason-your-suburb-is-still-so-segregated","publication":"Suburbs Substack","author":null,"date_published":"2020-08-01","notes":"Best analysis of Maybell as a political organizing case study. Covers PASZ electoral wins."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"City of Palo Alto Rezoning of Maybell Avenue, Measure D (November 2013)","url":"https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Palo_Alto_Rezoning_of_Maybell_Avenue,_Measure_D_(November_2013)","publication":"Ballotpedia","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Official vote totals and ballot measure text."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 567 Maybell Avenue Affordable Senior Housing, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/palo-alto-maybell-2013, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-05-30T02:02:28.798268+00:00"},{"id":5,"slug":"la-canada-foothill-2022","name":"600 Foothill Boulevard Mixed-Use","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/la-canada-foothill-2022","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/la-canada-foothill-2022/brief","address":"600 Foothill Boulevard, La Cañada Flintridge, CA 91011","latitude":34.2069,"longitude":-118.2067,"jurisdiction":{"id":5,"slug":"la-canada-flintridge-los-angeles","city":"La Cañada Flintridge","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/la-canada-flintridge-los-angeles"},"city":"La Cañada Flintridge","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Approved","units_proposed":80,"units_affordable":16,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":5,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2022-11-10","date_approved":"2025-10-03","date_denied":"2023-05-01","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":35,"cost_of_delay_usd":1346558,"data_quality":4,"description":"Five-story mixed-use project on a 1.29-acre former church site on Foothill Boulevard. Includes 80 residential condominium units (16 affordable/low-income), 16 non-serviced hotel units, 7,261 sq ft of office space, and 192 subterranean parking spaces. Cedar Street Partners filed a Builder's Remedy application in November 2022 after the city failed to adopt a compliant Housing Element. The city unanimously denied the application in May 2023. On March 4, 2024, Judge Mitchell Beckloff issued the first California court ruling affirming a Builder's Remedy project. The city dropped its appeal in March 2025 under threat of a $14 million bond. Entitlements were fully approved October 3, 2025. In August 2025 the developer had asked the court for $6.3 million in damages from the city; the court denied the motion on October 17, 2025, and the developer appealed. The city says the project has moved to building and safety review, including review by the county fire department.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","date_invoked":"2018-01-01","description":"Site subject to discretionary review processes since 2018. Oakmont's 2018 proposal subjected to drawn-out Planning Commission process ending in deferral. Cedar Street's 2020 application went through full discretionary review.","added_delay_months":84,"added_cost_usd":4200000,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/"},{"short_name":"Height Limit","full_name":"Height and Density Limits","invoked_by":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","date_invoked":"2020-07-01","description":"Downtown Village Specific Plan and general plan zoning limited density on the site. Original 47-unit application denied Nov 2021 partly on zoning inconsistency basis.","added_delay_months":36,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/"},{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","date_invoked":"2023-03-01","description":"City invoked zoning and general plan inconsistency to deny the Builder's Remedy application, claiming Housing Element was in \"substantial compliance\" as of October 2022. Court rejected this argument March 4, 2024 in the first Builder's Remedy court ruling in California history.","added_delay_months":29,"added_cost_usd":1346558,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-03-04-Order-Granting-Petitions-1750-6.pdf"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","date_invoked":"2024-03-04","description":"Court's March 2024 ruling required CEQA compliance. Eliminated by AB 130 (signed June 30, 2025), which created a CEQA exemption for qualifying infill projects.","added_delay_months":4,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Cedar Street Partners LLC","organization":"Cedar Street Partners LLC","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / Project Applicant","stated_arguments":"Builder's Remedy applies because city's Housing Element was noncompliant when SB 330 preliminary application was submitted on Nov 10, 2022. City cannot lawfully apply zoning or general plan standards to a qualifying Builder's Remedy project. City has not produced a single net low-income unit across five housing elements.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/"},{"name":"Ryan Leaderman","organization":"Holland & Knight LLP","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Developer's Lead Counsel (Holland & Knight)","stated_arguments":"\"You have a wonderful institution, JPL, here. Where do the cleaners live? Where does the staff live? Where do your teachers live? They're not allowed to live in this city. And guess what? In the fifth housing element, the city produced zero low-income units.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/03/holland-knight-wins-first-superior-court-case-affirming-californias"},{"name":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","organization":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Respondent / Permitting Authority","stated_arguments":"City's adopted Housing Element of October 4, 2022 was in \"substantial compliance\" with state law, therefore Builder's Remedy does not apply. City had right to self-certify its own compliance independent of HCD's determination.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/"},{"name":"Kim Bowman","organization":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"City Council Member","stated_arguments":"\"In consideration of the actual elements of the law... we are, in good faith, able to say that we had a compliant Housing Element in October of 2022.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/05/05/la-canada-flintridge-doubles-down-on-builders-remedy-fight/"},{"name":"Keith Eich","organization":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"oppose","role":"Mayor (2021-2023)","stated_arguments":"\"This project may or may not be a mistake, but I think approving it tonight is probably a mistake. I don't think we've had sufficient public discourse about it.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/"},{"name":"Mike Davitt","organization":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"oppose","role":"Mayor (2025)","stated_arguments":"\"While this was a difficult decision, prolonged litigation of these issues would have cost significantly more and created an increasing financial burden on the City.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/la-canada-flintridge-city-council-moves-to-conclude-legal-wrangling-on-600-foothill-fiscal-reality-requires-responsible-choice-to-end-appeals-process/"},{"name":"Together La Cañada","organization":"Together La Cañada","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Neighborhood Opposition Organization","stated_arguments":"Project violates the 20-year-old Downtown Village Specific Plan. Building height and density are inconsistent with village character. Traffic on Foothill Boulevard already congested.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://togetherlacanada.com/600-foothill-project/"},{"name":"Michael Gross","organization":"Together La Cañada","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Founder, Together La Cañada","stated_arguments":"\"Oakmont is simply a symptom of the larger problem, which is we're not adhering to the guidelines in our Downtown Village Specific Plan. Do we have a set of rules, or do we not?\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/"},{"name":"California Housing Defense Fund","organization":"California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF)","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Pro-Housing Plaintiff / Intervenor","stated_arguments":"City violated HAA by refusing to process Builder's Remedy application for a project that plainly qualified. City's self-certification argument has no basis in Housing Element law; HCD, not the city, determines compliance.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calhdf.org/legal-case/la-canada-flintridge-600-foothill-blvd/"},{"name":"Gavin Newsom","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Governor of California / Intervenor","stated_arguments":"\"La Cañada Flintridge is the latest community that has failed in their effort to override state housing laws. Today's favorable ruling should serve as a warning to other NIMBY jurisdictions.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/12/12/governor-newsom-attorney-general-bonta-take-legal-action-against-la-canada-flintridge-to-enforce-californias-housing-laws/"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"State Enforcement Agency / Intervenor","stated_arguments":"City's Housing Element adopted Oct 4, 2022 was not in compliance; cities cannot backdate Housing Element adoption to claim earlier compliance. City's denial violates both Housing Element Law and the HAA.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/la-canada-flintridge-nov-060823.pdf"},{"name":"Judge Mitchell Beckloff","organization":"Los Angeles County Superior Court","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Presiding Judge, LA Superior Court","stated_arguments":"Ruled March 4, 2024: city's denial constituted a \"disapproval\" under the HAA; city could not self-certify Housing Element compliance retroactively; Builder's Remedy rights vested on SB 330 preliminary application date.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-03-04-Order-Granting-Petitions-1750-6.pdf"},{"name":"YIMBY Law","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Pro-Housing Advocacy Organization","stated_arguments":"\"This one is special, because most of the other projects around the state are a bit more speculative. This is a real project that they've been attempting for years to get done.\" (Rafa Sonnenfeld, policy director)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/"},{"name":"Oakmont Senior Living","organization":"Oakmont Senior Living","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Prior Developer (withdrew 2019)","stated_arguments":"Identified community need for senior housing. Proposed 72-unit senior living facility on site in 2018. Withdrew without building following community opposition.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2015-01-01","event_type":"Site History","description":"Oakmont Senior Living identifies the former Church of Christ Scientists property as a potential site for new senior housing.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/","source_label":"The Real Deal"},{"event_date":"2018-01-01","event_type":"Planning Commission Hearing","description":"Oakmont's Planning Commission hearing for a 77,000 sq ft, 72-unit senior living facility. Planning Commission defers consideration.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/","source_label":"The Real Deal"},{"event_date":"2018-06-01","event_type":"Opposition Formed","description":"Together La Cañada is formed as a nonprofit by Michael Gross specifically to oppose development at 600 Foothill.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/","source_label":"The Real Deal"},{"event_date":"2019-06-01","event_type":"Prior Developer Withdraws","description":"Oakmont Senior Living withdraws without building, having faced years of community opposition. The Real Deal reported that an Oakmont executive received a dead rat in the mail sent from a La Cañada ZIP code.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/","source_label":"The Real Deal"},{"event_date":"2019-09-01","event_type":"Property Purchased","description":"Cedar Street Partners purchases 600 Foothill Blvd from the Church for $4.2 million. Initial plan: 47-unit mixed-use senior housing project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/","source_label":"The Real Deal"},{"event_date":"2020-07-01","event_type":"Entitlement Application Filed","description":"Cedar Street Partners applies for entitlements for a 47-unit senior housing project. TLC opposition campaign intensifies.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/","source_label":"The Real Deal"},{"event_date":"2021-09-01","event_type":"Planning Commission Recommendation","description":"Planning Commission recommends the City Council grant an exemption from the city's downtown zoning code.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/","source_label":"The Real Deal"},{"event_date":"2021-10-01","event_type":"Housing Element Deadline","description":"State deadline for Southern California cities to submit updated 6th Cycle Housing Elements. LCF submits its draft to HCD.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calhdf.org/legal-case/la-canada-flintridge-600-foothill-blvd/","source_label":"CalHDF"},{"event_date":"2021-11-01","event_type":"City Council Denial (First)","description":"City Council rejects Planning Commission recommendation and denies Cedar Street's entitlement application.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/","source_label":"The Real Deal"},{"event_date":"2021-12-01","event_type":"HCD Rejects Housing Element","description":"HCD notifies the City that its Housing Element update requires significant revisions to comply with State law.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/03/holland-knight-wins-first-superior-court-case-affirming-californias","source_label":"Holland & Knight"},{"event_date":"2022-02-01","event_type":"Alleged Pretextual Rezoning","description":"City Council moves to create a new downtown zoning split. Developer alleges this was a pretext to preempt housing.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/","source_label":"The Real Deal"},{"event_date":"2022-10-04","event_type":"Noncompliant Housing Element Adopted","description":"City Council adopts a Housing Element that remains noncompliant per HCD.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calhdf.org/legal-case/la-canada-flintridge-600-foothill-blvd/","source_label":"CalHDF"},{"event_date":"2022-11-10","event_type":"Builder's Remedy Application Filed","description":"Cedar Street Partners files SB 330 Preliminary Application under Builder's Remedy for an 80-unit mixed-use project. Holland & Knight retained as counsel.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calhdf.org/legal-case/la-canada-flintridge-600-foothill-blvd/","source_label":"CalHDF"},{"event_date":"2023-01-01","event_type":"Full Application Filed","description":"Cedar Street Partners files the full Builder's Remedy application.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/","source_label":"The Real Deal"},{"event_date":"2023-02-21","event_type":"Second Housing Element Adopted (Still Noncompliant)","description":"City adopts revised Housing Element; HCD finds it also noncompliant.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calhdf.org/legal-case/la-canada-flintridge-600-foothill-blvd/","source_label":"CalHDF"},{"event_date":"2023-03-01","event_type":"City Denies Application (First Denial)","description":"Planning staff issues incompleteness determination, denying the Builder's Remedy application.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calhdf.org/legal-case/la-canada-flintridge-600-foothill-blvd/","source_label":"CalHDF"},{"event_date":"2023-03-03","event_type":"Lawsuit Filed (CFH)","description":"Californians for Homeownership files suit alleging the city's Housing Element is noncompliant.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of LCF"},{"event_date":"2023-03-14","event_type":"CalHDF Warning Letter","description":"CalHDF submits warning letter to City Planning Director.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calhdf.org/legal-case/la-canada-flintridge-600-foothill-blvd/","source_label":"CalHDF"},{"event_date":"2023-03-22","event_type":"HCD Letter of Technical Assistance","description":"HCD sends Letter of Technical Assistance explaining why Builder's Remedy applies.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/la-canada-flintridge-nov-060823.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2023-04-28","event_type":"CalHDF Second Letter","description":"CalHDF sends second warning letter directly to City Council before May 1 hearing.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calhdf.org/legal-case/la-canada-flintridge-600-foothill-blvd/","source_label":"CalHDF"},{"event_date":"2023-05-01","event_type":"City Council Denial (Unanimous)","description":"City Council unanimously adopts Resolution 23-14 denying developer's appeal.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/05/05/la-canada-flintridge-doubles-down-on-builders-remedy-fight/","source_label":"The Real Deal"},{"event_date":"2023-06-08","event_type":"HCD Notice of Violation","description":"HCD issues formal Notice of Violation to City Manager Mark R. Alexander.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/la-canada-flintridge-nov-060823.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2023-07-21","event_type":"Developer Files Lawsuit","description":"600 Foothill Owner LP files writ petition (Case No. 23STPC02575).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of LCF"},{"event_date":"2023-07-25","event_type":"CalHDF Files Lawsuit","description":"CalHDF files separate petition (Case No. 23STCP02614).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calhdf.org/legal-case/la-canada-flintridge-600-foothill-blvd/","source_label":"CalHDF"},{"event_date":"2023-09-05","event_type":"Court Orders Rezoning (CFH Case)","description":"Court rules in CFH case that the city should have adopted zoning regulations concurrently with its Housing Element. Orders rezoning within 60 days.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of LCF"},{"event_date":"2023-09-19","event_type":"City Adopts New Zoning Code","description":"City Council adopts new zoning codes increasing density by 160% and zoning 684+ housing units.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of LCF"},{"event_date":"2023-11-17","event_type":"HCD Certifies Housing Element","description":"HCD certifies the Housing Element. Does not retroactively eliminate 600 Foothill's Builder's Remedy rights.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of LCF"},{"event_date":"2023-12-12","event_type":"Governor and AG Intervene","description":"Newsom, Bonta, and HCD formally intervene in CHDF lawsuit.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/12/12/governor-newsom-attorney-general-bonta-take-legal-action-against-la-canada-flintridge-to-enforce-californias-housing-laws/","source_label":"Newsom press release"},{"event_date":"2024-03-01","event_type":"Four-Hour Court Hearing","description":"Judge Beckloff holds four-hour combined hearing.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calhdf.org/legal-case/la-canada-flintridge-600-foothill-blvd/","source_label":"CalHDF"},{"event_date":"2024-03-04","event_type":"Landmark Court Ruling","description":"First California court ruling affirming Builder's Remedy. Holdings: city cannot self-certify retroactively; Builder's Remedy rights vested on SB 330 application date; city's refusal constituted \"disapproval\" under HAA.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-03-04-Order-Granting-Petitions-1750-6.pdf","source_label":"Court Order"},{"event_date":"2024-06-17","event_type":"CalHDF Moves for $14M Appeal Bond","description":"CalHDF files motion seeking $14M appeal bond.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of LCF"},{"event_date":"2025-03-03","event_type":"Court Rules $14M Bond Required","description":"Court rules the $14M appeal bond is required.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of LCF"},{"event_date":"2025-03-04","event_type":"City Drops Appeal","description":"City Council votes to dismiss its appeal rather than post the $14M bond.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/la-canada-flintridge-city-council-moves-to-conclude-legal-wrangling-on-600-foothill-fiscal-reality-requires-responsible-choice-to-end-appeals-process/","source_label":"City press release"},{"event_date":"2025-06-17","event_type":"City Approves Settlement Agreements","description":"Settlement agreements approved: $48k to CFH; $1.26M to CalHDF; $3,558 to AG.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/city-of-la-canada-flintridge-settles-claims-as-part-of-three-housing-related-lawsuits/","source_label":"City press release"},{"event_date":"2025-06-30","event_type":"AB 130 Signed (CEQA Exemption)","description":"Newsom signs AB 130, providing CEQA exemption for qualifying infill projects.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of LCF"},{"event_date":"2025-08-28","event_type":"Developer Seeks $6.3 Million in Damages","description":"600 Foothill files a motion to recover $6.3 million in damages from the city.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of La Cañada Flintridge"},{"event_date":"2025-09-18","event_type":"Planning Commission Approves Entitlements","description":"Planning Commission approves Tentative Tract Map, CUP, and Tree Removal Permit.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of LCF"},{"event_date":"2025-10-03","event_type":"Final Entitlement Approval","description":"City Council approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map. First Builder's Remedy project fully entitled in Southern California.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.multihousingnews.com/la-area-mixed-use-project-gets-approved-after-6-year-struggle/","source_label":"Multi-Housing News"},{"event_date":"2025-10-17","event_type":"Court Denies Damages Motion","description":"The court agrees with the city and denies the developer's damages motion.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of La Cañada Flintridge"},{"event_date":"2025-10-27","event_type":"Developer Appeals Damages Ruling","description":"600 Foothill appeals the October 17 ruling. The city says the project has moved to building and safety review, including a county fire department review.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of La Cañada Flintridge"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2023-05-01","body":"City Council","action":"denied","action_label":"denied","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","notes":"Determined that the builder's remedy was not available for the project."},{"decision_date":"2024-03-04","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","notes":"Found that the builder's remedy applies and required CEQA compliance; rejected the bad-faith claim."},{"decision_date":"2025-09-18","body":"Planning Commission","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","notes":"Approved the tentative tract map, conditional use permit and tree removal permit."},{"decision_date":"2025-10-03","body":"City Council","action":"appeal_upheld","action_label":"appeal upheld","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","notes":"Heard the developer's appeal of one tract map condition, removed the condition and approved the vesting tentative tract map."},{"decision_date":"2025-10-17","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","notes":"Denied the developer's motion for $6.3 million in damages."},{"decision_date":"2025-10-27","body":"Court","action":"appeal_filed","action_label":"appeal filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","source_label":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","notes":"The developer appealed the October 17, 2025 damages ruling."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"600 Foothill Project, Together La Cañada","url":"https://togetherlacanada.com/600-foothill-project/","publication":"Together La Cañada","author":null,"date_published":"2021-11-14","notes":"Opposition group's own documentation. Primary source for opposition arguments."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"\"Viciousness\": La Cañada Flintridge's NIMBY Showdown","url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/02/16/viciousness-la-canada-flintridges-nimby-showdown/","publication":"The Real Deal","author":"Trevor Bach","date_published":"2023-02-16","notes":"Deep-dive profile of the 600 Foothill conflict history from 2015-2023."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"La Cañada Flintridge Doubles Down on Builder's Remedy Fight","url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/05/05/la-canada-flintridge-doubles-down-on-builders-remedy-fight/","publication":"The Real Deal","author":null,"date_published":"2023-05-05","notes":"Coverage of May 1, 2023 unanimous council vote."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"HCD Notice of Violation, La Cañada Flintridge","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/la-canada-flintridge-nov-060823.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":null,"date_published":"2023-06-08","notes":"Primary government document. HCD's formal notice that city violated state law."},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Court Order Granting Petitions (March 4, 2024)","url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-03-04-Order-Granting-Petitions-1750-6.pdf","publication":"Los Angeles County Superior Court","author":"Judge Mitchell Beckloff","date_published":"2024-03-04","notes":"Primary court document. First Builder's Remedy ruling in California history."},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Holland & Knight Wins First Superior Court Case Affirming California's Builder's Remedy","url":"https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/03/holland-knight-wins-first-superior-court-case-affirming-californias","publication":"Holland & Knight LLP","author":null,"date_published":"2024-03-20","notes":"Developer law firm analysis of the March 4, 2024 ruling."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"LA Mixed-Use Project Gets Approved After 6-Year Struggle","url":"https://www.multihousingnews.com/la-area-mixed-use-project-gets-approved-after-6-year-struggle/","publication":"Multi-Housing News","author":null,"date_published":"2026-02-01","notes":"Post-approval coverage. First Builder's Remedy project approved by a Southern California city."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"La Cañada Flintridge - 600 Foothill Blvd (Case Page)","url":"https://calhdf.org/legal-case/la-canada-flintridge-600-foothill-blvd/","publication":"California Housing Defense Fund","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Official CalHDF case page with full timeline and case status."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"La Cañada Flintridge Housing Policy and Legal Matters","url":"https://lcf.ca.gov/lcfhousingpolicy-legalmatters/","publication":"City of La Cañada Flintridge","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Official city page with full litigation history and case documents."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 600 Foothill Boulevard Mixed-Use, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/la-canada-foothill-2022, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:43:43.644978+00:00"},{"id":50,"slug":"menlo-park-80-willow-2023","name":"80 Willow Road Towers (Former Sunset Magazine Campus)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/menlo-park-80-willow-2023","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/menlo-park-80-willow-2023/brief","address":"80 Willow Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025","latitude":37.4538,"longitude":-122.1643,"jurisdiction":{"id":54,"slug":"menlo-park-san-mateo","city":"Menlo Park","county":"San Mateo","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/menlo-park-san-mateo"},"city":"Menlo Park","county":"San Mateo","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Litigated","units_proposed":665,"units_affordable":100,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":39,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2023-12-07","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":34,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"Willow Park is a proposed redevelopment of the former Sunset Magazine headquarters, a 6.7-acre site at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park's Linfield Oaks neighborhood. N17 Development, representing Willow Park LLC, proposes about 665 apartments, 100 of them for lower-income households, in buildings the city lists at 301 to 458 feet (SF YIMBY describes residential towers of 33 and 39 floors), along with 332,000 square feet of offices, 17,000 square feet of retail and a 130-room hotel. The developer filed an SB 330 preliminary application on December 7, 2023, before HCD certified Menlo Park's housing element on March 20, 2024, and claims the protections of the builder's remedy. The city deemed the formal application complete on November 14, 2024, after two incompleteness findings. Between June 2024 and May 2026 it ruled five times that the project does not qualify for AB 2011 streamlining, and its consistency letters found conflicts with multiple city standards. In May 2025 the State Historical Resources Commission found the Sunset campus eligible for historic listing. On July 29, 2026 the Attorney General's office sent an AB 712 notice saying the city had violated AB 2011 and the Housing Accountability Act and must stop charging the applicant for the city's legal review. The council disputed the letter on September 29, and the owner, Willow Project LLC, sued in San Mateo County Superior Court on October 2, 2026. The city says it has not denied the project. Its posted court schedule, marked subject to change, lists a hearing on November 16 or 19 and a decision by December 19, 2026.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"City of Menlo Park","date_invoked":"2024-06-22","description":"Five rulings, from June 22, 2024 to May 6, 2026, that the project does not qualify for AB 2011's ministerial approval, plus consistency letters from January 2025 to April 2026 finding conflicts with city standards, keep the project in discretionary review. The Attorney General says AB 2011 requires ministerial approval.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Community-Development/Projects/Under-review/80-Willow-Road"},{"short_name":"Hist Pres","full_name":"Historic Preservation Designation","invoked_by":"Menlo Park Historical Association","date_invoked":"2025-05-09","description":"After a nomination paid for by the association, the State Historical Resources Commission found the campus eligible for the National Register, and the Keeper agreed on June 24, 2025. The site is on the California Register, so environmental review must address it.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/menlo-park/2025/05/13/sunset-magazine-hq-advances-toward-historic-status-complicating-665-unit-development/"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"City of Menlo Park","date_invoked":"2025-05-13","description":"The council approved an EIR contract with LSA Associates. Review has not started because the applicant has not paid the deposit; the developer says AB 2011 entitles the project to approval without CEQA review.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Community-Development/Projects/Under-review/80-Willow-Road"},{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"City of Menlo Park","date_invoked":"2025-11-07","description":"The city disputes the builder's remedy claim. Its Oct. 1, 2026 response to the Attorney General argues that the preliminary application lapsed and that the hotel disqualifies the project. No court has ruled.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/community-development/documents/projects/under-review/80-willow-rd/menlo_park_response_to_ag_ab_712_letter.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"David H. Blackwell","organization":"Allen Matkins","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Litigation counsel for Willow Project LLC","stated_arguments":"In an August 2026 letter, demanded that the city approve the project by Oct. 27 and refund $302,938 in review fees. Allen Matkins filed the Oct. 2, 2026 petition.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2026/08/04/state-backs-controversial-skyscraper-proposal-at-old-sunset-magazine-campus-in-menlo-park/"},{"name":"San Mateo County Superior Court","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Court hearing Willow Project LLC v. City of Menlo Park","stated_arguments":"Petition filed Oct. 2, 2026. The city's posted schedule lists a hearing on Nov. 16 or 19 and a decision by Dec. 19, 2026, subject to change.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Community-Development/Projects/Under-review/80-Willow-Road"},{"name":"Josh Becker","organization":"California State Senate","actor_type":"Government Official","stance":"oppose","role":"State senator; author of SB 457","stated_arguments":"Authored SB 457, which a committee consultant's report said could \"strip the project of its status as a Builder's Remedy project.\" The bill died in the Senate Housing Committee on April 29, 2025. Becker: \"This was a focused, practical bill.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2025/04/29/local-senators-bill-to-rein-in-builders-remedy-projects-dies/"},{"name":"YIMBY Law","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Reported the city to HCD and the Attorney General","stated_arguments":"Reported Menlo Park's handling of the 80 Willow application to HCD and the Attorney General.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/menlo-park/2025/12/29/looking-back-at-a-consequential-year-in-menlo-park/"},{"name":"Betsy Nash","organization":"City of Menlo Park","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"oppose","role":"Mayor of Menlo Park","stated_arguments":"\"The council strongly opposes approval of the project under the terms in the AG's letter.\" (Sept. 29, 2026.) Also: \"The project does not deliver the housing that Menlo Park needs, contrary to the very purpose of the Builder's Remedy law.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/09/29/menlo-park-council-rejects-sunset-towers/"},{"name":"Drew Combs","organization":"Menlo Park City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Council member","stated_arguments":"\"The attorney general's letter is not a binding legal ruling.\" (August 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2026/08/04/state-backs-controversial-skyscraper-proposal-at-old-sunset-magazine-campus-in-menlo-park/"},{"name":"Oisín Heneghan","organization":"N17 Development","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Founder of N17 Development, applicant for Willow Park LLC","stated_arguments":"\"The Attorney General has made clear that Menlo Park cannot continue moving the goalposts\" (Aug. 3, 2026). N17 says its December 2023 preliminary application came before the housing element was certified, so builder's remedy protections apply, and that AB 2011 entitles the project to approval without discretionary review.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/08/03/developer-threatens-city-over-sunset-project/"},{"name":"Menlo Park Historical Association","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"neutral","role":"Sponsor of the National Register nomination for the Sunset campus","stated_arguments":"Paid for the nomination; board member Karen Kitterman presented it. The State Historical Resources Commission found the site eligible on May 9, 2025.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/menlo-park/2025/05/13/sunset-magazine-hq-advances-toward-historic-status-complicating-665-unit-development/"},{"name":"Rob Bonta","organization":"California Attorney General's Office","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Attorney General (AB 712 notice signed by Deputy AG Matthew T. Struhar)","stated_arguments":"\"For those reasons, the City cannot continue to find the Project inconsistent with the Act's objective planning standards.\" (AB 712 notice, July 29, 2026.) The notice found violations of AB 2011 and the Housing Accountability Act and told the city to stop charging the applicant for its lawyers.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/community-development/documents/projects/under-review/80-willow-rd/80-wr_july-29-letter.pdf"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2023-12-07","event_type":"Developer Files Builder's Remedy Preliminary Application","description":"N17 Development files an SB 330 preliminary application for the Sunset campus, before HCD certifies Menlo Park's housing element.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Community-Development/Projects/Under-review/80-Willow-Road","source_label":"City of Menlo Park"},{"event_date":"2024-03-20","event_type":"State Certifies Menlo Park Housing Element","description":"HCD finds the housing element in substantial compliance. The earlier preliminary application is the basis for the developer's builder's remedy claim.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://menlopark.gov/housingelement","source_label":"City of Menlo Park"},{"event_date":"2024-11-14","event_type":"City Deems 665-Unit Application Complete","description":"After two incompleteness findings, the city deems the formal application, filed May 24, 2024, complete.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/housing/2024/11/15/menlo-park-deems-application-for-controversial-builders-remedy-project-at-former-sunset-magazine-site-complete/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2025-04-29","event_type":"Bill To Curb Builder's Remedy Dies in Committee","description":"The Senate Housing Committee does not advance Sen. Josh Becker's SB 457. A committee consultant's report said the bill could \"strip the project of its status as a Builder's Remedy project.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2025/04/29/local-senators-bill-to-rein-in-builders-remedy-projects-dies/","source_label":"Palo Alto Daily Post"},{"event_date":"2025-05-09","event_type":"State Panel Finds Sunset Campus Historic-Eligible","description":"The State Historical Resources Commission votes unanimously that the campus is eligible for the National Register. The Keeper of the National Register agrees on June 24, 2025; the owner's objection blocks a formal listing.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/menlo-park/2025/05/13/sunset-magazine-hq-advances-toward-historic-status-complicating-665-unit-development/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2025-11-07","event_type":"City Rules Project Ineligible for AB 2011","description":"One of five rulings, from June 2024 to May 2026, that the project does not qualify for AB 2011 streamlining. The city says it \"continues to evaluate\" the builder's remedy claim.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Community-Development/Projects/Under-review/80-Willow-Road","source_label":"City of Menlo Park"},{"event_date":"2026-07-29","event_type":"Attorney General Says City Violated Housing Laws","description":"An AB 712 notice from the Attorney General's office cites AB 2011 and the Housing Accountability Act and tells the city to stop charging the applicant for its legal review.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/community-development/documents/projects/under-review/80-willow-rd/80-wr_july-29-letter.pdf","source_label":"California Attorney General"},{"event_date":"2026-08-03","event_type":"Developer Demands Approval by Oct. 27","description":"Counsel David Blackwell demands approval and a refund of $302,938 in fees.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2026/08/04/state-backs-controversial-skyscraper-proposal-at-old-sunset-magazine-campus-in-menlo-park/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2026-09-29","event_type":"Council Disputes Attorney General, Declines To Approve","description":"After closed session, Mayor Betsy Nash reports that the council \"strongly opposes approval of the project under the terms in the AG's letter.\" No vote count was reported.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/09/29/menlo-park-council-rejects-sunset-towers/","source_label":"Palo Alto Daily Post"},{"event_date":"2026-10-02","event_type":"Developer Sues Menlo Park","description":"Willow Project LLC petitions San Mateo County Superior Court for orders requiring approval and a fee refund, plus damages and penalties.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/community-development/documents/projects/under-review/80-willow-rd/willow-project-v.-city-of-menlo-park-san-mateo-county-superior-court-tc26-1000.pdf","source_label":"Court filing"},{"event_date":"2026-10-13","event_type":"Council Hires Outside Housing-Law Firm","description":"The council approves Goldfarb & Lipman on the consent calendar, at $405 to $525 an hour, to defend the suit.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/menlo-park/2026/10/19/menlo-park-looks-to-outside-law-firm-to-defend-against-high-rise-developers-lawsuit/","source_label":"The Almanac"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2026-10-02","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/community-development/documents/projects/under-review/80-willow-rd/willow-project-v.-city-of-menlo-park-san-mateo-county-superior-court-tc26-1000.pdf","source_label":"Court filing","notes":"Willow Project LLC v. City of Menlo Park, San Mateo County Superior Court."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Menlo Park deems application for controversial builder's remedy project at former Sunset Magazine site complete","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/housing/2024/11/15/menlo-park-deems-application-for-controversial-builders-remedy-project-at-former-sunset-magazine-site-complete/","publication":"The Almanac","author":null,"date_published":"2024-11-15","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Local senator's bill to rein in builder's remedy projects dies","url":"https://padailypost.com/2025/04/29/local-senators-bill-to-rein-in-builders-remedy-projects-dies/","publication":"Palo Alto Daily Post","author":"Braden Cartwright","date_published":"2025-04-29","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Sunset Magazine HQ advances toward historic status, complicating 665-unit development","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/menlo-park/2025/05/13/sunset-magazine-hq-advances-toward-historic-status-complicating-665-unit-development/","publication":"The Almanac","author":null,"date_published":"2025-05-13","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Feds say former Sunset site is eligible for historic designation","url":"https://padailypost.com/2025/07/03/feds-say-former-sunset-site-is-eligible-for-historic-designation/","publication":"Palo Alto Daily Post","author":null,"date_published":"2025-07-03","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"AB 712 notice to the City of Menlo Park","url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/community-development/documents/projects/under-review/80-willow-rd/80-wr_july-29-letter.pdf","publication":"California Attorney General","author":"Matthew T. Struhar","date_published":"2026-07-29","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developer threatens city over Sunset project","url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/08/03/developer-threatens-city-over-sunset-project/","publication":"Palo Alto Daily Post","author":"Emily Mibach","date_published":"2026-08-03","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"State backs controversial skyscraper proposal at old Sunset Magazine campus in Menlo Park","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2026/08/04/state-backs-controversial-skyscraper-proposal-at-old-sunset-magazine-campus-in-menlo-park/","publication":"The Almanac","author":"Neil Gonzales and Arden Margulis","date_published":"2026-08-04","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California Attorney General pushes scales for 80 Willow Road, Menlo Park","url":"https://sfyimby.com/2026/08/california-attorney-general-pushes-scales-for-80-willow-road-menlo-park.html","publication":"SF YIMBY","author":null,"date_published":"2026-08-05","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Menlo Park Council rejects Sunset towers, councilman says there's a possible buyer","url":"https://padailypost.com/2026/09/29/menlo-park-council-rejects-sunset-towers/","publication":"Palo Alto Daily Post","author":null,"date_published":"2026-09-29","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"City of Menlo Park response to the Attorney General's AB 712 letter","url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/community-development/documents/projects/under-review/80-willow-rd/menlo_park_response_to_ag_ab_712_letter.pdf","publication":"City of Menlo Park","author":"Justin I. C. Murphy","date_published":"2026-10-01","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Verified petition, Willow Project LLC v. City of Menlo Park","url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/community-development/documents/projects/under-review/80-willow-rd/willow-project-v.-city-of-menlo-park-san-mateo-county-superior-court-tc26-1000.pdf","publication":"San Mateo County Superior Court","author":null,"date_published":"2026-10-02","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Menlo Park looks to outside law firm to defend against high-rise developer's lawsuit","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/menlo-park/2026/10/19/menlo-park-looks-to-outside-law-firm-to-defend-against-high-rise-developers-lawsuit/","publication":"The Almanac","author":"Hannah Bensen and Arden Margulis","date_published":"2026-10-19","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"80 Willow Rd. (Willow Park) project page","url":"https://www.menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Community-Development/Projects/Under-review/80-Willow-Road","publication":"City of Menlo Park","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 80 Willow Road Towers (Former Sunset Magazine Campus), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/menlo-park-80-willow-2023, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:14:19.17336+00:00"},{"id":64,"slug":"los-angeles-806-west-adams-2019","name":"806 West Adams Boulevard Apartments (University Park)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-angeles-806-west-adams-2019","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-angeles-806-west-adams-2019/brief","address":"806 W. Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90007","latitude":34.0301,"longitude":-118.2805,"jurisdiction":{"id":17,"slug":"los-angeles-los-angeles","city":"Los Angeles","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/los-angeles-los-angeles"},"city":"Los Angeles","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Stalled","units_proposed":102,"units_affordable":5,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":4,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":null,"date_approved":"2020-02-04","date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"Champion Real Estate Company, through 806 West Adams Property LLC, proposed 102 apartments on a 2.8-acre site it bought in 2018 for $26 million at the southeast corner of Adams Boulevard and Severance Street in University Park, less than a mile from USC. The plan has 100 five-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units, five of them for very low-income households, in six buildings of three stories over a podium plus a four-story clubhouse, 45 feet tall. USC is not involved. On May 17, 2019 a city zoning administrator granted a Class 32 infill exemption from CEQA but denied site plan review, citing \"noise and music\" from rooftop decks. The project was redesigned in a Craftsman style with inset decks and limited deck hours; the Planning Commission approved it on October 10, 2019, and the City Council upheld the exemption on February 4, 2020. The West Adams Heritage Association and the Adams Severance Coalition sued. On August 10, 2023 the Court of Appeal, in an unpublished opinion, voided the exemption because the city had relied on deck-noise restrictions as mitigation. AB 1307, signed weeks later, says occupant noise is not a CEQA impact. After the California Supreme Court sent the case back, the Court of Appeal ruled again on October 31, 2024: noise no longer counted, but the exemption stays set aside until the city finds the project consistent with the Exposition/University Park Redevelopment Plan, which a 2019 ordinance gave the force of zoning. No such finding has been reported. Champion separately obtained a ministerial permit in November 2022 for a four-story, 52-unit building on one parcel, which a trial court upheld against a separate CEQA suit in May 2024; neighbors appealed. The court said Champion had not abandoned the larger plan.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"City of Los Angeles zoning administrator; appellant Jim Childs","date_invoked":"2019-05-17","description":"Site plan review was denied over deck noise in 2019, and appeals ran to the City Council before the exemption was upheld on Feb. 4, 2020. The process delayed the project and forced a redesign.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF"},{"short_name":"Design Review","full_name":"Design Review","invoked_by":"City of Los Angeles","date_invoked":"2019-05-17","description":"Compatibility findings forced a redesign from a modernist to a Craftsman style, with inset decks.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://urbanize.la/post/new-housing-planned-university-park"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"West Adams Heritage Association and Adams Severance Coalition","date_invoked":null,"description":"The writ petition got the exemption set aside in 2023 over deck noise and again in 2024 over consistency with the redevelopment plan, which a 2019 ordinance (LAMC 11.5.14) gave zoning force.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF"},{"short_name":"Hist Pres","full_name":"Historic Preservation Designation","invoked_by":"West Adams Heritage Association","date_invoked":null,"description":"Argued the project would harm nearby historical resources; the courts rejected the argument both times.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF"}],"actors":[{"name":"Buffy Wicks","organization":"California State Assembly","actor_type":"Government Official","stance":"support","role":"Assemblymember; author of AB 1307","stated_arguments":"On the 2023 ruling: \"It's infuriating.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/08/ceqa-noise-pollution/"},{"name":"DLA Piper","organization":null,"actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Counsel for the developer","stated_arguments":"Declined to comment to CalMatters. In court, argued the two plans \"are separate developments that differ in virtually every aspect of design.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF"},{"name":"Adams Severance Coalition","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"CEQA co-petitioner","stated_arguments":"Joined the West Adams Heritage Association in arguing the Class 32 exemption was improper.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF"},{"name":"City of Los Angeles","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"deciding","role":"Granted the CEQA exemption; its zoning administrator denied site plan review in 2019","stated_arguments":"The zoning administrator found the decks \"would potentially affect surrounding uses through noise and music.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B319121.PDF"},{"name":"Jim Childs","organization":null,"actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Appealed the 2019 approvals","stated_arguments":"Appealed to the Planning Commission and the City Council; both appeals were denied.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF"},{"name":"Gavin Newsom","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Governor; signed AB 1307","stated_arguments":"\"California will not allow NIMBYism to take hold, blocking critically needed housing for years and even decades.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://dailytrojan.com/2023/09/13/new-housing-blocked-over-berkeley-legal-precedent/"},{"name":"California Second District Court of Appeal","organization":"California Courts of Appeal","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Division One (Justice Bendix) set aside the exemption in 2023 and again in 2024","stated_arguments":"2023: \"We cannot reconcile these contradictory findings.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B319121.PDF"},{"name":"Champion Real Estate Company","organization":"806 West Adams Property LLC (Robert Champion)","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer","stated_arguments":"Said the project would be open to students but would likely draw USC faculty and staff.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://whatnow.com/?p=99218"},{"name":"West Adams Heritage Association","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"CEQA petitioner","stated_arguments":"Attorney Amy Minteer: \"This is a very prominent and visible site because of its corner location.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://dailytrojan.com/2023/09/13/new-housing-blocked-over-berkeley-legal-precedent/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2019-05-17","event_type":"Zoning Administrator Exempts Project but Faults Rooftop Decks","description":"A Class 32 exemption is granted, but site plan review is denied over deck \"noise and music.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal"},{"event_date":"2019-10-10","event_type":"Planning Commission Backs Craftsman Redesign","description":"The commission denies Jim Childs's appeal and limits deck hours.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal"},{"event_date":"2020-02-04","event_type":"City Council Upholds Exemption","description":"The council denies Childs's appeal.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal"},{"event_date":"2022-11-01","event_type":"Champion Gets Permit for 52-Unit Building","description":"A separate four-story building with six affordable units on one parcel (month only).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://urbanize.la/post/52-apartments-underway-806-w-adams-boulevard-university-park","source_label":"Urbanize LA"},{"event_date":"2023-08-10","event_type":"Appeals Court Voids Exemption Over Deck Noise","description":"In an unpublished opinion, the court holds that the city improperly relied on mitigation.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B319121.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal"},{"event_date":"2023-09-07","event_type":"Newsom Signs AB 1307","description":"Occupant noise is no longer a CEQA impact.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/08/ceqa-noise-pollution/","source_label":"CalMatters"},{"event_date":"2023-11-21","event_type":"Supreme Court Grants Review and Holds Case","description":"The court holds case S281588 pending the People's Park case and denies publication of the 2023 opinion.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/cr112123.pdf","source_label":"California Supreme Court"},{"event_date":"2024-05-31","event_type":"Trial Court Upholds 52-Unit Version","description":"The neighborhood groups appeal (B339952).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal"},{"event_date":"2024-07-24","event_type":"Supreme Court Sends Case Back","description":"The case is transferred to the Court of Appeal after the People's Park ruling.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/cr072424.pdf","source_label":"California Supreme Court"},{"event_date":"2024-10-31","event_type":"Court Drops Noise Issue but Requires Redevelopment Finding","description":"The exemption stays set aside until the city finds the project consistent with the Exposition/University Park Redevelopment Plan (106 Cal.App.5th 395).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2019-05-17","body":"Staff","action":"denied","action_label":"denied","staff_recommendation":"none","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal","notes":"Zoning administrator granted a Class 32 exemption but denied site plan review over rooftop deck noise."},{"decision_date":"2019-10-10","body":"Planning Commission","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal","notes":"Approved the redesigned project and denied an appeal, with limits on deck hours."},{"decision_date":"2020-02-04","body":"City Council","action":"appeal_rejected","action_label":"appeal rejected","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal","notes":"Denied an appeal and upheld the CEQA exemption."},{"decision_date":"2023-08-10","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B319121.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal","notes":"Unpublished opinion setting aside the CEQA exemption."},{"decision_date":"2024-10-31","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal","notes":"Published opinion: occupant noise no longer counts, but the exemption stays set aside pending a redevelopment plan consistency finding."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Appealed Approvals For 102-Unit University Park Project To Go Before Planning Commission","url":"https://whatnow.com/?p=199840","publication":"WhatNow","author":"Dean Boerner","date_published":"2021-04-20","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"West Adams Heritage Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (B319121), unpublished opinion","url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B319121.PDF","publication":"California Court of Appeal, Second District","author":null,"date_published":"2023-08-10","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"As one more housing project stalls on noise concerns, another head sprouts from 'CEQA Hydra'","url":"https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/08/ceqa-noise-pollution/","publication":"CalMatters","author":"Mikhail Zinshteyn and Ben Christopher","date_published":"2023-08-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Housing development stalled over noise concerns","url":"https://dailytrojan.com/2023/09/13/new-housing-blocked-over-berkeley-legal-precedent/","publication":"Daily Trojan","author":"Benjamin Gamson","date_published":"2023-09-13","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"California Supreme Court conference results, Nov. 21, 2023","url":"https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/cr112123.pdf","publication":"California Supreme Court","author":null,"date_published":"2023-11-21","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"California Supreme Court conference results, July 24, 2024","url":"https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/cr072424.pdf","publication":"California Supreme Court","author":null,"date_published":"2024-07-24","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"West Adams Heritage Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (B319121), published opinion","url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B319121.PDF","publication":"California Court of Appeal, Second District","author":null,"date_published":"2024-10-31","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"New housing planned in University Park","url":"https://urbanize.la/post/new-housing-planned-university-park","publication":"Urbanize LA","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"52 apartments underway at 806 W. Adams Boulevard in University Park","url":"https://urbanize.la/post/52-apartments-underway-806-w-adams-boulevard-university-park","publication":"Urbanize LA","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"CEQA Developments analysis of the 2024 West Adams decision","url":"https://www.ceqadevelopments.com/?p=3995","publication":"CEQA Developments","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 806 West Adams Boulevard Apartments (University Park), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-angeles-806-west-adams-2019, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:32:38.983944+00:00"},{"id":20,"slug":"san-jose-826-winchester-2024","name":"826 North Winchester Boulevard Mixed-Use Apartments","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/san-jose-826-winchester-2024","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/san-jose-826-winchester-2024/brief","address":"826 N. Winchester Blvd, San Jose, CA 95128","latitude":37.3207,"longitude":-121.9491,"jurisdiction":{"id":20,"slug":"san-jose-santa-clara","city":"San Jose","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/san-jose-santa-clara"},"city":"San Jose","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Denied","units_proposed":135,"units_affordable":20,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":17,"sq_ft":179250,"date_filed":"2024-01-24","date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2025-06-10","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":17,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"A proposed mixed-use development at 826 North Winchester Boulevard in the Cory neighborhood of West San Jose, on a .6-acre parcel just north of Santana Row and Westfield Valley Fair. Developer: VCI Companies. The project called for two residential towers — 17 stories and 14 stories — connected by a glass skybridge, with 135 apartments (70 one-bedrooms, 65 two-bedrooms), 20 affordable units, approximately 25,000 sq ft of retail, a 170-car parking garage, and 18,800 sq ft of public open space. The existing site: a derelict, graffiti-covered two-story commercial building, abandoned for approximately 5 years, and the location of multiple fires and criminal activity. The project required a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from \"Neighborhood Community Commercial\" to \"Transit Residential.\" City File Nos.: GP23-011, C24-062, H24-052, ER24-147. VCI first presented plans to the Cory Neighborhood Association in January 2024. Despite endorsements from Greenbelt Alliance, the Housing Action Coalition, and the NorCal Carpenters Union, a majority of speakers at the June 2025 council hearing opposed the project. VCI offered to reduce height from 17 stories to 11 stories. The San Jose City Council voted unanimously to deny the General Plan Amendment on June 10, 2025. Plans are \"effectively dead\" according to The Real Deal.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"City of San Jose City Council","date_invoked":"2025-06-10","description":"VCI Companies required a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of 826 N. Winchester from \"Neighborhood Community Commercial\" to \"Transit Residential\" — necessary to permit the requested density and height. The amendment was a fully discretionary action requiring City Council approval, giving the council complete latitude to approve or deny based on policy judgment without being bound by objective development standards. The council voted unanimously to deny the amendment on June 10, 2025, citing inconsistency with the General Plan and scale concerns. Unlike most cases in this database (CEQA lawsuits, SB 35 denial, referenda), this denial required nothing more than a council vote. No litigation, no referendum, no environmental challenge — just elected officials exercising their discretionary authority. The developer offered to reduce height from 17 to 11 stories and was denied anyway.","added_delay_months":17,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-residents-win-fight-to-stop-housing-project/"}],"actors":[{"name":"VCI Companies","organization":"VCI Companies","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / Project Applicant","stated_arguments":"The property had been abandoned for five years, attracting fires and crime. The project would replace blight with 135 homes, 20 affordable units, ground-floor retail, and public open space — exactly the kind of infill development San Jose's housing goals require. VCI conducted extensive community outreach and offered to reduce height to 11 stories.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-residents-win-fight-to-stop-housing-project/"},{"name":"Greenbelt Alliance","organization":"Greenbelt Alliance","actor_type":"Trade Association","stance":"support","role":"Environmental / Smart Growth Endorser","stated_arguments":"\"Greenbelt Alliance believes the 826 N. Winchester project will provide much-needed SMART, higher-density housing in San Jose. We are proud to give this project an endorsement! We hope its approval will inspire cities in Santa Clara County and around the Bay Area to be audacious and redouble their efforts to grow in more sustainable ways.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/826-n-winchester-san-jose-endorsement/"},{"name":"Housing Action Coalition","organization":"Housing Action Coalition","actor_type":"Trade Association","stance":"support","role":"Pro-Housing Advocacy Organization","stated_arguments":"Spoke in favor at the June 2025 council hearing. Supported the project as an infill development that would add needed housing near jobs and transit.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://localnewsmatters.org/2025/06/15/san-jose-city-council-blocks-west-san-jose-housing-project-after-homeowner-outcry/"},{"name":"NorCal Carpenters Union Local 405","organization":"NorCal Carpenters Union Local 405","actor_type":"Trade Association","stance":"support","role":"Labor Union Representative","stated_arguments":"Rigo Gallardo (Local 405 representative) spoke in favor of the project at the council hearing, supporting the construction jobs and housing the project would provide.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://localnewsmatters.org/2025/06/15/san-jose-city-council-blocks-west-san-jose-housing-project-after-homeowner-outcry/"},{"name":"Lindy Hayes","organization":"Cory / Santa Clara neighborhood residents","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Opposition Leader / Community Figure","stated_arguments":"\"We are extremely grateful to the city council for preserving the vibrancy of our neighborhood in this way.\" Rallied homeowners against the project. As daughter of former Mayor Janet Grey Hayes, her visible role reflects the social and political capital of established West San Jose homeowner networks.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-residents-win-fight-to-stop-housing-project/"},{"name":"Cory Neighborhood Association","organization":"Cory Neighborhood Association","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Primary Neighborhood Opposition","stated_arguments":"\"These 17- and 14-story buildings are not suitable for an established single-family neighborhood.\" (Kevin Golden, resident). A majority of the 40+ speakers at the June 2025 council hearing opposed the project. The association hosted VCI's early outreach meetings but ultimately organized against the project on height and scale grounds.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2024/12/30/nimbys-fight-plan-for-apartments-near-san-joses-santana-row/"},{"name":"Michael Mulcahy","organization":"City of San Jose (Council District 6)","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"District Councilmember / Lead for Denial","stated_arguments":"\"We need housing of all types and for all income levels. However, at its core, the proposed project was inconsistent with San Jose's general plan and was outsized for the Cory neighborhood. We informed the Planning Commission and staff that the Winchester corridor as a whole should be looked at more intentionally for right-sized, mixed-use housing options during the general plan review and update about to commence.\" Note: During his 2024 campaign Mulcahy stated he was \"motivated to help grow the affordable housing stock.\" He led the unanimous denial of 135 apartments five months after taking office.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-residents-win-fight-to-stop-housing-project/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2019-01-01","event_type":"Building Abandoned","description":"The existing two-story commercial building at 826 N. Winchester Blvd is abandoned. Over the following years it becomes covered in graffiti, a site of multiple fires and criminal activity. Multiple developers eye the property for redevelopment, none successfully, until VCI Companies purchases it.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-residents-win-fight-to-stop-housing-project/","source_label":"San Jose Spotlight"},{"event_date":"2024-01-24","event_type":"First Community Outreach Meeting","description":"VCI Companies hosts the first public outreach meeting at the Agrihood community center at 76 N. Winchester Blvd to introduce its plans to the Cory Neighborhood Association and surrounding residents. The 17-story, 14-story twin tower design with glass skybridge is presented. VCI distributes a survey to gather community input.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://coryneighborhood.org/tag/826nwinchester/","source_label":"Cory Neighborhood Association"},{"event_date":"2024-02-29","event_type":"SF YIMBY Coverage Publicizes Project","description":"SF YIMBY publishes a detailed article on the 826 N. Winchester proposal including renderings. Comments reflect the split: pro-housing advocates cite the ideal transit-adjacent infill location; neighbors object to residents being able to look into their backyards from the upper floors.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfyimby.com/2024/02/17-story-tower-proposed-for-826-north-winchester-boulevard-san-jose.html","source_label":"SF YIMBY"},{"event_date":"2024-06-01","event_type":"Greenbelt Alliance Issues Climate SMART Endorsement","description":"Greenbelt Alliance formally endorses the 826 N. Winchester project under its Climate SMART Endorsement Program, citing the project's infill location, transit proximity, affordable units, and LEED Silver commitment. Catalyze SV PAC also endorses the project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/826-n-winchester-san-jose-endorsement/","source_label":"Greenbelt Alliance"},{"event_date":"2024-12-16","event_type":"City Hosts Community Meeting on General Plan Amendment","description":"The City of San Jose Planning Department hosts a formal Community, General Plan Amendment, and Environmental Impact Report Scoping Meeting for the 826 N. Winchester project. City File Nos.: GP23-011, C24-062, H24-052, ER24-147. The meeting receives community input on the scope of environmental review.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://coryneighborhood.org/tag/826nwinchester/","source_label":"Cory Neighborhood Association / City of San Jose"},{"event_date":"2024-12-30","event_type":"The Real Deal Reports Intensifying NIMBY Opposition","description":"The Real Deal publishes \"NIMBYs Roast Plan for Apartment Towers Near San Jose's Santana Row,\" documenting organized homeowner opposition. Residents describe the project as \"a monstrosity,\" \"ugly, ugly, ugly,\" and \"an attempt to bring Downtown to our neighborhood.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2024/12/30/nimbys-fight-plan-for-apartments-near-san-joses-santana-row/","source_label":"The Real Deal SF"},{"event_date":"2025-06-10","event_type":"San Jose City Council Unanimously Denies General Plan Amendment","description":"The San Jose City Council votes unanimously to deny VCI's request for a General Plan Amendment at 826 N. Winchester Blvd. More than 40 speakers address the council; a majority oppose the project. Key opposition voice: Lindy Hayes (daughter of former Mayor Janet Grey Hayes). Key supporters: Housing Action Coalition; NorCal Carpenters Union Local 405 (Rigo Gallardo). VCI offers to reduce height to 11 stories — the council denies the project regardless. Councilmember Michael Mulcahy leads the denial. The Real Deal: VCI's plans are \"now effectively dead.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-residents-win-fight-to-stop-housing-project/","source_label":"San Jose Spotlight"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"Other","title":"826 N. Winchester Endorsement — Greenbelt Alliance","url":"https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/826-n-winchester-san-jose-endorsement/","publication":"Greenbelt Alliance","author":null,"date_published":"2024-01-01","notes":"Formal Climate SMART endorsement. Updated June 10, 2025 with note that the council voted against the project. Important for documenting institutional pro-housing support and its irrelevance to the outcome. (Endorsement date approximate — VERIFY)"},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"17-Story Tower Proposed for 826 North Winchester Boulevard, San Jose","url":"https://sfyimby.com/2024/02/17-story-tower-proposed-for-826-north-winchester-boulevard-san-jose.html","publication":"SF YIMBY","author":"Andrew Nelson","date_published":"2024-02-29","notes":"Best source for project specifications: 179,250 sq ft total; 135 apartments (70 one-bed + 65 two-bed); 25,000 sq ft retail; 170-car garage; 18,800 sq ft POPOS; 17 and 14 stories; glass skybridge; 20 affordable units."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"NIMBYs Roast Plan for Apartment Towers Near San Jose's Santana Row","url":"https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2024/12/30/nimbys-fight-plan-for-apartments-near-san-joses-santana-row/","publication":"The Real Deal SF","author":null,"date_published":"2024-12-30","notes":"Best source for the organized opposition as it developed. Contains Kevin Golden quote, \"monstrosity\" characterizations, and \"attempt to bring Downtown to our neighborhood\" framing."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"San Jose City Council Shoots Down VCI Tower Proposal","url":"https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2025/06/12/san-jose-city-council-rejects-vci-towers/","publication":"The Real Deal SF","author":null,"date_published":"2025-06-12","notes":"First post-denial coverage. Contains key phrase \"plans are now effectively dead.\" Confirms amendment was from \"Neighborhood Community Commercial\" to \"Transit Residential.\""},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"San Jose Residents Win Fight to Stop Housing Project","url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-residents-win-fight-to-stop-housing-project/","publication":"San Jose Spotlight","author":"Vicente Vera","date_published":"2025-06-15","notes":"Primary source for the June 10 council denial. Contains Mulcahy quote, Hayes quote, Kelly Erardi quote, Rigo Gallardo and Housing Action Coalition support, and the detail about VCI offering to reduce to 11 stories."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"San Jose Officials Deny Construction of Proposed 17-Story Apartment Complex","url":"https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-jose-delay-construction-apartment-complex/3893065/","publication":"NBC Bay Area","author":null,"date_published":"2025-06-15","notes":"NBC Bay Area coverage of the denial. Confirms VCI offered to reduce to 11 stories and was still denied."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"San Jose Rejects 135 Apartments","url":"https://morehousing.substack.com/p/826-north-winchester","publication":"More Housing (Substack)","author":null,"date_published":"2025-06-15","notes":"Good roundup that aggregates key coverage of the denial. Confirms site \"is riddled with graffiti, and has been the site of multiple fires and criminal activity.\" Provides case file numbers. (GP23-011, C24-062, H24-052, ER24-147)"},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"San Jose City Council Blocks West San Jose Housing Project After Homeowner Outcry","url":"https://localnewsmatters.org/2025/06/15/san-jose-city-council-blocks-west-san-jose-housing-project-after-homeowner-outcry/","publication":"Local News Matters","author":null,"date_published":"2025-06-16","notes":"Second detailed account of the denial. Confirms 40+ speakers, majority opposed. Contains Mulcahy's fuller quote about the Winchester corridor general plan review."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, 826 North Winchester Boulevard Mixed-Use Apartments, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/san-jose-826-winchester-2024, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-05-28T21:12:32.536099+00:00"},{"id":78,"slug":"santa-clara-county-almaden-woodcliff-2023","name":"Almaden Road and Woodcliff Court Builder's Remedy Subdivisions","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-clara-county-almaden-woodcliff-2023","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-clara-county-almaden-woodcliff-2023/brief","address":"19780 Almaden Road and 6591 Woodcliff Court, San Jose, CA 95120 (unincorporated Santa Clara County)","latitude":37.1958,"longitude":-121.8285,"jurisdiction":{"id":70,"slug":"unincorporated-santa-clara-county-south-san-jose-area-santa-clara","city":"Unincorporated Santa Clara County (South San Jose area)","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/unincorporated-santa-clara-county-south-san-jose-area-santa-clara"},"city":"Unincorporated Santa Clara County (South San Jose area)","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","project_type":null,"status":"In Review","units_proposed":69,"units_affordable":14,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2023-10-13","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":36,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"Developer Mike LaBarbera proposed two builder's remedy subdivisions in unincorporated areas near South San Jose: 49 single-family homes, 10 of them deed-restricted for low-income households, on an 18.95-acre parcel at 19780 Almaden Road, and 16 homes plus four affordable accessory dwelling units on a 97.5-acre parcel at 6591 Woodcliff Court (Circle Hill Estates). He filed SB 330 preliminary applications for both sites on October 13, 2023, and a second one for Almaden Road on February 8, 2024, while the county lacked a compliant housing element, followed by formal applications on April 5, 2024. The county found the applications incomplete; its May 3, 2024 letter on Almaden Road listed items from its planning office, engineering, environmental health, the fire marshal, the county geologist, roads and CAL FIRE. HCD certified the county's housing element on February 5, 2025. LaBarbera resubmitted several times until county officials told him he had missed a 90-day deadline on the most recent round of submissions; under the county's rule, the preliminary application then expires and the project loses its builder's remedy protection. On September 25, 2025 the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to deny his appeals on both projects. County planners said the projects could still go forward if they meet local density and zoning rules. The county's SB 330 project list, as posted in October 2026, shows the Almaden Road application deemed complete on May 13, 2026 and under CEQA review, and the Woodcliff Court application found incomplete on July 10, 2026; it marks the October 2023 Almaden Road preliminary application as expired and does not say whether either project is still treated as a builder's remedy project. The Woodcliff Court figures follow the plans reported in April 2024 and San Jose Spotlight's count; the county's list still describes 13 homes and four ADUs there. Tenure is not stated, so the project type is left blank.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"County of Santa Clara","date_invoked":"2024-05-03","description":"Repeated incompleteness findings after the April 2024 formal applications, starting with a May 3, 2024 letter listing items from the fire marshal, environmental health, the county geologist, roads and other offices. Almaden Road was deemed complete on May 13, 2026; Woodcliff Court was found incomplete again on July 10, 2026.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/PLN24_063_SB330_Letter_Incomplete_response.pdf"},{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"County of Santa Clara","date_invoked":"2025-09-25","description":"County officials found that LaBarbera missed the 90-day deadline on his latest resubmittals, which under county policy ends the preliminary applications' vesting and the builder's remedy protection. The Planning Commission upheld that position 5-2 on Sept. 25, 2025. The county's current project list does not say whether either project is still vested.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-finds-way-to-fight-builders-remedy/"}],"actors":[{"name":"County of Santa Clara","organization":"Department of Planning and Development","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Found the applications incomplete and the vesting expired","stated_arguments":"Its SB 330 guidance: \"If the applicant fails to complete their application within 90 days of the County's incompleteness determination, the preliminary application expires and the project is no longer vested.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://plandev.santaclaracounty.gov/services/planning-services/processing-planning-applications/sb330-housing-development-project/sb330-faqs"},{"name":"Mike LaBarbera","organization":"TerraCommercial Real Estate","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Owner and developer of both sites","stated_arguments":"Argued through his attorney and architect at the Sept. 25, 2025 hearing that he complied with each resubmission request and that the formal applications did not need to be deemed complete within 90 days to keep the preliminary applications' protection.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-finds-way-to-fight-builders-remedy/"},{"name":"Sean O'Donoghue","organization":"Santa Clara County Planning Commission","actor_type":"Planning Commission","stance":"support","role":"Planning commissioner; voted for the appeals","stated_arguments":"\"But I'm not confident in the 90-day rule that we're enforcing.\" He agreed the applications were incomplete. (Sept. 25, 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-finds-way-to-fight-builders-remedy/"},{"name":"Alice Kaufman","organization":"Green Foothills","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Green Foothills","stated_arguments":"\"How many times does the county staff need to ask for the information over and over and not get it?\" She argued the projects would endanger the Alamitos Creek wildlife corridor and destroy oak woodland. (Sept. 25, 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-finds-way-to-fight-builders-remedy/"},{"name":"Santa Clara County Planning Commission","organization":null,"actor_type":"Planning Commission","stance":"deciding","role":"Heard both appeals on Sept. 25, 2025","stated_arguments":"Voted 5-2 to deny the appeals. Marc Rauser, Aimee Escobar, Robert Levy, Jennifer Chang Hetterly and Jean Cohen voted to deny; Margaret Belska and Sean O'Donoghue voted for the appeals.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-finds-way-to-fight-builders-remedy/"},{"name":"Travis Brooks","organization":"Miller Starr Regalia","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"LaBarbera's attorney at the Sept. 25, 2025 Planning Commission hearing","stated_arguments":"With the project architect, argued that some of the county's information requests were irrelevant or unreasonable.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-finds-way-to-fight-builders-remedy/"},{"name":"Marc Rauser","organization":"Santa Clara County Planning Commission","actor_type":"Planning Commission","stance":"oppose","role":"Planning commissioner; voted to deny the appeals","stated_arguments":"Of the builder's remedy: \"we are now stuck with something that is one of the poorest planning things and it creates headaches for the county and headaches for the neighbors.\" Also: \"I'm deeply committed to process and we need to follow that.\" (Sept. 25, 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-finds-way-to-fight-builders-remedy/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2023-10-13","event_type":"Builder's Remedy Preliminary Applications Filed","description":"LaBarbera files SB 330 preliminary applications for 6591 Woodcliff Court and 19780 Almaden Road.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/SB330_ProjectsList.pdf","source_label":"County of Santa Clara"},{"event_date":"2024-02-08","event_type":"Second Almaden Road Preliminary Application Filed","description":"A second preliminary application for Almaden Road covers 49 homes, 10 of them affordable to low-income households.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/SB330_ProjectsList.pdf","source_label":"County of Santa Clara"},{"event_date":"2024-04-05","event_type":"Formal Applications Filed for Both Subdivisions","description":"LaBarbera files formal SB 330 applications PLN24-062 (Woodcliff Court) and PLN24-063 (Almaden Road).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/SB330_ProjectsList.pdf","source_label":"County of Santa Clara"},{"event_date":"2024-05-03","event_type":"County Finds Almaden Road Application Incomplete","description":"The letter lists items from county offices including the fire marshal, environmental health and the county geologist.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/PLN24_063_SB330_Letter_Incomplete_response.pdf","source_label":"County of Santa Clara"},{"event_date":"2025-02-05","event_type":"State Certifies County Housing Element","description":"HCD certifies the county's housing element, and the county stops accepting new builder's remedy preliminary applications.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://plandev.santaclaracounty.gov/services/planning-services/processing-planning-applications/sb330-housing-development-project/sb330-faqs","source_label":"County of Santa Clara"},{"event_date":"2025-09-25","event_type":"Planning Commission Denies Both Appeals, 5-2","description":"Commissioners uphold the county's position that LaBarbera missed a 90-day deadline, which the county says ends the projects' builder's remedy protection.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-finds-way-to-fight-builders-remedy/","source_label":"San Jose Spotlight"},{"event_date":"2026-05-13","event_type":"Almaden Road Application Deemed Complete","description":"The county lists the application as complete and under CEQA review.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/SB330_ProjectsList.pdf","source_label":"County of Santa Clara"},{"event_date":"2026-07-10","event_type":"Woodcliff Court Application Found Incomplete","description":"The county's project list shows a new incompleteness determination for Circle Hill Estates.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/SB330_ProjectsList.pdf","source_label":"County of Santa Clara"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2024-05-03","body":"Staff","action":"deemed_incomplete","action_label":"deemed application incomplete","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/PLN24_063_SB330_Letter_Incomplete_response.pdf","source_label":"County of Santa Clara","notes":"Almaden Road application PLN24-063-SB330."},{"decision_date":"2025-09-25","body":"Planning Commission","action":"appeal_rejected","action_label":"appeal rejected","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":5,"vote_against":2,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-finds-way-to-fight-builders-remedy/","source_label":"San Jose Spotlight","notes":"Denied the appeals on both projects. For denial: Rauser, Escobar, Levy, Chang Hetterly, Cohen. Against: Belska, O'Donoghue."},{"decision_date":"2026-07-10","body":"Staff","action":"deemed_incomplete","action_label":"deemed application incomplete","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/SB330_ProjectsList.pdf","source_label":"County of Santa Clara","notes":"Woodcliff Court application PLN24-062-SB330, per the county's SB 330 project list."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Builder's Remedy For More Single-Family Housing in South Bay","url":"https://sfyimby.com/2023/10/builders-remedy-for-more-single-family-housing-in-south-bay.html","publication":"San Francisco YIMBY","author":"Andrew Nelson","date_published":"2023-10-28","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Updated Permits for 19780 Almaden Road in San Jose, Santa Clara County","url":"https://sfyimby.com/2024/04/updated-permits-for-19780-almaden-road-in-san-jose-santa-clara-county.html","publication":"San Francisco YIMBY","author":"Andrew Nelson","date_published":"2024-04-13","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Updated Permits For Sprawl at 6591 Woodcliff Court, San Jose","url":"https://sfyimby.com/2024/04/updated-permits-for-sprawl-at-6591-woodcliff-court-san-jose.html","publication":"San Francisco YIMBY","author":"Andrew Nelson","date_published":"2024-04-14","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Incompleteness letter, PLN24-063-SB330, 19780 Almaden Road","url":"https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/PLN24_063_SB330_Letter_Incomplete_response.pdf","publication":"County of Santa Clara","author":"Eunice Ban","date_published":"2024-05-03","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Santa Clara County finds way to fight builder's remedy","url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-finds-way-to-fight-builders-remedy/","publication":"San Jose Spotlight","author":"Brandon Pho","date_published":"2025-09-27","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Santa Clara County finds way to fight builder's remedy","url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2025/09/29/santa-clara-county-finds-way-to-fight-builders-remedy/","publication":"Mountain View Voice (from San Jose Spotlight)","author":"Brandon Pho","date_published":"2025-09-29","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Santa Clara County, SB 330 vesting rights, 20202 Harry Road","url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/santa-clara-county-vesting-rights-20202-harry-road","publication":"YIMBY Law","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Builder's Remedy SB330 Frequently Asked Questions","url":"https://plandev.santaclaracounty.gov/services/planning-services/processing-planning-applications/sb330-housing-development-project/sb330-faqs","publication":"County of Santa Clara","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"County of Santa Clara List of SB 330 / Builder's Remedy Applications","url":"https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/SB330_ProjectsList.pdf","publication":"County of Santa Clara","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Almaden Road and Woodcliff Court Builder's Remedy Subdivisions, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-clara-county-almaden-woodcliff-2023, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:13:06.42699+00:00"},{"id":56,"slug":"danville-anderson-ranch-2023","name":"Anderson Ranch Builder's Remedy Subdivision","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/danville-anderson-ranch-2023","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/danville-anderson-ranch-2023/brief","address":"Parcel B of SD 6196, on the hillside above the Anderson Ranch neighborhood, Danville, CA","latitude":37.8226,"longitude":-122.0008,"jurisdiction":{"id":55,"slug":"danville-contra-costa","city":"Danville","county":"Contra Costa","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/danville-contra-costa"},"city":"Danville","county":"Contra Costa","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"For-Sale Residential","status":"Litigated","units_proposed":38,"units_affordable":null,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2023-07-11","date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2024-06-18","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":39,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"Ido Adler, who has owned the land with Einat Adler since 2021, filed a builder's remedy preliminary application on July 11, 2023 to subdivide Parcel B of SD 6196, a parcel of about 47 acres on the hillside above and north of the Anderson Ranch neighborhood in Danville (town file SD 9673). The land is designated General Open Space, which \"allows for no development,\" and access would come from an extension of Hill Meadow Drive across land owned by the Anderson Ranch Single Family Owners Association. Town records from 2024 describe 30 lots; later press accounts and the owners' 2026 complaint describe 38 units, at least 20 percent for low- to moderate-income households. Danville lacked a compliant housing element when the preliminary application was filed; HCD found it in substantial compliance on April 9, 2024. The town found the formal application incomplete on January 19 and May 16, 2024, citing missing access and utility easements and a landslide repair plan, and on June 18, 2024 the Town Council denied Adler's appeal 5-0; staff said the 2023 preliminary application would then expire. Adler sued in November 2024. After a tentative ruling in May 2025, the council rescinded its incompleteness finding on June 17, 2025, and on July 11, 2025 Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Danielle Douglas ruled that the town had violated the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act and that the 2023 rules, including the builder's remedy, apply. The project still has no legal access. In a separate suit over the easement, a judge tentatively denied Adler's motion on August 17, 2026, finding the easement's scope disputed.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"Town of Danville","date_invoked":"2024-01-19","description":"Repeated incompleteness findings, upheld 5-0 on appeal, would have let the 2023 builder's remedy vesting lapse. The town rescinded them on June 17, 2025 after a tentative ruling, and the court found that the town violated the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act.","added_delay_months":17,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/courts/2025/07/26/judge-rules-against-danville-in-builders-remedy-case/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Danville Town Council","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Denied the appeal 5-0 (2024); rescinded the incompleteness finding (2025)","stated_arguments":"Minutes, June 18, 2024: \"The Town Council expressed support for denying the appeal due to an incomplete development application.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=danville-ca_8895f054283b39e002f0602900497047.pdf&view=1"},{"name":"David Crompton","organization":"Town of Danville","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"oppose","role":"Chief of planning","stated_arguments":"\"The clear purpose of requiring this information is to determine whether the development can be carried out as proposed.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=3303&meta_id=59419"},{"name":"Judge Danielle Douglas","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Contra Costa County Superior Court","stated_arguments":"\"The court finds that the town's disapproval under the HAA constituted a prejudicial error.\" (July 11, 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/courts/2025/07/26/judge-rules-against-danville-in-builders-remedy-case/"},{"name":"Linda Danis","organization":null,"actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Resident","stated_arguments":"\"Mr. Adler purchases land knowing he cannot build on it and that it is zoned as open space.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.danvillesanramon.com/housing/2025/06/08/danville-facing-lawsuit-over-builders-remedy-housing-project-in-anderson-ranch/"},{"name":"Anderson Ranch Single Family Owners Association","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Owns the access land; defendant in the easement suit","stated_arguments":"Through attorney Allan Moore, told the town it opposes the project and will not grant easements.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=3303&meta_id=59419"},{"name":"Clark Morrison","organization":"Cox, Castle & Nicholson","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Appeal counsel","stated_arguments":"Told the council on June 18, 2024 that everything the town requested had been provided.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=danville-ca_8895f054283b39e002f0602900497047.pdf&view=1"},{"name":"Ido Adler","organization":null,"actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Owner (with Einat Adler) and applicant","stated_arguments":"Complaint: \"Many local agencies are hostile to Builder's Remedy projects that seek to develop housing that would not have been permissible had the local agency maintained a compliant Housing Element.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.danvillesanramon.com/housing/2025/06/08/danville-facing-lawsuit-over-builders-remedy-housing-project-in-anderson-ranch/"},{"name":"Judge Leonard E. Marquez","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Contra Costa County Superior Court (easement case C23-02697)","stated_arguments":"Tentative ruling, Aug. 17, 2026: \"the scope of the easement is not undisputed.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://retired.cc-courts.org/civil/TR/Department%2034%20-%20Judge%20%20Leonard%20Marquez/34_081726.pdf"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2023-07-11","event_type":"Owner Files Builder's Remedy Preliminary Application","description":"Filed while Danville lacked a compliant housing element. The formal application follows on Dec. 22, 2023.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=3303&meta_id=59419","source_label":"Town of Danville"},{"event_date":"2024-01-19","event_type":"Town Deems Subdivision Application Incomplete","description":"The letter lists eight deficiencies.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=3303&meta_id=59419","source_label":"Town of Danville"},{"event_date":"2024-04-09","event_type":"State Certifies Danville Housing Element","description":"HCD finds the housing element in substantial compliance.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=3303&meta_id=59419","source_label":"Town of Danville"},{"event_date":"2024-05-16","event_type":"Second Incompleteness Notice Issued","description":"Cites missing access and utility easements and a landslide repair plan.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=3303&meta_id=59419","source_label":"Town of Danville"},{"event_date":"2024-06-18","event_type":"Council Denies Appeal 5-0","description":"Resolution 44-2024. Staff said the 2023 preliminary application would then expire.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=danville-ca_8895f054283b39e002f0602900497047.pdf&view=1","source_label":"Town of Danville"},{"event_date":"2024-11-01","event_type":"Adler Sues Danville","description":"Filed in November 2024 in Contra Costa County Superior Court, with Permit Streamlining Act and Housing Accountability Act claims.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.danvillesanramon.com/housing/2025/06/08/danville-facing-lawsuit-over-builders-remedy-housing-project-in-anderson-ranch/","source_label":"Danville San Ramon"},{"event_date":"2025-06-17","event_type":"Council Rescinds Incompleteness Finding","description":"Resolution 47-2025 passes on consent, 5-0, after a May tentative ruling; the application is declared complete.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=danville-ca_255652e08f9fa5da94bbb1074d5e00bb.pdf&view=1","source_label":"Town of Danville"},{"event_date":"2025-07-11","event_type":"Judge Rules Town Violated Two State Housing Laws","description":"Judge Danielle Douglas finds violations of the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act; the 2023 rules, including the builder's remedy, apply.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/courts/2025/07/26/judge-rules-against-danville-in-builders-remedy-case/","source_label":"Pleasanton Weekly"},{"event_date":"2026-08-17","event_type":"Court Tentatively Denies Adler Easement Motion","description":"In the easement case against the homeowners association, the judge finds the easement's width disputed: 55 feet claimed, 28 to 40 feet possible.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://retired.cc-courts.org/civil/TR/Department%2034%20-%20Judge%20%20Leonard%20Marquez/34_081726.pdf","source_label":"Contra Costa Superior Court"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2024-01-19","body":"Staff","action":"deemed_incomplete","action_label":"deemed application incomplete","staff_recommendation":"none","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=3303&meta_id=59419","source_label":"Town of Danville","notes":"First incompleteness letter, listing eight deficiencies."},{"decision_date":"2024-05-16","body":"Staff","action":"deemed_incomplete","action_label":"deemed application incomplete","staff_recommendation":"none","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=3303&meta_id=59419","source_label":"Town of Danville","notes":"Second incompleteness letter, citing access and utility easements and a landslide repair plan."},{"decision_date":"2024-06-18","body":"City Council","action":"appeal_rejected","action_label":"appeal rejected","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":5,"vote_against":0,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=danville-ca_8895f054283b39e002f0602900497047.pdf&view=1","source_label":"Town of Danville","notes":"Denied the applicant's appeal of the incompleteness determination (Resolution 44-2024)."},{"decision_date":"2025-07-11","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/courts/2025/07/26/judge-rules-against-danville-in-builders-remedy-case/","source_label":"Pleasanton Weekly","notes":"Ruled that the town violated the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Staff report on Resolution 44-2024 (appeal of SD 9673)","url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=3303&meta_id=59419","publication":"Town of Danville","author":"David Crompton","date_published":"2024-06-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Town Council summary of actions, June 18, 2024","url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=danville-ca_8895f054283b39e002f0602900497047.pdf&view=1","publication":"Town of Danville","author":null,"date_published":"2024-06-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Danville facing lawsuit over builder's remedy housing project in Anderson Ranch","url":"https://www.danvillesanramon.com/housing/2025/06/08/danville-facing-lawsuit-over-builders-remedy-housing-project-in-anderson-ranch/","publication":"Danville San Ramon","author":"Jeanita Lyman","date_published":"2025-06-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Town Council summary of actions, June 17, 2025","url":"https://danville-ca.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=danville-ca_255652e08f9fa5da94bbb1074d5e00bb.pdf&view=1","publication":"Town of Danville","author":null,"date_published":"2025-06-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge rules against Danville in builder's remedy case","url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/courts/2025/07/26/judge-rules-against-danville-in-builders-remedy-case/","publication":"Pleasanton Weekly","author":"Jeanita Lyman","date_published":"2025-07-26","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Dept. 34 tentative rulings, Ido Adler v. Anderson Ranch Single Family Owners Association (C23-02697)","url":"https://retired.cc-courts.org/civil/TR/Department%2034%20-%20Judge%20%20Leonard%20Marquez/34_081726.pdf","publication":"Contra Costa County Superior Court","author":null,"date_published":"2026-08-17","notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Anderson Ranch Builder's Remedy Subdivision, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/danville-anderson-ranch-2023, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:22:12.451728+00:00"},{"id":55,"slug":"brisbane-baylands-2005","name":"Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/brisbane-baylands-2005","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/brisbane-baylands-2005/brief","address":"The Baylands, between Bayshore Boulevard and U.S. 101 at the San Francisco border, Brisbane, CA 94005","latitude":37.6872,"longitude":-122.4028,"jurisdiction":{"id":49,"slug":"brisbane-san-mateo","city":"Brisbane","county":"San Mateo","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":false,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/brisbane-san-mateo"},"city":"Brisbane","county":"San Mateo","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Master-Planned Community","status":"In Review","units_proposed":2200,"units_affordable":null,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":null,"date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"The Baylands covers 680.1 acres (558.3 of land and 121.8 of lagoon) on Brisbane's border with San Francisco, between Bayshore Boulevard and U.S. 101. Universal Paragon Corporation has owned the site since 1989, according to a 2019 Assembly analysis, and first proposed a specific plan in 2005, according to the city. A 2009 city plan for the site allowed no housing. In March 2018 the council voted to put a general plan amendment for 1,800 to 2,200 homes on the ballot, although the Assembly analysis later said the amendment did not require voter approval; Measure JJ passed on November 6, 2018 with 55 percent and requires at least 15 percent of the homes to be affordable. The current plan from Baylands Development Inc. calls for 2,200 homes, 6.5 million square feet of commercial space, an 800-room hotel, a middle school and 157 acres of open space, with up to four towers of 110 to 270 feet. HCD certified Brisbane's housing element on May 25, 2023 on the strength of Program 2.A.2, the Baylands rezoning; the site makes up 81 percent of the city's sites inventory. The draft EIR, which HCD said the city had promised for October 2023, came out in April 2025, and the final EIR on May 14, 2026. The city missed the May 18, 2026 rezoning deadline, and on June 30, 2026 HCD revoked its housing element compliance, which exposes Brisbane to the builder's remedy and costs it eligibility for some grants. The Planning Commission recommended approval 5-0 on August 13, 2026. The council has held a series of hearings since September and may close the hearing on November 9, 2026. The 3,800-home figure sometimes reported includes homes on the San Francisco side of the line.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Measure J","full_name":"Voter Approval Requirements (Measure J/R and similar)","invoked_by":"Brisbane City Council","date_invoked":"2018-03-22","description":"The council chose to put the general plan amendment on the ballot, though a 2019 Assembly analysis says it \"did not require voter approval.\" Measure JJ passed on Nov. 6, 2018.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://alcl.assembly.ca.gov/sites/alcl.assembly.ca.gov/files/SB%20672%20analysis.pdf"},{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"Brisbane City Council","date_invoked":"2026-05-18","description":"The specific plan, general plan and zoning approvals are legislative acts: six Planning Commission sessions and at least seven council hearings, with the state rezoning deadline missed on May 18, 2026.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/brisbane-corr-action-041626.pdf"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"City of Brisbane","date_invoked":null,"description":"Environmental review ran from a 2020 notice of preparation to the final EIR on May 14, 2026. The draft EIR, promised to HCD for October 2023, came out in April 2025, about 18 months late.","added_delay_months":18,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/sma-brisbane-rezone-he-rev-out-063026.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"Brisbane City Council","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"deciding","role":"Holding hearings on the specific plan","stated_arguments":"Council member Cliff Lentz: \"It's a complex property. We're basically designing a new city within our city.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thefrisc.com/hope-for-a-new-neighborhood-on-sfs-southern-border-after-decades-of-delay/"},{"name":"Housing Action Coalition","organization":"Housing Action Coalition","actor_type":"Trade Association","stance":"support","role":"Petitioned HCD with YIMBY Law","stated_arguments":"Ali Sapirman: \"Brisbane's housing element is reliant on just one project: The Baylands.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thefrisc.com/hope-for-a-new-neighborhood-on-sfs-southern-border-after-decades-of-delay/"},{"name":"Brisbane Voters","organization":null,"actor_type":"Electorate","stance":"support","role":"Approved Measure JJ, Nov. 6, 2018","stated_arguments":"Passed Measure JJ with about 55 percent, allowing 1,800 to 2,200 homes on the Baylands.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/brisbane-baylands-development-proposal-passes/article_9053e892-e2f1-11e8-8014-7fe19c621e72.html"},{"name":"Brisbane Planning Commission","organization":null,"actor_type":"Planning Commission","stance":"support","role":"Recommended approval 5-0 on Aug. 13, 2026","stated_arguments":"Recommended certifying the final EIR and adopting the plan with modifications, but rejected a road diet on Bayshore Boulevard.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.brisbaneca.gov/228/Brisbane-Baylands"},{"name":"YIMBY Law","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Petitioned HCD with the Housing Action Coalition","stated_arguments":"With the Housing Action Coalition, called Brisbane \"perennially behind on commitments.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thefrisc.com/hope-for-a-new-neighborhood-on-sfs-southern-border-after-decades-of-delay/"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Revoked Brisbane's housing element compliance on June 30, 2026","stated_arguments":"Melinda Coy: \"HCD finds that the City's housing element is no longer in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/sma-brisbane-rezone-he-rev-out-063026.pdf"},{"name":"Eileen McLaughlin","organization":"Sierra Club","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Sierra Club","stated_arguments":"\"There's not enough forward thinking.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thefrisc.com/hope-for-a-new-neighborhood-on-sfs-southern-border-after-decades-of-delay/"},{"name":"Too Big Too Toxic Too Expensive","organization":null,"actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Opposition campaign linked to UNITE HERE Local 2","stated_arguments":"\"The soil itself is producing potentially harmful gas vapors.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thefrisc.com/hope-for-a-new-neighborhood-on-sfs-southern-border-after-decades-of-delay/"},{"name":"Universal Paragon Corporation","organization":"Universal Paragon Corporation and Baylands Development Inc.","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Owner (with Sunquest Properties) and applicant","stated_arguments":"Vice president Stephanie Shakofsky: the proposal \"reflects decades of environmental analysis and thoughtful analysis.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thefrisc.com/hope-for-a-new-neighborhood-on-sfs-southern-border-after-decades-of-delay/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2018-03-22","event_type":"Council Votes To Put Baylands Plan Before Voters","description":"The unanimous vote, which members tied to state pressure, sets up a measure allowing 1,800 to 2,200 homes.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/brisbane-baylands-development-moving-to-voters/article_ebbf6386-3172-11e8-b915-0f0412fcb581.html","source_label":"San Mateo Daily Journal"},{"event_date":"2018-11-06","event_type":"Brisbane Voters Approve Measure JJ","description":"It passes 55 to 45 percent. The general plan now allows up to 2,200 homes, at least 15 percent affordable.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/brisbane-baylands-development-proposal-passes/article_9053e892-e2f1-11e8-8014-7fe19c621e72.html","source_label":"San Mateo Daily Journal"},{"event_date":"2023-05-25","event_type":"State Certifies Housing Element on Baylands Rezoning","description":"HCD's finding rests on Program 2.A.2, rezoning the Baylands to cover a 1,104-unit shortfall.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/sma-brisbane-rezone-he-rev-out-063026.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2025-04-03","event_type":"Draft EIR Released","description":"Comments are open until Sept. 2, 2025. HCD had flagged the draft, promised for October 2023, as late.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.brisbaneca.gov/232","source_label":"City of Brisbane"},{"event_date":"2026-04-16","event_type":"HCD Issues Corrective Action Letter","description":"HCD notes that the Baylands makes up 81 percent of the city's sites inventory.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/brisbane-corr-action-041626.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2026-05-14","event_type":"Final EIR Released","description":"The city publishes the final environmental impact report and notice of public hearings.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3010/Baylands-FEIR-Notice-of-Availability-and-Public-Hearing","source_label":"City of Brisbane"},{"event_date":"2026-05-18","event_type":"State Rezoning Deadline Passes","description":"The city had told HCD the rezoning would wait until fall.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/sma-brisbane-rezone-he-rev-out-063026.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2026-06-30","event_type":"HCD Revokes Brisbane's Housing Element Compliance","description":"The city becomes subject to the builder's remedy and loses eligibility for some grants.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/sma-brisbane-rezone-he-rev-out-063026.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2026-08-13","event_type":"Planning Commission Recommends Approval 5-0","description":"The commission recommends certifying the final EIR and adopting the plan with modifications.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.brisbaneca.gov/228/Brisbane-Baylands","source_label":"City of Brisbane"},{"event_date":"2026-09-14","event_type":"Council Opens Baylands Hearings","description":"The first of at least seven sessions. The council may close the hearing on Nov. 9, 2026.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.brisbaneca.gov/228/Brisbane-Baylands","source_label":"City of Brisbane"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2018-11-06","body":"Voters","action":"referendum_passed","action_label":"referendum passed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/brisbane-baylands-development-proposal-passes/article_9053e892-e2f1-11e8-8014-7fe19c621e72.html","source_label":"San Mateo Daily Journal","notes":"Measure JJ, a general plan amendment allowing 1,800 to 2,200 homes on the Baylands, passed with about 55 percent."},{"decision_date":"2026-08-13","body":"Planning Commission","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":5,"vote_against":0,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.brisbaneca.gov/228/Brisbane-Baylands","source_label":"City of Brisbane","notes":"Recommended that the City Council certify the final EIR and adopt the specific plan with modifications."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Brisbane voters making tough choices on housing with Baylands project","url":"https://preview-prod.w.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Baylands-project-asks-Brisbane-residents-to-13323626.php","publication":"San Francisco Chronicle","author":"J.K. Dineen","date_published":"2018-10-20","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"SB 672 (Hill) analysis","url":"https://alcl.assembly.ca.gov/sites/alcl.assembly.ca.gov/files/SB%20672%20analysis.pdf","publication":"Assembly Local Government Committee","author":null,"date_published":"2019-07-10","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Corrective Action Letter to the City of Brisbane","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/brisbane-corr-action-041626.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":"Melinda Coy","date_published":"2026-04-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Baylands FEIR notice of availability and public hearing","url":"https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3010/Baylands-FEIR-Notice-of-Availability-and-Public-Hearing","publication":"City of Brisbane","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-14","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Hope for a New Neighborhood on SF's Southern Border After Decades of Delay","url":"https://thefrisc.com/hope-for-a-new-neighborhood-on-sfs-southern-border-after-decades-of-delay/","publication":"The Frisc","author":"Adam Brinklow","date_published":"2026-06-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"City of Brisbane: Revocation of Housing Element Compliance Finding","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/sma-brisbane-rezone-he-rev-out-063026.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":"Melinda Coy","date_published":"2026-06-30","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Baylands press release, July 1, 2026","url":"https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3217/Baylands-Press-Release-7-1-2026","publication":"City of Brisbane","author":null,"date_published":"2026-07-01","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Baylands draft EIR","url":"https://www.brisbaneca.gov/232","publication":"City of Brisbane","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Brisbane Baylands project page","url":"https://www.brisbaneca.gov/228/Brisbane-Baylands","publication":"City of Brisbane","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Brisbane Baylands development proposal passes","url":"https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/brisbane-baylands-development-proposal-passes/article_9053e892-e2f1-11e8-8014-7fe19c621e72.html","publication":"San Mateo Daily Journal","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Brisbane Baylands development moving to voters","url":"https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/brisbane-baylands-development-moving-to-voters/article_ebbf6386-3172-11e8-b915-0f0412fcb581.html","publication":"San Mateo Daily Journal","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Specific plan overview, public workshop 1","url":"https://www.brisbaneca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3137/Specific-Plan-Overview---Public-Workshop-1-Presentation","publication":"City of Brisbane","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/brisbane-baylands-2005, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:21:04.658802+00:00"},{"id":38,"slug":"solano-california-forever-2023","name":"California Forever — New City of 400,000 in Solano County","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/solano-california-forever-2023","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/solano-california-forever-2023/brief","address":"East Solano County (near Suisun City and Rio Vista), CA 94585","latitude":38.2,"longitude":-121.9,"jurisdiction":{"id":37,"slug":"suisun-city-solano","city":"Suisun City","county":"Solano","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/suisun-city-solano"},"city":"Suisun City","county":"Solano","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Stalled","units_proposed":173913,"units_affordable":null,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2023-08-31","date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2024-07-01","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":38,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"The largest proposed housing and community development in California history. California Forever and its subsidiary Flannery Associates LLC secretly purchased 52,000-55,000+ acres of Solano County farmland between 2017 and 2023, spending over $800 million, with the goal of building a new city of up to 400,000 residents midway between San Francisco and Sacramento. Backers include Marc Andreessen, Reid Hoffman, Laurene Powell Jobs, Patrick and John Collison (Stripe), Michael Moritz, and the firm Andreessen Horowitz. CEO: Jan Sramek (former Goldman Sachs trader). The project was revealed publicly by the New York Times in August 2023 when the secretive purchases became impossible to conceal. The primary obstacle is the Solano County General Plan, which explicitly prohibits all new housing and development outside existing city limits. California Forever's original strategy was to amend the General Plan via a November 2024 ballot measure. When it became clear the ballot measure would fail, it was withdrawn in July 2024. The company pivoted to an annexation strategy: working with Suisun City, the only supportive local government, to annex approximately 22,900 acres into the city's boundaries — bypassing the need for countywide voter approval. The Suisun City Council voted 4-1 in June 2025 to proceed with a reimbursement agreement under which the company pays the city's costs, and California Forever submitted its annexation application in October 2025. The application covers 22,873 acres; the city's November 12, 2025 notice of preparation for an EIR describes about 65,217 homes for 150,000 residents in the first 20 years and about 173,913 homes for 400,000 residents at full buildout. As of October 2026 the state's CEQA database lists no draft EIR for the project. The Solano County LAFCO, which California Local describes as controlled by appointees of the county, must ultimately approve the annexation and has asked Suisun City to pause the process. Best case groundbreaking: end of 2027. The project also involves the Solano Foundry (advanced manufacturing park) and a shipyard on land already designated for industrial use near Collinsville. In January 2026 California Forever signed what it called the largest construction labor agreement in history with the Napa/Solano Building Trades Council and Northern California Carpenters Union. KQED's voter guide says Suisun City's November 3, 2026 mayoral election \"is seen as a referendum on the megadevelopment itself.\"","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Downzoning","full_name":"Downzoning","invoked_by":"Solano County (General Plan)","date_invoked":"2023-08-31","description":"The Solano County General Plan explicitly specifies that all new housing and industrial development must occur within the boundaries of existing municipalities. This is the foundational barrier to California Forever: the entire 52,000-acre project site is unincorporated county land, and the county's own planning document prohibits exactly the kind of development proposed. Unlike most cases in this database where discretionary review or CEQA is weaponized against a specific project, here the obstruction is built into the county's foundational planning document. California Forever's entire regulatory strategy — first the ballot measure, now the Suisun City annexation — is an attempt to route around this one provision.","added_delay_months":34,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/599005-a-deep-dive-into-the-suisun-city-and-california-forever-project/"},{"short_name":"Measure J","full_name":"Voter Approval Requirements (Measure J/R and similar)","invoked_by":"Solano County Voters (anticipated)","date_invoked":"2024-07-23","description":"California Forever's original strategy was to amend the Solano County General Plan via a November 2024 ballot measure. The measure was withdrawn in July 2024 when the company concluded it lacked sufficient voter support. The withdrawal is significant: unlike most ballot measure cases in this database where opponents collect signatures to defeat an approved project, here the developer itself pulled the measure before voters could reject it. The anticipated democratic defeat closed the most direct path to development and forced the multi-year annexation detour through Suisun City.","added_delay_months":24,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://fortune.com/2024/07/23/california-forever-solano-city-on-hold-billionaire-backers-locals"}],"actors":[{"name":"Solano County Board of Supervisors","organization":"Solano County","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Primary Regulatory Obstacle / General Plan Enforcer","stated_arguments":"The Solano County General Plan prohibits all new development outside existing city limits — the fundamental barrier to the project. The Board controls LAFCO appointees who must approve any annexation. Asked Suisun City to pause its annexation process in spring 2026.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/599005-a-deep-dive-into-the-suisun-city-and-california-forever-project/"},{"name":"John Garamendi","organization":"U.S. House of Representatives (CA-8)","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Federal Opponent / National Security Critic","stated_arguments":"\"This is a pipe dream.\" Furious about secretive land purchases near Travis Air Force Base. \"Makes no sense in the middle of areas surrounded by wind farms, gas fields, endangered species, no water, no sanitation system and no road system let alone a highway system.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calmatters.org/economy/2024/02/california-forever-promises/"},{"name":"Solano County LAFCO","organization":"Solano County Local Agency Formation Commission","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"oppose","role":"Final Regulatory Hurdle / County-Controlled Approver","stated_arguments":"Must approve the Suisun City annexation petition. Controlled by Solano County supervisor appointees who oppose the project. Asked Suisun City to pause the annexation process in spring 2026. LAFCO review takes six to 18 months once a petition is submitted.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/599005-a-deep-dive-into-the-suisun-city-and-california-forever-project/"},{"name":"Alma Hernandez","organization":"City of Suisun City","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"neutral","role":"Mayor of Suisun City; candidate in the Nov. 3, 2026 election","stated_arguments":"Would keep exploring annexation with the public. \"We owe it to the next generation to do our due diligence in understanding what is both possible and feasible.\" (KQED voter guide, 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide/solano/suisun-city-mayor"},{"name":"Suisun City Council","organization":"City of Suisun City","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"support","role":"Supporting Municipality / Annexation Partner","stated_arguments":"The only local government to embrace the project. Reached out to California Forever in March 2025 with the annexation proposal. Voted 4-1 in June 2025 to proceed with a reimbursement agreement to explore annexation; California Forever submitted its annexation application in October 2025. Now preparing EIR. Sees the project as the county's best chance to address failing businesses and unemployment.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/news/california-forever-submits-final-application-for-solano-county-city/"},{"name":"California Forever / Flannery Associates","organization":"California Forever (parent) / Flannery Associates LLC (subsidiary)","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / Applicant","stated_arguments":"Spent $800 million+ on land acquisition. Revealed August 2023. Withdrew ballot measure July 2024 when defeat was certain. Pivoted to Suisun City annexation strategy March 2025. Signed largest construction labor agreement in history January 2026. Submitted its Suisun City annexation application in October 2025. EIR in preparation as of spring 2026.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://californiaforever.com"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2017-01-01","event_type":"Flannery Associates Begins Secret Land Acquisition","description":"Flannery Associates LLC — a Delaware-registered company with no public officers or investors — begins quietly purchasing farmland parcels in Solano County. The secretive acquisition strategy is designed to prevent landowners from coordinating to raise prices. Over the following six years, Flannery acquires over 52,000 acres, spending more than $800 million. (Date approximate)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://localnewsmatters.org/2023/09/03/california-forever-firm-behind-mysterious-land-acquisitions-in-solano-launches-website/","source_label":"Local News Matters"},{"event_date":"2023-08-25","event_type":"New York Times Reveals Project — California Forever Website Launches","description":"The New York Times reports on the mysterious Solano County land acquisitions, revealing the investor group: Marc Andreessen, Reid Hoffman, Laurene Powell Jobs, Patrick and John Collison, Michael Moritz, and Andreessen Horowitz. California Forever launches its public website simultaneously. Governor Newsom says he was told \"about five minutes before\" his staff.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://localnewsmatters.org/2023/09/03/california-forever-firm-behind-mysterious-land-acquisitions-in-solano-launches-website/","source_label":"Local News Matters"},{"event_date":"2023-11-01","event_type":"First Town Hall — CEO Heckled, Called \"Shill\" and \"Smooth Talker\"","description":"Jan Sramek holds the first public town hall for Solano County residents. Attendees shout him down as a \"shill\" and \"smooth talker,\" alleging a secretive land grab. The contentious meeting signals the community trust deficit the project will spend the next two years trying to repair. (Date approximate)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://fortune.com/2023/11/30/california-forever-tech-city-heckle-billionaires-central-valley-flannery-associates/amp","source_label":"Fortune"},{"event_date":"2024-02-01","event_type":"Ballot Initiative Filed for November 2024","description":"California Forever files paperwork to qualify a ballot initiative for the November 2024 Solano County election. The initiative would amend the county's General Plan to allow development on California Forever's land, establishing a new Community Services District. Extensive community concerns about water supply, Travis AFB proximity, and agricultural land loss dominate early coverage. (Date approximate)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calmatters.org/economy/2024/02/california-forever-promises/","source_label":"CalMatters"},{"event_date":"2024-03-29","event_type":"Judge Denies Landowners Motion to Dismiss Price-Fixing Lawsuit","description":"U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley in Sacramento denies an attempt by remaining Solano County landowners to dismiss Flannery's price-fixing lawsuit. The judge cites messages between property owners as evidence of coordination to resist land purchases. Some owners have already settled with Flannery; the lawsuit continues against those who have not.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.governing.com/management-and-administration/california-forever-planning-group-wins-big-against-farmers","source_label":"Governing"},{"event_date":"2024-07-23","event_type":"Ballot Measure Withdrawn — Company Announces Annexation Alternative","description":"California Forever withdraws its November 2024 ballot measure after concluding it lacks sufficient voter support. CEO Jan Sramek and the Solano County Board of Supervisors chair issue a joint statement promising an environmental review process. Sramek vows to bring the measure back for voter consideration in 2026. The withdrawal signals the original county-wide democratic path is closed.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://fortune.com/2024/07/23/california-forever-solano-city-on-hold-billionaire-backers-locals","source_label":"Fortune"},{"event_date":"2025-03-01","event_type":"Suisun City Reaches Out — Annexation Strategy Begins","description":"Suisun City officials reach out to California Forever with a proposal to annex a portion of its 52,000+ acre holdings into the city. The annexation route would incorporate California Forever's land into Suisun City, bypassing the county General Plan prohibition and the need for countywide voter approval. California Forever simultaneously expands its project vision to include the Solano Foundry manufacturing park and a shipyard. (Date approximate)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/554033-california-forever-gains-momentum/","source_label":"California Local"},{"event_date":"2025-06-10","event_type":"County Asks Suisun City To Halt Talks","description":"The Solano County Board of Supervisors votes 5-0 to send the Suisun City Council a letter before its vote on an agreement to explore annexation. The council then votes 4-1 to proceed.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/599005-a-deep-dive-into-the-suisun-city-and-california-forever-project/","source_label":"California Local"},{"event_date":"2025-10-14","event_type":"California Forever Submits Annexation Application","description":"California Forever submits its final annexation application to Suisun City. The council had approved exploring the proposal in June, with the company paying the city's costs; city staff now review the application, and an environmental review follows.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/news/california-forever-submits-final-application-for-solano-county-city/","source_label":"CBS Sacramento"},{"event_date":"2025-11-12","event_type":"City Begins Environmental Review","description":"Suisun City files a notice of preparation for a draft EIR on the Suisun Expansion Project: annexation of 22,873 acres, with about 173,913 homes and 400,000 residents at full buildout.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2025110452","source_label":"CEQAnet"},{"event_date":"2026-01-21","event_type":"Largest Construction Labor Agreement in History Signed","description":"California Forever announces it has signed what it calls the largest construction labor agreement in history with the Napa/Solano Building Trades Council and the Northern California Carpenters Union, securing organized labor's support for the project. A Bay Area Council Economic Institute report published the same day outlines the project's projected economic impact.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/554033-california-forever-gains-momentum/","source_label":"California Local"},{"event_date":"2026-03-01","event_type":"EIR In Preparation — LAFCO Asked to Pause, County Opposition Continues","description":"A draft Environmental Impact Report is being prepared by Suisun City, and the city is expected to complete initial annexation and EIR processing by the end of 2026. The Solano County LAFCO — controlled by county supervisor appointees who oppose the project — asks Suisun City to pause its annexation process so the county can catch up. Best case for formal LAFCO petition submission: end of 2026. Best case for LAFCO approval: mid-2028. Best case for groundbreaking: end of 2027 or later. (Date approximate)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/599005-a-deep-dive-into-the-suisun-city-and-california-forever-project/","source_label":"California Local"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California Forever Analyzing Billionaire Promises for New City","url":"https://calmatters.org/economy/2024/02/california-forever-promises/","publication":"CalMatters","author":null,"date_published":"2024-02-22","notes":"Best CalMatters analysis of the ballot initiative period. Confirms investor list, acreage, proposed scale, water concerns, and community skepticism. Primary source for Travis AFB concerns and Garamendi opposition."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California Forever Planning Group Wins Big Against Farmers in Price-Fixing Case","url":"https://www.governing.com/management-and-administration/california-forever-planning-group-wins-big-against-farmers","publication":"Governing","author":null,"date_published":"2024-04-03","notes":"Best source for the March 2024 court ruling denying landowners' motion to dismiss the price-fixing case. Confirms Judge Nunley's order and investor list."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California Forever Has Been Put on Hold Because Its Billionaire Backers Cannot Agree with Locals","url":"https://fortune.com/2024/07/23/california-forever-solano-city-on-hold-billionaire-backers-locals","publication":"Fortune / Bloomberg","author":null,"date_published":"2024-07-23","notes":"Best source for the ballot measure withdrawal announcement (July 23, 2024). Contains Sramek statement, joint announcement with county supervisor chair, and promise to bring back for 2026 vote."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California Forever Submits Final Application for Solano County City","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/news/california-forever-submits-final-application-for-solano-county-city/","publication":"CBS Sacramento","author":null,"date_published":"2025-10-15","notes":"Best source for the October 14, 2025 Suisun City Council 3-1 vote approving the annexation application. Contains Jan Sramek statement and confirms the annexation bypasses voter approval — a point of contention for opponents."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Suisun Expansion Project, Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR (SCH 2025110452)","url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2025110452","publication":"City of Suisun City via CEQAnet","author":null,"date_published":"2025-11-12","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California Forever Gains Momentum","url":"https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/554033-california-forever-gains-momentum/","publication":"California Local","author":null,"date_published":"2026-01-29","notes":"Best source for the January 2026 labor agreement announcement and the overall project momentum post-ballot-withdrawal. Confirms the Solano Foundry and shipyard additions to the project vision."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Forever or Never: California Forever Plan for a City of 400,000 Divides Solano County","url":"https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/03/13/forever-or-never-california-forever-plan-for-a-city-of-400000-divides-solano-county/","publication":"Local News Matters / Bay City News","author":null,"date_published":"2026-03-13","notes":"Most recent comprehensive overview as of June 2026. Confirms Suisun City annexation approval (October 14, 2025), EIR timeline, LAFCO dynamics, and community division. Best single source for current project status."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"A Deep Dive into the Suisun City and California Forever Project","url":"https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/599005-a-deep-dive-into-the-suisun-city-and-california-forever-project/","publication":"California Local","author":null,"date_published":"2026-04-17","notes":"Best single source for the full regulatory timeline and current status. Confirms LAFCO pause request, EIR timeline, best-case groundbreaking scenarios, and the county vs. city political dynamic. Primary source for annexation process details."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"California Forever Official Website","url":"https://californiaforever.com","publication":"California Forever","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Official company website. Contains project vision, land purchase history, investor list, labor agreement announcement, and current status of entitlements and environmental process."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Suisun City Mayor (2026 voter guide)","url":"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide/solano/suisun-city-mayor","publication":"KQED","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, California Forever — New City of 400,000 in Solano County, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/solano-california-forever-2023, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:44:56.673363+00:00"},{"id":59,"slug":"costa-mesa-housing-element-2022","name":"Costa Mesa Housing Element and Rezoning","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/costa-mesa-housing-element-2022","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/costa-mesa-housing-element-2022/brief","address":"Citywide, Costa Mesa, CA (largest site: Fairview Developmental Center, 2501 Harbor Boulevard)","latitude":33.6638,"longitude":-117.9045,"jurisdiction":{"id":57,"slug":"costa-mesa-orange","city":"Costa Mesa","county":"Orange","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":false,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/costa-mesa-orange"},"city":"Costa Mesa","county":"Orange","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Mixed Residential","status":"Litigated","units_proposed":11760,"units_affordable":null,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2022-02-01","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"Costa Mesa's sixth-cycle housing element must plan for 11,760 homes, including 4,713 for very low- and low-income households. The city adopted the element on February 1, 2022 and re-adopted it on November 15, 2022, but HCD has never found it in substantial compliance; in May 2023 HCD said the element met statutory requirements but could not be found compliant until the city completed its rezoning. Measure Y, approved by voters in 2016, requires citywide votes on major land-use changes, and HCD called it \"clearly a constraint on development\" in December 2021. Measure K, which passed by 22 votes on November 8, 2022, partly lifted Measure Y on the commercial corridors. HCD issued a notice of violation on August 22, 2025, rejecting the city's proposed September 2026 rezoning timeline. In March 2026 owners pulled sites with about 5,863 units of capacity after an appellate ruling against Redondo Beach's overlay zoning. The council adopted Ordinance 2026-03, a rezoning it declared exempt from Measure Y, on April 7, 2026 by a 5-2 vote. On July 16, 2026 the Attorney General and HCD sued, asking the court to order a compliant element, rezoning within 120 days and penalties. The council then adopted a housing element amendment adding 95 sites with about 6,996 units of capacity (September 1, 7-0) and capped the Fairview Developmental Center at 2,300 units, 920 of them affordable, below the 3,450 units staff called financially feasible. A citywide rezoning package went before the council on October 20, 2026. According to a closed-session agenda reported by Costa Mesa First, the parties have begun settlement talks and the city's answer is due October 23, 2026. Unit figures above are the state housing target.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Height Limit","full_name":"Height and Density Limits","invoked_by":"Costa Mesa City Council","date_invoked":"2026-09-15","description":"Capped Fairview Developmental Center at 2,300 units, below the 3,450 units staff called financially feasible; staff warned the cap may force another housing element revision.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.housingwire.com/articles/costa-mesa-housing-element/"},{"short_name":"Measure J","full_name":"Voter Approval Requirements (Measure J/R and similar)","invoked_by":"Costa Mesa voters (Measure Y)","date_invoked":null,"description":"Measure Y (2016) requires citywide votes on major land-use changes; HCD called it \"clearly a constraint on development\" in December 2021. Measure K (2022) partly lifted it on the corridors, and the 2026 rezoning declares itself exempt.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/oracostamesadraftout120321.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"Cynthia McDonald","organization":"Costa Mesa First","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Costa Mesa First","stated_arguments":"\"This is not the comprehensive planning process many residents believed Measure K was intended to deliver.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/city-council-meets-tuesday-for-a-hearing-that-could-impact-every-neighborhood-in-the-city"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Issued a notice of violation (Aug. 22, 2025); co-petitioner","stated_arguments":"Director Gustavo Velasquez: \"Every jurisdiction that fails to meet its obligations is simply shifting the burden and asking everyone else to make up for that difference.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/costa-mesa-housing-element-lawsuit-california-state-attorney-general-bonta-newsom"},{"name":"Manuel Chavez","organization":"Costa Mesa City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"neutral","role":"Council member","stated_arguments":"On Measure Y: \"It made it so that any change to the general plan would require a vote of the people.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2026/07/california-sues-costa-mesa-over-lack-of-compliant-housing-plan/"},{"name":"Gavin Newsom","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Governor","stated_arguments":"\"California can't solve the housing crisis while some cities sit on their hands and dare us to do something about it.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/costa-mesa-housing-element-lawsuit-california-state-attorney-general-bonta-newsom"},{"name":"Orange County Superior Court","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Hearing People ex rel. Bonta and HCD v. City of Costa Mesa","stated_arguments":"No ruling as of Oct. 20, 2026; the city's answer is due Oct. 23, 2026.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/city-council-meets-tuesday-for-a-hearing-that-could-impact-every-neighborhood-in-the-city"},{"name":"Rob Bonta","organization":"California Attorney General's Office","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Attorney General; sued the city with HCD on July 16, 2026","stated_arguments":"\"We are done with delays.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/costa-mesa-housing-element-lawsuit-california-state-attorney-general-bonta-newsom"},{"name":"Costa Mesa City Council","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"deciding","role":"Adopting the rezoning and housing element amendments","stated_arguments":"Adopted Ordinance 2026-03 (April 7, 2026, 5-2, Buley and Pettis opposed), a housing element amendment adding 95 sites (Sept. 1, 2026, 7-0) and a 2,300-unit cap at Fairview Developmental Center.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63488/639165396180770000"},{"name":"John Stephens","organization":"City of Costa Mesa","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"deciding","role":"Mayor of Costa Mesa","stated_arguments":"\"In light of the substantial and ongoing efforts, we view this action as entirely unwarranted.\" Also: \"Indeed, we are currently waiting for the state's comments to our most recent submission\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2026/07/california-sues-costa-mesa-over-lack-of-compliant-housing-plan/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2021-12-03","event_type":"HCD Flags Measure Y as a Housing Constraint","description":"\"However, the Measure is clearly a constraint on development and conflicts with meeting state requirements.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/oracostamesadraftout120321.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2022-02-01","event_type":"Council Adopts Housing Element","description":"The council re-adopts it on Nov. 15, 2022.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and-divisions/economic-and-development-services/planning/housing-element-update","source_label":"City of Costa Mesa"},{"event_date":"2022-11-08","event_type":"Measure K Passes by 22 Votes","description":"It partly lifts Measure Y's vote requirement on the commercial corridors.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la/politics/2022/12/13/high-recount-costs-cause-opponents-to-back-off-on-costa-mesa-measure-k","source_label":"Spectrum News"},{"event_date":"2023-05-09","event_type":"State Says Plan Complete but Rezoning Owed","description":"HCD says the element meets statutory requirements but cannot be found in compliance until rezoning is done.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/costa-mesa.pdf","source_label":"Court filing"},{"event_date":"2025-08-22","event_type":"HCD Issues Notice of Violation","description":"HCD rejects the city's proposed September 2026 rezoning timeline.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/costa-mesa-he-nov-082225.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2026-03-01","event_type":"Owners Pull Sites After Redondo Beach Overlay Ruling","description":"About 5,863 units of capacity are lost (month only).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cp-dr.com/post/cp-dr-news-briefs-april-14-2026","source_label":"CP&DR"},{"event_date":"2026-04-07","event_type":"Council Adopts Rezoning Ordinance 5-2","description":"Ordinance 2026-03 declares itself exempt from Measure Y; Buley and Pettis vote no.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63488/639165396180770000","source_label":"City of Costa Mesa"},{"event_date":"2026-07-16","event_type":"State Sues Costa Mesa Over Housing Plan","description":"The petition asks the court to order a compliant element, rezoning within 120 days and penalties.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/costa-mesa.pdf","source_label":"Court filing"},{"event_date":"2026-09-01","event_type":"Council Adopts Housing Element Amendment 7-0","description":"The amendment adds 95 sites with about 6,996 units of capacity.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/costa-mesa-city-hall-update-for-september-2026-thousands-of-future-housing-units-move-forward-as-r","source_label":"Costa Mesa First"},{"event_date":"2026-09-15","event_type":"Council Caps Fairview at 2,300 Homes","description":"920 of the units are to be affordable. The Planning Commission had backed up to 4,000, and staff had called 3,450 financially feasible.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/costa-mesa-caps-fairview-housing-at-2-300-units-spares-golf-course/","source_label":"Hoodline"},{"event_date":"2026-10-20","event_type":"Council Takes Up Citywide Rezoning Package","description":"Measure K and housing element rezoning covering more than 1,000 properties.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/city-council-meets-tuesday-for-a-hearing-that-could-impact-every-neighborhood-in-the-city","source_label":"Costa Mesa First"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2026-04-07","body":"City Council","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":5,"vote_against":2,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63488/639165396180770000","source_label":"City of Costa Mesa","notes":"Adopted Ordinance 2026-03, housing element rezoning declared exempt from Measure Y."},{"decision_date":"2026-07-16","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/costa-mesa.pdf","source_label":"Court filing","notes":"People ex rel. Bonta and HCD v. City of Costa Mesa, Orange County Superior Court."},{"decision_date":"2026-09-01","body":"City Council","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":7,"vote_against":0,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/costa-mesa-city-hall-update-for-september-2026-thousands-of-future-housing-units-move-forward-as-r","source_label":"Costa Mesa First","notes":"Adopted a housing element amendment adding 95 sites."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"HCD review of Costa Mesa draft housing element","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/oracostamesadraftout120321.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":null,"date_published":"2021-12-03","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"High recount costs cause opponents to back off on Costa Mesa Measure K","url":"https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la/politics/2022/12/13/high-recount-costs-cause-opponents-to-back-off-on-costa-mesa-measure-k","publication":"Spectrum News 1","author":null,"date_published":"2022-12-13","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Notice of Violation to the City of Costa Mesa","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/costa-mesa-he-nov-082225.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":"David Zisser","date_published":"2025-08-22","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Ordinance 2026-03","url":"https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63488/639165396180770000","publication":"City of Costa Mesa","author":null,"date_published":"2026-04-07","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"CP&DR News Briefs, April 14, 2026","url":"https://www.cp-dr.com/post/cp-dr-news-briefs-april-14-2026","publication":"California Planning & Development Report","author":null,"date_published":"2026-04-14","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"In failing to plan for new housing, Costa Mesa finds itself in state's legal crosshairs","url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/costa-mesa-housing-element-lawsuit-california-state-attorney-general-bonta-newsom","publication":"LAist","author":"David Wagner","date_published":"2026-07-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Petition for Writ of Mandate, People ex rel. Bonta and HCD v. City of Costa Mesa","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/costa-mesa.pdf","publication":"California Attorney General","author":null,"date_published":"2026-07-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California Sues Costa Mesa Over Lack of 'Compliant' Housing Plan","url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2026/07/california-sues-costa-mesa-over-lack-of-compliant-housing-plan/","publication":"Voice of OC","author":"Spencer Custodio","date_published":"2026-07-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"City Council meets Tuesday for a hearing that could impact every neighborhood in the city","url":"https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/city-council-meets-tuesday-for-a-hearing-that-could-impact-every-neighborhood-in-the-city","publication":"Costa Mesa First","author":"Cynthia McDonald","date_published":"2026-10-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Costa Mesa's biggest growth decision in years: why Tuesday's vote matters","url":"https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/costa-mesa-s-biggest-growth-decision-in-years-why-tuesday-s-vote-matters","publication":"Costa Mesa First","author":"Cynthia McDonald","date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Costa Mesa housing element","url":"https://www.housingwire.com/articles/costa-mesa-housing-element/","publication":"HousingWire","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Housing Element Update","url":"https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and-divisions/economic-and-development-services/planning/housing-element-update","publication":"City of Costa Mesa","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Costa Mesa caps Fairview housing at 2,300 units, spares golf course","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/costa-mesa-caps-fairview-housing-at-2-300-units-spares-golf-course/","publication":"Hoodline","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Costa Mesa City Hall update for September 2026","url":"https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/costa-mesa-city-hall-update-for-september-2026-thousands-of-future-housing-units-move-forward-as-r","publication":"Costa Mesa First","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Costa Mesa Housing Element and Rezoning, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/costa-mesa-housing-element-2022, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:26:20.09222+00:00"},{"id":22,"slug":"davis-disc-2022","name":"Davis Innovation & Sustainability Campus 2022 (DiSC 2022 / Measure H)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/davis-disc-2022","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/davis-disc-2022/brief","address":"East of Mace Boulevard at Interstate 80, Davis (unincorporated Yolo County), CA 95618","latitude":38.5397,"longitude":-121.7037,"jurisdiction":{"id":3,"slug":"davis-yolo","city":"Davis","county":"Yolo","region":"Sacramento","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/davis-yolo"},"city":"Davis","county":"Yolo","region":"Sacramento","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Withdrawn","units_proposed":460,"units_affordable":74,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2021-07-01","date_approved":"2022-02-01","date_denied":"2022-06-07","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":24,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"A proposed 118-acre mixed-use innovation campus east of Mace Boulevard and north of Interstate 80 in unincorporated Yolo County adjacent to the eastern edge of the City of Davis. Developers: Ramco Enterprises (Dan Ramos) and The Buzz Oates Group (Troy Estacio). The project required annexation of prime agricultural land into the City of Davis — triggering the voter approval requirement of Measure J/R/D (passed 2000, renewed 2010 and 2020). The DiSC 2022 proposal (Measure H) included: approximately 1.1 million square feet of office, laboratory, R&D, and advanced manufacturing space; 460 residential units (at least 74 affordable, primarily for UC Davis employees, faculty, researchers, and graduates); a hotel and conference center; parks, plazas, and community sports fields; and a carbon neutrality commitment by 2040. An earlier version (DISC / Measure B) was put to voters in November 2020 and failed 52-48% by ~1,269 votes. Developers revised the proposal — reducing the site from 187 acres to 118 acres, cutting traffic projections by 55%, and increasing housing and sustainability components — and returned with DiSC 2022. In June 2022, Davis voters rejected Measure H by 63.5% to 36.5% — a wider margin than the first defeat, with approximately 3,000 votes separating YES and NO. Analysts attributed the wider margin partly to a lawsuit filed by Councilmember Dan Carson against opponents' ballot argument language, which generated major backlash. Developers have not returned with a third proposal. The site remains agricultural farmland as of May 2026.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Measure J","full_name":"Voter Approval Requirements (Measure J/R and similar)","invoked_by":"Davis Voters (Measure J, 2000; Measure D, 2020)","date_invoked":"2000-11-07","description":"Measure J/R/D (originally Measure J, 2000; renewed as Measures R in 2010 and D in 2020) requires citywide voter approval before any agricultural or open space land on the periphery of Davis can be annexed for urban development. This mechanism directly killed both versions of the DiSC project: Measure B (Nov 2020, 52-48% NO) and Measure H (June 2022, 63.5-36.5% NO). Unlike CEQA challenges or referendum petitions (which are reactive, filed after approval), Measure J/R/D is proactive — development cannot proceed without voter approval regardless of council support. HCD has cited Measure J/R/D as a constraint on Davis's ability to meet its RHNA obligations. NOTE: this is the only case in the database where a structural voter-approval ordinance — not a CEQA lawsuit or referendum to overturn an approval — was the primary mechanism. The council supported the project both times; the voters rejected it both times.","added_delay_months":96,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2022/06/measure-h-goes-down-to-resounding-loss/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Ramco Enterprises","organization":"Ramco Enterprises","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Co-Developer","stated_arguments":"\"After several years of work, we brought forward a project that we were confident was a great fit for Davis. Measure B's failure represents a missed opportunity for Davis to play a more significant role in helping to address a range of pressing global issues. The need and demand for the type of facilities is not going away because Measure B failed. They'll simply look elsewhere.\" (Dan Ramos, 2020)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.davisvanguard.org/2020/12/analysis-will-the-developers-try-again-with-disc-after-narrow-loss/"},{"name":"Davis Chamber of Commerce","organization":"Davis Chamber of Commerce","actor_type":"Trade Association","stance":"support","role":"Business Association / Yes Campaign Backer","stated_arguments":"\"DiSC 2022 will provide huge economic and community benefits to Davis. We're excited to support it, and we're fully committed to helping educate our members, residents and voters about why it's so important to move the plan forward.\" (Cory Koehler, Executive Director)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.davischamber.com/disc-2022.html"},{"name":"Alan Pryor","organization":"No on Measure B / No on Measure H","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"No Campaign Lead / Environmental Advocate","stated_arguments":"\"This was a very car-centric, auto-dependent, freeway-dependent project. They projected there were going to be 24,000 auto trips a day resulting from that project.\" (No on Measure B, 2020). On traffic: the city's own EIR projected 12,000 additional car trips per day to Mace Boulevard — \"an already hopelessly congested\" corridor during rush hours.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://theaggie.org/2021/01/11/davis-measure-b-failed-by-1269-votes-last-november"},{"name":"Dan Carson","organization":"City of Davis City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"support","role":"City Councilmember / Yes on H Campaigner","stated_arguments":"Led the city council majority supporting both proposals. Filed a lawsuit against No on H ballot argument language he considered false and misleading. The lawsuit succeeded in minor changes but triggered significant community backlash. Former Mayor Ann Evans: \"Dan Carson has set a low bar for conduct of an elected official in Davis.\" Most analysts believe the lawsuit contributed to the wider margin of defeat in 2022.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2022/06/measure-h-goes-down-to-resounding-loss/"},{"name":"Davis Voters / Electorate","organization":"City of Davis Registered Voters","actor_type":"Electorate","stance":"oppose","role":"Democratic Decision-Maker (via Measure J/R/D)","stated_arguments":"Rejected the project twice: Measure B (Nov 2020): ~52% NO. Measure H (June 2022): 63.5% NO. Davis voters also renewed Measure J/R/D in 2020 by 83% on the same ballot as the first DISC defeat, signaling the growth control mechanism itself has overwhelming support independent of any individual project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2022/06/measure-h-goes-down-to-resounding-loss/"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"State Enforcement Agency / Growth Control Challenger","stated_arguments":"HCD has required the City of Davis to amend Measure J/R/D to exempt affordable housing from the voter approval requirement, citing the city's inability to meet its RHNA obligations. Davis's 2021 Housing Element explicitly acknowledged the need to amend Measure J/R/D. As of May 2026, Davis is considering placing a Measure J/R/D amendment on the June 2026 ballot.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/04/measure-j-housing-risk/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2000-11-07","event_type":"Measure J Passed — Voter Approval Required for Peripheral Development","description":"Davis voters pass Measure J — the \"Citizens' Right to Vote on Future Use of Open Space and Agricultural Lands\" — establishing a requirement that any annexation of agricultural or open space land at the edge of Davis for urban development must receive citywide voter approval. This mechanism creates the structure that will ultimately kill DiSC twice.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2025/05/davis-measure-j-housing-constraints/","source_label":"Davis Vanguard"},{"event_date":"2014-01-01","event_type":"City Issues Request for Innovation Park Expressions of Interest","description":"The City of Davis issues a Request for Expressions of Interest for a private-sector innovation park. Three firms respond; two eventually drop out. The Ramco/Buzz Oates consortium begins planning what will become DISC.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisite.org/2020/10/17/lwv-davis-area-pros-and-cons-for-measure-b/","source_label":"Davisite"},{"event_date":"2020-11-03","event_type":"Measure B Fails — DISC Rejected First Time (52-48%)","description":"Davis voters reject Measure B — the first version of the Davis Innovation & Sustainability Campus — by approximately 52-48%, a margin of ~1,269 votes. The 2020 proposal was for 187 acres east of Mace Boulevard. Opponents focused on traffic on Mace Boulevard and the car-dependence of the campus design. Note: many UC Davis students were absent from Davis during COVID, suppressing turnout among the demographic most supportive of the project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://theaggie.org/2021/01/11/davis-measure-b-failed-by-1269-votes-last-november","source_label":"The Aggie"},{"event_date":"2020-11-03","event_type":"Measure D Passes — Measure J/R/D Renewed for Another Decade (83-17%)","description":"On the same ballot as the DISC defeat, Davis voters renew Measure J/R/D for another decade by an 83-17% margin. This decisive vote to keep the voter-approval requirement signals that the growth control mechanism itself has overwhelming support independent of any individual project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2020/11/analysis-not-a-huge-amount-of-surprises-locally/","source_label":"Davis Vanguard"},{"event_date":"2021-07-01","event_type":"Developers Return With DiSC 2022 — Revised, Smaller, More Housing","description":"Ramco Enterprises and Buzz Oates (without Reynolds & Brown, who withdrew) submit a revised application. DiSC 2022 is reduced from 187 acres to 118 acres, traffic is cut by 55%, housing is increased to 460 units (74+ affordable), and a carbon neutrality target of 2040 is added. The developers believe the improvements will address the concerns that killed Measure B.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/slimmed-down-disc-proposal-likely-headed-back-to-ballot/","source_label":"Davis Enterprise"},{"event_date":"2022-02-01","event_type":"City Council Approves DiSC 2022 and Places Measure H on June Ballot","description":"The Davis City Council approves the DiSC 2022 proposal and votes to place it on the June 7, 2022 primary ballot as Measure H. Councilmember Dan Carson and Mayor Gloria Partida lead the council majority in support.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2022/02/davis-city-council-votes-to-include-disc-2022-on-june-ballot-public-expresses-support/","source_label":"Davis Vanguard"},{"event_date":"2022-04-01","event_type":"Councilmember Carson Files Lawsuit Against No on H Ballot Language","description":"Councilmember Dan Carson files a writ petition in Yolo Superior Court seeking changes to the ballot argument submitted by the No on H campaign, arguing certain statements are false or misleading. A judge orders two minor changes but leaves the bulk of opponents' arguments intact. Former Davis Mayor Ann Evans writes: \"Dan Carson has set a low bar for conduct of an elected official in Davis.\" Analysts credit the lawsuit as a significant factor in the 2022 defeat being wider than 2020.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://theaggie.org/2022/04/15/lawsuit-filed-to-change-misleading-ballot-statements-written-by-opponents-of-the-disc-2022-development-project/","source_label":"The Aggie"},{"event_date":"2022-06-07","event_type":"Measure H Fails — DiSC 2022 Rejected 63.5-36.5%","description":"Davis voters reject Measure H — DiSC 2022 — by 63.5% to 36.5%. Out of approximately 11,166 votes cast, the NO margin is approximately 3,000 votes. The defeat is significantly worse than the 2020 result despite a smaller project and more housing. The Davis Vanguard: \"Despite being a smaller project with a seemingly more favorable environment than in 2020, DiSC has apparently gone down to an overwhelming loss.\" Analysts attribute the worse result partly to backlash from Carson's ballot argument lawsuit and partly to the Yes campaign's messaging.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2022/06/measure-h-goes-down-to-resounding-loss/","source_label":"Davis Vanguard"},{"event_date":"2024-01-01","event_type":"Developers Do Not Return — Project Definitively Dead","description":"After the 63.5-36.5% defeat of Measure H in June 2022, Ramco Enterprises and Buzz Oates do not submit a third application for the Mace Boulevard/I-80 site. The site remains in agricultural production. The 460 housing units DiSC 2022 would have contributed to Davis's housing stock were never built. Davis begins preliminary discussions about amending Measure J/R/D, prompted by HCD pressure.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2022/08/my-view-the-recent-history-of-housing-in-davis-is-not-all-that-robust/","source_label":"Davis Vanguard"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Davis Measure B Failed by 1269 Votes Last November","url":"https://theaggie.org/2021/01/11/davis-measure-b-failed-by-1269-votes-last-november","publication":"The Aggie (UC Davis)","author":null,"date_published":"2021-01-11","notes":"Post-election analysis of Measure B (2020) defeat. Confirms ~52-48% result. Contains Alan Pryor quote on car trips. Good source for 2020 context."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Slimmed-Down DISC Proposal Likely Headed Back to Ballot","url":"https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/slimmed-down-disc-proposal-likely-headed-back-to-ballot/","publication":"Davis Enterprise","author":null,"date_published":"2021-07-09","notes":"Coverage of Ramco/Buzz Oates 2021 resubmission. Confirms Reynolds & Brown dropped out. Contains Dan Ramos quote. Best source for explaining changes between 2020 and 2022 proposals."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Lawsuit Filed to Change Misleading Ballot Statements Written by Opponents of DiSC 2022","url":"https://theaggie.org/2022/04/15/lawsuit-filed-to-change-misleading-ballot-statements-written-by-opponents-of-the-disc-2022-development-project/","publication":"The Aggie","author":null,"date_published":"2022-04-15","notes":"Coverage of Carson's ballot argument lawsuit. Confirms judge ordered two changes, left bulk of No arguments intact. Best source for the lawsuit controversy."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Yolo County Elections: Measure H Results (June 7, 2022)","url":"https://electionstats.elections.yolocounty.gov/contest/69","publication":"Yolo County Elections","author":null,"date_published":"2022-06-07","notes":"Official results page for Measure H, June 7, 2022 Primary Election. Primary government source for confirming final vote totals."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Measure H Goes Down to Resounding Loss","url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2022/06/measure-h-goes-down-to-resounding-loss/","publication":"Davis Vanguard","author":"David Greenwald","date_published":"2022-06-08","notes":"Night-of reporting on the Measure H defeat. Confirms 63.5% NO, 36.5% YES, ~3,000 vote margin, ~11,166 votes cast. Best primary source for final vote count and developer/council reaction."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"My View: The Recent History of Housing in Davis Is Not All That Robust","url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2022/08/my-view-the-recent-history-of-housing-in-davis-is-not-all-that-robust/","publication":"Davis Vanguard","author":null,"date_published":"2022-08-21","notes":"Best post-mortem on Davis housing production failures including DiSC. Contains \"zero units of housing have materialized from Measure J/R/D projects\" as of 2022."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Analysis: What Happens If We Don't Build the Housing","url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/04/measure-j-housing-risk/","publication":"Davis Vanguard","author":null,"date_published":"2026-04-27","notes":"April 2026 analysis of Davis housing situation. Confirms DiSC site remains farmland. Best source for current status and state pressure on Davis to amend its growth control ordinance."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Davis Innovation & Sustainability Campus 2022 (DiSC 2022 / Measure H), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/davis-disc-2022, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-05-29T05:16:42.705098+00:00"},{"id":1,"slug":"san-rafael-dominican-valley-2024","name":"Dominican Valley Development","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/san-rafael-dominican-valley-2024","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/san-rafael-dominican-valley-2024/brief","address":"19-acre site adjacent to Dominican University of California, San Rafael, CA","latitude":37.9758,"longitude":-122.5066,"jurisdiction":{"id":1,"slug":"san-rafael-marin","city":"San Rafael","county":"Marin","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/san-rafael-marin"},"city":"San Rafael","county":"Marin","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed Residential","status":"Disputed","units_proposed":64,"units_affordable":14,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2024-10-08","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":19,"cost_of_delay_usd":1000000,"data_quality":2,"description":"Proposed 64-home development on a 19-acre parcel adjacent to Dominican University of California, consisting of 27 single-family houses, 17 townhomes, 6 duplex dwellings, and 14 junior accessory dwelling units deed-restricted for low-income households. The property was purchased from Dominican University. The developer is using the state Builder's Remedy provision, qualifying via the 14 deed-restricted ADUs satisfying the 20% affordability requirement.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"Dominican Valley LLC","date_invoked":"2024-10-08","description":"Developer invoked the state Builder's Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, qualifying via the 14 deed-restricted ADUs meeting the 20% affordability requirement. City has declined to confirm whether it accepts the project's Builder's Remedy status.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/17/san-rafael-housing-developer-pressures-city-for-approval/"},{"short_name":"Height Limit","full_name":"Height and Density Limits","invoked_by":"City of San Rafael","date_invoked":"2025-07-02","description":"City asserted inconsistency with general plan height and density standards as part of its inconsistency determination, after having previously deemed the project consistent.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/17/san-rafael-housing-developer-pressures-city-for-approval/"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"City of San Rafael","date_invoked":"2025-09-15","description":"City required preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report and directed the developer to pay $742,000 in advance. Developer asserts the project qualifies for ministerial approval and is therefore exempt from CEQA review under state housing law.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":742000,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/17/san-rafael-housing-developer-pressures-city-for-approval/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Dominican Valley LLC","organization":"Dominican Valley LLC","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Project applicant","stated_arguments":"Project was automatically \"deemed\" legally consistent on Nov. 7, 2024, 30 days after the city determined the application was complete. Project qualifies for Builder's Remedy via 14 deed-restricted affordable ADUs. Project also qualifies for ministerial approval because the site was designated for residential use in San Rafael's previous two housing elements, triggering by-right approval under state law for projects with at least 20% affordable units.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/17/san-rafael-housing-developer-pressures-city-for-approval/"},{"name":"Brian O'Neill","organization":null,"actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Legal representation; authored 11-page demand letter","stated_arguments":"City must \"immediately cease its course of conduct and approve this deemed consistent project ministerially as required by law.\" Threatened that the applicant \"will have no choice but to bring legal action to ensure compliance\" if the city does not approve. Argued that the EIR requirement is being used pretextually based on the city's \"initially identified inconsistencies with city policies.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/17/san-rafael-housing-developer-pressures-city-for-approval/"},{"name":"City of San Rafael","organization":"City of San Rafael","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Project review and approval authority","stated_arguments":"Project is inconsistent with the city's general plan height and density standards, as well as its hillside development standards. A full Environmental Impact Report under CEQA is required. Developer must pay over $742,000 in advance to cover EIR costs. City has declined to state whether the project qualifies for the Builder's Remedy.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/17/san-rafael-housing-developer-pressures-city-for-approval/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2024-10-08","event_type":"Application Filed","description":"Developer Dominican Valley LLC submitted application for 64-home mixed residential project to the City of San Rafael. (Date inferred from \"30 days before Nov 7, 2024\" — verify against city records.)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/17/san-rafael-housing-developer-pressures-city-for-approval/","source_label":"Press Democrat / Marin Independent Journal, May 17, 2026"},{"event_date":"2024-11-07","event_type":"Deemed Consistent","description":"Project automatically deemed legally consistent with city standards, 30 days after the city determined the application was complete. Triggered by operation of state housing law.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/17/san-rafael-housing-developer-pressures-city-for-approval/","source_label":"Press Democrat / Marin Independent Journal, May 17, 2026"},{"event_date":"2025-07-02","event_type":"City Reverses Position","description":"City of San Rafael issued an inconsistency determination, reversing its earlier acknowledgment that the project was deemed consistent. Cited inconsistency with general plan height/density standards and hillside development standards.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/17/san-rafael-housing-developer-pressures-city-for-approval/","source_label":"Press Democrat / Marin Independent Journal, May 17, 2026"},{"event_date":"2025-09-15","event_type":"EIR Demanded","description":"City directed Dominican Valley LLC to pay more than $742,000 in advance to cover the cost of an Environmental Impact Report to be conducted by Environmental Science Associates. Developer has not paid.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/17/san-rafael-housing-developer-pressures-city-for-approval/","source_label":"Press Democrat / Marin Independent Journal, May 17, 2026"},{"event_date":"2026-04-15","event_type":"Demand Letter","description":"Developer's attorney Brian O'Neill sent an 11-page letter to the city demanding immediate ministerial approval and threatening legal action. Letter cited nearly $1 million in delay fees caused by city's actions.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/17/san-rafael-housing-developer-pressures-city-for-approval/","source_label":"Press Democrat / Marin Independent Journal, May 17, 2026"},{"event_date":"2026-05-17","event_type":"Press Coverage","description":"Press Democrat publishes detailed account of the standoff, raising public visibility of the dispute. Status as of publication: unresolved, with developer threatening litigation.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/17/san-rafael-housing-developer-pressures-city-for-approval/","source_label":"Press Democrat / Marin Independent Journal"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"San Rafael housing developer pressures city for approval","url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/05/17/san-rafael-housing-developer-pressures-city-for-approval/","publication":"Press Democrat / Marin Independent Journal","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-17","notes":"Primary documented source for the dispute as of May 2026. Includes quoted statements from developer's attorney and city's stated objections. Author: not captured here — add when verified."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Dominican Valley Development, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/san-rafael-dominican-valley-2024, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-05-20T17:12:39.006833+00:00"},{"id":33,"slug":"livermore-eden-housing-2022","name":"Downtown Livermore Apartments (Eden Housing)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/livermore-eden-housing-2022","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/livermore-eden-housing-2022/brief","address":"Railroad Avenue & South L Street, Livermore, CA 94550","latitude":37.6821,"longitude":-121.768,"jurisdiction":{"id":32,"slug":"livermore-alameda","city":"Livermore","county":"Alameda","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/livermore-alameda"},"city":"Livermore","county":"Alameda","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Under Construction","units_proposed":130,"units_affordable":130,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":4,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2021-01-01","date_approved":"2021-05-25","date_denied":null,"date_construction":"2026-05-18","date_completed":"2028-10-01","delay_months":48,"cost_of_delay_usd":68000000,"data_quality":4,"description":"Downtown Livermore Apartments is a 130-unit affordable housing development by the nonprofit Eden Housing, Inc. at the southeast corner of Railroad Avenue and L Street in downtown Livermore, on a parcel the city acquired in 2008 with affordable housing funds. The plan is two four-story buildings with one- to three-bedroom apartments for households earning 20 to 60 percent of the Alameda County area median income. The City Council approved the project unanimously on May 25, 2021, finding that it complied with the state density bonus law, CEQA and the Housing Accountability Act. Save Livermore Downtown sued in June 2021. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch required the group to post a $500,000 bond to cover Eden's delay costs and denied its petition on Feb. 4, 2022; Eden said the delay required it to return a $68 million award of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed on Dec. 28, 2022, and the California Supreme Court denied review on April 19, 2023. A second group, Move Eden Housing, submitted a referendum petition on July 8, 2022 against the council's May 24, 2022 resolution approving an amended agreement with Eden that included work on Veterans Park, and the city clerk refused to process it. On March 6, 2024 the Court of Appeal ordered the city to process the petition and reversed a $500,000 bond the trial court had required of the group. On June 24, 2024 the council repealed the 2022 resolution and readopted the agreement without the park. Judge Michael Markman ruled in November 2024 that the readoption was premature under the Elections Code; the council readopted the agreement again by a 4-1 vote on July 28, 2025, and on Oct. 7, 2025 the Court of Appeal reversed Markman. The California Supreme Court denied Move Eden Housing's petition for review on Jan. 14, 2026. Eden broke ground on May 18, 2026, and the project is expected to be finished by October 2028. On July 31, 2026 Markman denied Move Eden Housing's request for $779,623 in attorneys' fees from the city and Eden.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Save Livermore Downtown","date_invoked":"2021-01-01","description":"Save Livermore Downtown filed a CEQA lawsuit challenging the city's CEQA exemption under Government Code section 65457 and alleging the project was inconsistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. The trial court required SLD to post a $500,000 bond for Eden Housing's delay costs and denied the petition on Feb. 4, 2022. On Dec. 28, 2022 the First District Court of Appeal affirmed, saying the weakness of the claims \"further supports the trial court's finding\" that SLD sued to delay the project, and the California Supreme Court denied review on April 19, 2023. Eden Housing said the delay required it to return a $68 million Low-Income Housing Tax Credit award.","added_delay_months":48,"added_cost_usd":68000000,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2022/03/01/livermore-both-sides-react-to-recent-ruling-in-eden-housing-lawsuit/"},{"short_name":"Measure J","full_name":"Voter Approval Requirements (Measure J/R and similar)","invoked_by":"Move Eden Housing","date_invoked":"2022-07-01","description":"Move Eden Housing organized a referendum petition (8,000+ signatures) to force a popular vote and filed a lawsuit when the City Clerk declined to process it. The referendum petition added legal uncertainty and delay to an already-litigated project. On March 6, 2024 the Court of Appeal ruled that the city had to process the referendum petition. The council then readopted the agreement without the park, and on Oct. 7, 2025 the Court of Appeal upheld that readoption, reversing a November 2024 trial court ruling for the group. The California Supreme Court denied review on Jan. 14, 2026, and on July 31, 2026 the trial court denied the group's request for $779,623 in attorneys' fees. This parallel litigation track contributed to the overall 4-year delay.","added_delay_months":12,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://patch.com/california/livermore/livermore-sued-over-eden-referendum-refusal"}],"actors":[{"name":"Rob Bonta","organization":"California Attorney General's Office","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"California Attorney General / Amicus Curiae","stated_arguments":"\"Timing is critical for affordable housing projects, which often rely on time-sensitive funding sources like tax credits to finance development. CEQA plays a critical role in protecting the environment and public health. We won't stand by when it is used to thwart new development, rather than to protect Californians and our environment.\" (August 9, 2022 amicus brief press release)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-urges-court-expedite-review-ceqa-lawsuit-jeopardizing-new"},{"name":"YIMBY Law","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Pro-Housing Legal Advocates","stated_arguments":"Filed a request for publication of the Court of Appeal opinion in the Save Livermore Downtown case (January 2023), helping make the ruling binding precedent statewide. By requesting publication, YIMBY Law helped ensure the ruling would protect future affordable housing projects from similar CEQA delay tactics.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.calcities.org/home/post/2023/02/01/livermore-ruling-helps-protect-projects-from-meritless-ceqa-lawsuits"},{"name":"Save Livermore Downtown","organization":"Save Livermore Downtown (SLD)","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"CEQA Plaintiff / Primary Litigant","stated_arguments":"\"Save Livermore Downtown is frustrated by the Court of Appeal's opinion denying our challenges to the city's unlawful approval of the proposed Eden Housing project in downtown Livermore.\" (Jean King, January 2023). The project does not comply with design and density standards in the Downtown Specific Plan. The city improperly rushed through approval. About 60% of Livermore voters oppose this location per an SLD-commissioned poll.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.independentnews.com/news/livermore_news/california-s-first-district-court-of-appeal-rejects-save-livermore-downtowns-appeal-of-design-and/article_3eaa145c-8c4e-11ed-b64c-f3a018c79472.html"},{"name":"Move Eden Housing","organization":"Move Eden Housing (MEH)","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Referendum Organizer / Secondary Litigant","stated_arguments":"The downtown corner should be a public park. Collected 8,000+ signatures to force a popular vote. The city's action in approving the property sale was legislative, not administrative, and subject to referendum. Filed multiple lawsuits. California Supreme Court petition denied January 2026.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://patch.com/california/livermore/livermore-sued-over-eden-referendum-refusal"},{"name":"Ben Barrientos","organization":"Livermore City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Council member; cast the only no vote on July 28, 2025","stated_arguments":"Suggested building a park on the site instead of the housing project and said he would vote against the resolution on principle.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/city-politics/2025/07/30/ratify-reaffirm-readopt-livermore-council-again-endorses-eden-housing-project-provisions/"},{"name":"Kristie Wang","organization":"Livermore City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"support","role":"Council member; voted to readopt the agreement on July 28, 2025","stated_arguments":"\"We needed the 130 units of affordable housing seven years ago. We just can't wait any more.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/city-politics/2025/07/30/ratify-reaffirm-readopt-livermore-council-again-endorses-eden-housing-project-provisions/"},{"name":"Judge Frank Roesch","organization":"Alameda County Superior Court","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Alameda County Superior Court judge in the Save Livermore Downtown case","stated_arguments":"Granted Eden Housing's request for a $500,000 bond on Sept. 27, 2021 and denied the group's petition on Feb. 4, 2022, saying its CEQA arguments were \"almost utterly without merit.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2022/03/01/livermore-both-sides-react-to-recent-ruling-in-eden-housing-lawsuit/"},{"name":"Judge Michael Markman","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Alameda County Superior Court judge in the Move Eden Housing cases","stated_arguments":"Ordered the group to post a $500,000 bond in October 2022 (reversed in March 2024), ruled in November 2024 that the June 2024 readoption was premature (reversed in October 2025), and on July 31, 2026 denied the group's fee motion: \"won the proverbial battle but lost the war.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/courts/2026/08/13/opponents-of-eden-housing-in-livermore-lose-bid-for-reimbursement-of-775000-in-attorneys-fees/"},{"name":"City of Livermore","organization":"City of Livermore","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"support","role":"Approving Authority / Land Owner (Unanimous 5-0)","stated_arguments":"Voted unanimously to approve on May 25, 2021. Mayor Bob Woerner said voting no \"would be an absolutely irresponsible risk.\" Councilmember Branning: \"It's unfortunate what the delays cost in terms of people not having a place to live.\" Defended the project at every legal stage.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/housing/2026/05/19/parking-lot-to-housing-ground-breaks-on-long-awaited-downtown-livermore-apartments/"},{"name":"Eden Housing, Inc.","organization":"Eden Housing, Inc.","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / Nonprofit Applicant","stated_arguments":"\"While we at Eden are pleased with the court's decision, we would vastly have preferred to be proceeding with the construction of this development in 2022. The delays created by this action required Eden to return a $68 million award of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.\" (Linda Mandolini, Feb 2022). \"When complete, Downtown Livermore Apartments will offer 130 low-income families the stability of a permanent, affordable home.\" (May 2026 groundbreaking)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2022/03/01/livermore-both-sides-react-to-recent-ruling-in-eden-housing-lawsuit/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2008-01-01","event_type":"City Purchases Downtown Site for Affordable Housing","description":"The City of Livermore purchases the former Lucky California grocery store site at Railroad Avenue and L Street in downtown Livermore, with the explicit intent to develop affordable housing. Nearly two decades will pass before groundbreaking.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/community-development/downtown/eden-housing-downtown","source_label":"City of Livermore"},{"event_date":"2021-05-25","event_type":"City Council Unanimously Approves Project (5-0)","description":"The Livermore City Council votes 5-0 to approve the Eden Housing project under the Density Bonus Law and a CEQA exemption (Government Code section 65457). Mayor Woerner warns a no vote would be an absolutely irresponsible risk. Vice Mayor Munro: \"I'm simply being asked to confirm Eden Housing has met the conditions to build.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://patch.com/california/livermore/livermore-sued-over-eden-housing-low-income-project","source_label":"Patch"},{"event_date":"2021-06-01","event_type":"Save Livermore Downtown Files Initial CEQA Lawsuit","description":"Save Livermore Downtown files a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court challenging the city's approval of the Eden Housing project, arguing the city improperly rushed through approval without regard to inconsistencies with the Downtown Specific Plan.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://patch.com/california/livermore/livermore-sued-over-eden-housing-low-income-project","source_label":"Patch"},{"event_date":"2022-02-04","event_type":"Trial Court Denies Save Livermore Downtown Petition","description":"On Feb. 4, 2022, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch denies Save Livermore Downtown's petition, saying its CEQA arguments were \"almost utterly without merit.\" On Sept. 27, 2021 he had granted Eden Housing's request for a $500,000 bond from the group to cover \"costs and damages incurred as a result of the affordable housing project's delay.\" SLD appeals. Eden Housing CEO Linda Mandolini: \"The delays created by this action required Eden to return a $68 million award of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2022/03/01/livermore-both-sides-react-to-recent-ruling-in-eden-housing-lawsuit/","source_label":"Pleasanton Weekly"},{"event_date":"2022-07-08","event_type":"Move Eden Housing Collects 8,000+ Signatures for Referendum","description":"Move Eden Housing submits a petition with over 8,000 signatures seeking a referendum to put the project to a public vote. City Clerk Marie Weber denies the referendum petition on grounds the city's action was administrative, not legislative, and therefore not subject to referendum.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://patch.com/california/livermore/livermore-sued-over-eden-referendum-refusal","source_label":"Patch"},{"event_date":"2022-08-09","event_type":"AG Bonta Files Amicus Brief — Warns of Tax Credit Threat","description":"California Attorney General Rob Bonta files an amicus brief urging the Court of Appeal to expedite review because the ongoing litigation is threatening Eden Housing's ability to retain its tax credit financing. \"Timing is critical for affordable housing projects, which often rely on time-sensitive funding sources like tax credits.\" The AG notes the trial court found the lawsuit was brought for delay. The $68M tax credit award had already been returned by this point.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-urges-court-expedite-review-ceqa-lawsuit-jeopardizing-new","source_label":"CA Attorney General"},{"event_date":"2022-09-07","event_type":"Eden Housing Closes Escrow on Downtown Site","description":"Eden Housing closes escrow on the 38,000 sq ft property at Railroad Avenue and L Street. Mayor Woerner presents Eden Housing representatives with framed copies of the grant deed at a ceremony. The site remains a parking lot pending resolution of the lawsuits.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://patch.com/california/livermore/livermore-officials-three-new-downtown-properties","source_label":"Patch"},{"event_date":"2022-12-28","event_type":"Court of Appeal Rejects Save Livermore Downtown Appeal","description":"On Dec. 28, 2022, the First District Court of Appeal issues its opinion in Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore (Case No. A164987; 87 Cal.App.5th 1116) upholding the approval and CEQA exemption. The court finds SLD's claims lack merit \"so much so that the inherent weakness of these claims further supports the trial court's finding that [SLD] brought this action to delay the project.\" In January 2023 the court certified the opinion for publication at the request of the city, Eden Housing, Attorney General Rob Bonta and others.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.calcities.org/home/post/2023/02/01/livermore-ruling-helps-protect-projects-from-meritless-ceqa-lawsuits","source_label":"Cal Cities"},{"event_date":"2023-04-19","event_type":"California Supreme Court Denies SLD Petition","description":"The California Supreme Court declines to hear Save Livermore Downtown's petition for review. Former mayor Bob Woerner says SLD's $500,000 bond \"can now be paid to Eden Housing as partial compensation.\" This ends SLD's litigation. However, Move Eden Housing continues its separate referendum lawsuit.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.landusedevelopments.com/2023/01/court-rejects-meritless-challenge-to-livermore-affordable-housing-project/","source_label":"Land Use Developments"},{"event_date":"2024-03-06","event_type":"Court Orders City To Process Referendum Petition","description":"On March 6, 2024, in Move Eden Housing v. City of Livermore (A167346), the First District Court of Appeal rules that the 2022 resolution was a legislative act subject to referendum, orders the city to process the petition, and reverses the $500,000 bond the trial court had required of the group. On June 24, 2024 the council repeals the 2022 resolution and readopts the agreement without the Veterans Park provisions.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.jdsupra.com/authors/andrew-skanchy1/housing-developers","source_label":"JD Supra"},{"event_date":"2025-07-28","event_type":"Council Readopts Agreement Again, 4-1","description":"After a trial court ruled that the June 2024 readoption was premature under the Elections Code, the council votes 4-1 to ratify, reaffirm and readopt the agreement without the Veterans Park work. Ben Barrientos votes no and suggests a park instead.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/city-politics/2025/07/30/ratify-reaffirm-readopt-livermore-council-again-endorses-eden-housing-project-provisions/","source_label":"Pleasanton Weekly"},{"event_date":"2025-10-07","event_type":"Court of Appeal Upholds Readoption Without Park","description":"In a second Move Eden Housing v. City of Livermore decision, the First District Court of Appeal reverses the trial court, holding that Elections Code section 9241 did not bar the 2024 resolution because it involved only administrative acts.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calawyers.org/real-property-law/california-case-summary-update-november-2025-real-property-case-summaries/","source_label":"California Lawyers Association"},{"event_date":"2026-01-14","event_type":"California Supreme Court Denies Move Eden Housing Petition","description":"The California Supreme Court declines to hear Move Eden Housing's final petition for review. The group's Nov. 17, 2025 petition sought review of the Court of Appeal's ruling that the city could readopt the agreement without the park. Eden Housing CEO Linda Mandolini: \"We are encouraged by the Court's decision and the numerous published opinions confirming our right to build this housing.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.livermorevine.com/courts/2026/01/20/state-supreme-court-rejects-livermore-citizen-groups-petition-to-review-eden-housing-appeal/","source_label":"Livermore Vine"},{"event_date":"2026-05-18","event_type":"Ground Broken on Downtown Livermore Apartments","description":"Eden Housing and the City of Livermore hold a groundbreaking ceremony for the Downtown Livermore Apartments. Attendees include Mayor John Marchand, representatives for Senator Jerry McNerney, Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, CA Treasurer Fiona Ma, and HCD officials. Expected completion: October 2028. \"Nearly two decades since the city of Livermore first purchased a parcel of land near the heart of its downtown with plans to build affordable housing, excavation has finally begun.\" (Pleasanton Weekly)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/housing/2026/05/19/parking-lot-to-housing-ground-breaks-on-long-awaited-downtown-livermore-apartments/","source_label":"Pleasanton Weekly"},{"event_date":"2026-07-31","event_type":"Judge Denies Opponents' Fee Request","description":"Judge Michael Markman denies Move Eden Housing's motion for $779,623 in attorneys' fees from the city, former city clerk Marie Weber and Eden Housing, writing that the petitioners \"won the proverbial battle but lost the war.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/courts/2026/08/13/opponents-of-eden-housing-in-livermore-lose-bid-for-reimbursement-of-775000-in-attorneys-fees/","source_label":"Pleasanton Weekly"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2021-05-25","body":"City Council","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":5,"vote_against":0,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2021/05/25/livermore-council-approves-affordable-housing-development-in-downtown","source_label":"Pleasanton Weekly","notes":"Unanimous approval of the 130-unit project after a hearing that began May 24, 2021, with findings under the density bonus law, CEQA and the Housing Accountability Act."},{"decision_date":"2022-02-04","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2022/03/01/livermore-both-sides-react-to-recent-ruling-in-eden-housing-lawsuit/","source_label":"Pleasanton Weekly","notes":"Judge Frank Roesch denied Save Livermore Downtown's petition in Alameda County Superior Court."},{"decision_date":"2022-12-28","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.independentnews.com/news/livermore_news/california-s-first-district-court-of-appeal-rejects-save-livermore-downtowns-appeal-of-design-and/article_3eaa145c-8c4e-11ed-b64c-f3a018c79472.html","source_label":"The Independent","notes":"First District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Save Livermore Downtown's petition and upheld the $500,000 bond (A164987)."},{"decision_date":"2023-04-19","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.allenmatkins.com/real-ideas/california-supreme-court-denies-petition-for-review-of-save-livermore-downtown-v-city-of-livermore.html","source_label":"Allen Matkins","notes":"California Supreme Court denied Save Livermore Downtown's petition for review."},{"decision_date":"2024-03-06","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/115938171.html","source_label":"Court of Appeal opinion","notes":"Move Eden Housing v. City of Livermore (A167346): the city must process the referendum petition; the $500,000 undertaking order was reversed."},{"decision_date":"2024-06-24","body":"City Council","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/city-politics/2025/07/30/ratify-reaffirm-readopt-livermore-council-again-endorses-eden-housing-project-provisions/","source_label":"Pleasanton Weekly","notes":"Accepted the referendum petition's certification, repealed the 2022 resolution and readopted the agreement without the Veterans Park work."},{"decision_date":"2025-07-28","body":"City Council","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":4,"vote_against":1,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/city-politics/2025/07/30/ratify-reaffirm-readopt-livermore-council-again-endorses-eden-housing-project-provisions/","source_label":"Pleasanton Weekly","notes":"Ratified, reaffirmed and readopted the amended and restated agreement, excluding Veterans Park. Ben Barrientos voted no."},{"decision_date":"2025-10-07","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://calawyers.org/real-property-law/california-case-summary-update-november-2025-real-property-case-summaries/","source_label":"California Lawyers Association","notes":"First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's November 2024 ruling that the 2024 readoption violated Elections Code section 9241."},{"decision_date":"2026-01-14","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.livermorevine.com/courts/2026/01/20/state-supreme-court-rejects-livermore-citizen-groups-petition-to-review-eden-housing-appeal/","source_label":"Livermore Vine","notes":"California Supreme Court denied Move Eden Housing's petition for review."},{"decision_date":"2026-07-31","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/courts/2026/08/13/opponents-of-eden-housing-in-livermore-lose-bid-for-reimbursement-of-775000-in-attorneys-fees/","source_label":"Pleasanton Weekly","notes":"Judge Michael Markman denied Move Eden Housing's motion for $779,623 in attorneys' fees."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Livermore council approves affordable housing development in downtown","url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2021/05/25/livermore-council-approves-affordable-housing-development-in-downtown","publication":"Pleasanton Weekly","author":"Cierra Bailey","date_published":"2021-05-25","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Livermore: Both Sides React to Recent Ruling in Eden Housing Lawsuit","url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2022/03/01/livermore-both-sides-react-to-recent-ruling-in-eden-housing-lawsuit/","publication":"Pleasanton Weekly","author":null,"date_published":"2022-03-01","notes":"Primary source for Linda Mandolini's $68 million tax credit statement — the most important quote in this entry. Essential."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Attorney General Bonta Urges Court to Expedite Review of CEQA Lawsuit Jeopardizing New Affordable Housing Project in Livermore","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-urges-court-expedite-review-ceqa-lawsuit-jeopardizing-new","publication":"California Attorney General","author":null,"date_published":"2022-08-09","notes":"AG amicus brief press release. Primary source for Bonta's statement on tax credit timing and CEQA abuse. Confirms trial court imposed $500,000 bond."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Livermore: Move Eden Housing ordered to post $500,000 bond amid lawsuit","url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2022/10/19/livermore-move-eden-housing-ordered-to-post-500000-bond-amid-lawsuit/","publication":"Pleasanton Weekly","author":"Cierra Bailey","date_published":"2022-10-19","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Livermore Ruling Helps Protect Projects from Meritless CEQA Lawsuits","url":"https://www.calcities.org/home/post/2023/02/01/livermore-ruling-helps-protect-projects-from-meritless-ceqa-lawsuits","publication":"League of California Cities","author":null,"date_published":"2023-02-01","notes":"Best source for explaining the published opinion's significance as binding precedent. Confirms YIMBY Law, AG, and CBIA requested publication."},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore (87 Cal.App.5th 1116) — CEQA Bond Analysis","url":"https://www.ceqachronicles.com/2023/02/petitioner-required-to-post-bond-for-costs-incurred-as-a-result-of-delay-in-carrying-out-affordable-housing-project-in-livermore/","publication":"CEQA Chronicles","author":null,"date_published":"2023-02-01","notes":"Best legal analysis of the Court of Appeal opinion and the $500,000 bond ruling under Code of Civil Procedure section 529.2. Essential for understanding the legal mechanism."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"California Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review of Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore","url":"https://www.allenmatkins.com/real-ideas/california-supreme-court-denies-petition-for-review-of-save-livermore-downtown-v-city-of-livermore.html","publication":"Allen Matkins","author":"Caroline Guibert Chase and Benjamin N. Patterson","date_published":"2023-04-20","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"State Supreme Court rejects Save Livermore Downtown petition to review Eden Housing case","url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2023/04/23/state-supreme-court-rejects-save-livermore-downtown-petition-to-review-eden-housing-case/","publication":"Pleasanton Weekly","author":"Cierra Bailey","date_published":"2023-04-23","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Move Eden Housing v. City of Livermore (A167346), opinion filed March 6, 2024","url":"https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/115938171.html","publication":"California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Five (FindLaw)","author":null,"date_published":"2024-03-06","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Court Rules City Violated Election Law","url":"https://www.independentnews.com/news/livermore_news/court-rules-city-violated-election-law/article_98f3a506-a770-11ef-9fdb-e709800e98ef.html","publication":"The Independent","author":"Larry Altman","date_published":"2024-11-21","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"'Ratify, reaffirm and readopt': Livermore council again endorses Eden Housing project provisions","url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/city-politics/2025/07/30/ratify-reaffirm-readopt-livermore-council-again-endorses-eden-housing-project-provisions/","publication":"Pleasanton Weekly","author":"Jude Strzemp","date_published":"2025-07-30","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"California Case Summary Update: November 2025 Real Property Case Summaries","url":"https://calawyers.org/real-property-law/california-case-summary-update-november-2025-real-property-case-summaries/","publication":"California Lawyers Association","author":"Monty A. McIntyre","date_published":"2025-12-02","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"State Supreme Court Rejects Livermore Citizen Group's Petition to Review Eden Housing Appeal","url":"https://www.livermorevine.com/courts/2026/01/20/state-supreme-court-rejects-livermore-citizen-groups-petition-to-review-eden-housing-appeal/","publication":"Livermore Vine","author":null,"date_published":"2026-01-20","notes":"Confirms California Supreme Court denied MEH's final petition (approximately January 15, 2026). Best source for confirming the end of all litigation."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Parking Lot to Housing: Ground Breaks on Long-Awaited Downtown Livermore Apartments","url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/housing/2026/05/19/parking-lot-to-housing-ground-breaks-on-long-awaited-downtown-livermore-apartments/","publication":"Pleasanton Weekly","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-19","notes":"Most recent source — published 9 days before research date. Best source for groundbreaking confirmation, expected completion (Oct 2028), Mandolini statement on wasted costs, Branning quote."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Opponents of Eden Housing in Livermore lose bid for reimbursement of $775,000+ in attorneys' fees","url":"https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/courts/2026/08/13/opponents-of-eden-housing-in-livermore-lose-bid-for-reimbursement-of-775000-in-attorneys-fees/","publication":"Pleasanton Weekly","author":"Jude Strzemp","date_published":"2026-08-13","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Downtown Livermore Apartments — Eden Housing Project Page","url":"https://edenhousing.org/properties/downtown-livermore-apartments/","publication":"Eden Housing, Inc.","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Developer project fact sheet. Contains full litigation timeline, unit details (130 units, 20-60% AMI), building descriptions (two four-story buildings), and groundbreaking information."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Downtown Livermore Apartments (Eden Housing), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/livermore-eden-housing-2022, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:27:06.481007+00:00"},{"id":19,"slug":"marin-grady-ranch-2015","name":"Grady Ranch Affordable Housing","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/marin-grady-ranch-2015","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/marin-grady-ranch-2015/brief","address":"Lucas Valley Road, Lucas Valley (unincorporated Marin County), CA 94903","latitude":37.9985,"longitude":-122.5701,"jurisdiction":{"id":19,"slug":"unincorporated-marin-county-lucas-valley-area-marin","city":"Unincorporated Marin County (Lucas Valley area)","county":"Marin","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/unincorporated-marin-county-lucas-valley-area-marin"},"city":"Unincorporated Marin County (Lucas Valley area)","county":"Marin","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Withdrawn","units_proposed":224,"units_affordable":224,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":4,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2015-04-15","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":18,"cost_of_delay_usd":150000000,"data_quality":2,"description":"A proposed 224-unit affordable housing complex on 52 acres of a 1,040-acre hillside property called Grady Ranch on Lucas Valley Road in unincorporated western Marin County, roughly 5 miles from San Rafael. Developer: George Lucas's Skywalker Properties, partnering with PEP Housing (Petaluma Ecumenical Properties), a nonprofit affordable housing developer. Lucas proposed to finance the entire project himself at an estimated cost of \"north of $150 million\" — with no state grants, no federal funding, and no taxpayer money — making it what would have been the largest privately financed affordable housing project in United States history. The project mix: 120 two- and three-bedroom workforce rental homes (up to 80% AMI — in Marin, up to ~$101,400 for a family of four); and 104 one- and two-bedroom senior apartments (30-60% AMI). The proposal preserved 93% of the Grady Ranch property as open space. A pre-application was submitted to the Marin County Community Development Agency on April 15, 2015. By late 2016, the project website displayed \"This project is currently on hold.\" The website subsequently went dark. The 224 homes were never built. The site remains undeveloped hillside.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"Marin County Community Development Agency","date_invoked":"2015-04-15","description":"The Grady Ranch application required an amendment to the 1996 Master Plan — a major discretionary action by the Marin County Board of Supervisors requiring a new EIR, public notice and comment periods, Planning Commission hearings, and final Board approval. The discretionary nature of the Master Plan Amendment gave the Board full latitude to deny the project without legal consequence. The combination of the lengthy review timeline, the HOA's $70M litigation threat, and uncertain political will among supervisors caused Lucas to place the project \"on hold\" before a formal hearing ever occurred. Unlike most cases in this database, no formal denial was ever issued — the project simply did not proceed.","added_delay_months":18,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/industry-news/lucas-seeking-affordable-homes-for-grady-ranch/"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Lucas Valley Estates Homeowners Association","date_invoked":"2015-06-01","description":"The Lucas Valley Estates Homeowners Association threatened a $70 million environmental lawsuit under CEQA over the creek restoration component of the Grady Ranch project. The HOA argued the creek restoration had not been adequately reviewed under state and federal environmental law. This was the same organization that had previously used regulatory concerns to drive away the Grady Ranch film studio in 2012. The $70 million threat represented roughly 47% of the total $150 million project budget — making proceeding financially unacceptable. No lawsuit was actually filed; the threat alone appears to have been sufficient. The project went \"on hold\" and was never revived.","added_delay_months":18,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.livabl.com/articles/archives/george-lucas-affordable-housing-marin-county-stalled"}],"actors":[{"name":"George Lucas","organization":"Skywalker Properties / Lucasfilm Ltd.","actor_type":"Landowner / Philanthropist","stance":"support","role":"Landowner / Funder","stated_arguments":"\"We've got enough millionaires here. What we need is some houses for regular working people.\" Proposed to pay $150M entirely himself to house police officers, teachers, seniors, and service workers priced out of Marin. In 2012 on studio withdrawal: \"The level of bitterness and anger expressed by the homeowners in Lucas Valley has convinced us that, even if we were to spend more time and acquire the necessary approvals, we would not be able to maintain a constructive relationship with our neighbors.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/george-lucas-planning-payback-with-massive-affordable-housing-project-on-his-marin-county-land/"},{"name":"PEP Housing (Petaluma Ecumenical Properties)","organization":"PEP Housing","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Development Partner / Nonprofit Operator","stated_arguments":"PEP Housing has decades of experience developing and managing affordable senior and workforce housing across the North Bay. The Grady Ranch project would have been their largest and most prominent development.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/industry-news/lucas-seeking-affordable-homes-for-grady-ranch/"},{"name":"Lucas Valley Estates Homeowners Association","organization":"Lucas Valley Estates Homeowners Association (LVE HOA)","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Adjacent Neighborhood / Primary Opposition","stated_arguments":"Threatened a $70 million environmental lawsuit over the creek restoration component. Raised concerns about traffic on Lucas Valley Road (a fire evacuation route), view impacts, infrastructure costs, and neighborhood character. Had previously driven away the Grady Ranch film studio with similar arguments. Maggie McCann: hearing Lucas was moving forward \"made my heart sink and my stomach feel bad.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.marketplace.org/story/2015/06/11/debate-against-affordable-housing-marin"},{"name":"Maggie McCann","organization":"Lucas Valley Estates Homeowners Association","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"HOA President / Opposition Spokesperson","stated_arguments":"\"It made my heart sink and my stomach feel bad.\" (On hearing Lucas was moving forward with affordable housing). \"I used to ride my horse on this ranch when I was growing up. And it had cows on it.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.marketplace.org/story/2015/06/11/debate-against-affordable-housing-marin"},{"name":"Marin County Board of Supervisors","organization":"Marin County Board of Supervisors","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"neutral","role":"Approving Authority","stated_arguments":"Mixed reception. Some supervisors genuinely supportive, citing the county's documented affordable housing shortage. At least one expressed concern about \"cumulative impact.\" Board had urged Lucas to reconsider his studio withdrawal in 2012. Did not formally deny or approve the housing application before it went on hold.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/marin-residents-officials-urge-george-lucas-to-reconsider-studio"},{"name":"Marin Community Foundation","organization":"Marin Community Foundation","actor_type":"Trade Association","stance":"support","role":"Former Partner (2012-2013); Supporter (2015)","stated_arguments":"CEO Thomas Peters: Lucas's plan was \"an extraordinary offer\" that \"underscores the filmmaker's commitment to the housing needs of the vibrant workforce that drives the region's vitality.\" Had withdrawn from the 2012-2013 attempt citing uncertain financing; was no longer a partner in 2015.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://bdcnetwork.com/empire-strikes-back-george-lucas-proposes-new-affordable-housing-complex-hell-finance-alone"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"1996-01-01","event_type":"Marin County Approves 1996 Master Plan for Grady Ranch","description":"Marin County Board of Supervisors approves a Master Plan allowing up to 456,000 square feet of development at Grady Ranch. This approval runs with the land and establishes the legal development rights underpinning all subsequent proposals.","outcome":null,"source_url":"http://www.marinconservationleague.org/about-us/40-successes/advocacy/200-grady.html","source_label":"Marin Conservation League"},{"event_date":"2001-01-01","event_type":"Lucas Pursues Expanded Grady Ranch Film Studio","description":"Skywalker Properties begins renewed efforts to develop a major digital film production studio at Grady Ranch — a 270,000 sq ft facility for 340 employees. The Lucas Valley Estates Homeowners Association opposes the project throughout a years-long planning, environmental review, and public hearings process.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.jedinews.com/film-music-tv/articles/lucasfilm-stuns-marin-pulls-plug-on-grady-ranch/","source_label":"Jedi News"},{"event_date":"2002-01-01","event_type":"Lucas Donates 800 Acres to Marin County Open Space District","description":"Skywalker Properties donates 800 of Grady Ranch's approximately 1,040 acres to the Marin County Open Space District, permanently protecting the land from development. 239 acres remain under private ownership, of which 52 are considered developable. This donation is later used in the housing proposal to demonstrate that 93% of the site will remain permanent open space.","outcome":null,"source_url":"http://www.marinconservationleague.org/about-us/40-successes/advocacy/200-grady.html","source_label":"Marin Conservation League"},{"event_date":"2012-04-10","event_type":"Lucas Withdraws Film Studio Application — Announces Land for Housing","description":"Skywalker Properties withdraws its Grady Ranch film studio application after neighbor opposition and state and federal water agency objections create delays \"with no end in sight.\" In its withdrawal letter, Lucasfilm writes: \"The level of bitterness and anger expressed by the homeowners in Lucas Valley has convinced us that, even if we were to spend more time and acquire the necessary approvals, we would not be able to maintain a constructive relationship with our neighbors.\" The company announces it will sell Grady Ranch and hopes a developer will build low-income housing. The Marin Economic Forum estimates the studio withdrawal cost the county $216 million in economic activity and 690 jobs.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.jedinews.com/film-music-tv/articles/lucasfilm-stuns-marin-pulls-plug-on-grady-ranch/","source_label":"Jedi News"},{"event_date":"2012-06-01","event_type":"First Affordable Housing Proposal (With Marin Community Foundation)","description":"Rather than sell Grady Ranch, Lucas announces he will develop it himself as affordable housing, partnering with the Marin Community Foundation. The Foundation's CEO calls it an \"extraordinary offer.\" The Lucas Valley Estates Homeowners Association immediately expresses opposition — the same group that fought the studio.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/lucas-loses-partner-on-marin-county-housing-development-plan/","source_label":"CBS Bay Area"},{"event_date":"2013-06-01","event_type":"Marin Community Foundation Withdraws — First Attempt Collapses","description":"The Marin Community Foundation announces it is pulling out of the housing partnership with Lucas, citing \"uncertainties in state and federal financing.\" Lucas's spokesman says he will continue seeking a developer. The withdrawal ends the first affordable housing attempt. The same financial uncertainty Lucas would specifically remove in his 2015 proposal — by funding it himself — is cited as the reason this attempt failed.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/lucas-loses-partner-on-marin-county-housing-development-plan/","source_label":"CBS Bay Area"},{"event_date":"2015-04-15","event_type":"Lucas Re-Applies: 224 Units, $150M Entirely Self-Funded","description":"Skywalker Properties, working with PEP Housing, submits a pre-application to the Marin County Community Development Agency for 224 units of affordable workforce and senior housing on 52 acres at Grady Ranch. Lucas will finance 100% himself — no state grants, no federal funding — specifically removing the financing uncertainty that killed the first proposal. Total cost: \"north of $150 million.\" Attorney Gary Giacomini publicly quotes Lucas: \"We've got enough millionaires here. What we need is some houses for regular working people.\" Would be the largest privately financed affordable housing project in US history.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/george-lucas-planning-payback-with-massive-affordable-housing-project-on-his-marin-county-land/","source_label":"CBS SF"},{"event_date":"2015-06-01","event_type":"Community Meetings Begin — HOA Organizes Opposition","description":"Marin County begins its preliminary review. Public engagement meetings are held. The Lucas Valley Estates HOA, led by president Maggie McCann, organizes opposition. McCann tells Marketplace: hearing Lucas was moving forward \"made my heart sink and my stomach feel bad.\" Neighbors raise concerns about traffic, view impacts, and neighborhood character. The HOA threatens a $70 million environmental lawsuit over the project's creek restoration component. Marketplace publishes \"The Debate Against Affordable Housing in Marin.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.marketplace.org/story/2015/06/11/debate-against-affordable-housing-marin","source_label":"Marketplace NPR"},{"event_date":"2016-11-01","event_type":"\"This Project Is Currently On Hold\" — Website Updated","description":"The Grady Ranch affordable housing project website adds the message: \"This project is currently on hold.\" No explanation is given. The $70 million lawsuit threat from the HOA, the lengthy county review process, and the lack of a clear approval path appear to have stalled the project. Public hearings expected \"midway through 2016\" have not taken place.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.livabl.com/articles/archives/george-lucas-affordable-housing-marin-county-stalled","source_label":"Livabl"},{"event_date":"2020-01-01","event_type":"Project Website Disappears — 224 Homes Definitively Not Built","description":"The Grady Ranch affordable housing project website goes offline and becomes a redirect. As of 2022, Cracked.com reports: \"nearly a decade has passed since George announced his idea, and yet there's no sign of affordable units on Grady Ranch.\" The project is permanently dead. Grady Ranch remains undeveloped hillside. Lucas sold Skywalker Ranch to Google in 2022; current status of Grady Ranch ownership is unconfirmed.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cracked.com/article_32246_george-lucas-troll-ish-offer-to-build-affordable-housing.html","source_label":"Cracked.com"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Lucasfilm Stuns Marin, Pulls Plug on Grady Ranch","url":"https://www.jedinews.com/film-music-tv/articles/lucasfilm-stuns-marin-pulls-plug-on-grady-ranch/","publication":"Jedi News","author":null,"date_published":"2012-04-11","notes":"Contains text from the Lucasfilm withdrawal letter. Primary source for the studio withdrawal and Lucas's pivot to housing."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Lucas Loses Partner on Marin County Housing Development Plan","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/lucas-loses-partner-on-marin-county-housing-development-plan/","publication":"CBS Bay Area / AP","author":null,"date_published":"2013-06-01","notes":"Coverage of Marin Community Foundation withdrawal in 2013. Confirms MCF cited \"uncertainties in state and federal financing.\" Primary source for the 2012-2013 attempt and its collapse. (Date approximate)"},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Lucas Seeking Affordable Homes for Grady Ranch","url":"https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/industry-news/lucas-seeking-affordable-homes-for-grady-ranch/","publication":"North Bay Business Journal","author":null,"date_published":"2015-01-06","notes":"Detailed account of the pre-application and project specs. Confirms: 120 workforce + 104 senior units; PEP Housing as partner; architect Robert W. Hayes; 52 of 239 remaining acres; zoning allows up to 324 homes."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"George Lucas Planning Payback With Massive Affordable Housing Project on His Marin County Land","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/george-lucas-planning-payback-with-massive-affordable-housing-project-on-his-marin-county-land/","publication":"CBS Bay Area","author":null,"date_published":"2015-04-15","notes":"Day-of coverage of the pre-application submission. Contains Gary Giacomini quote: \"We've got enough millionaires here. What we need is some houses for regular working people.\""},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"The Debate Against Affordable Housing in Marin","url":"https://www.marketplace.org/story/2015/06/11/debate-against-affordable-housing-marin","publication":"Marketplace (American Public Media / NPR)","author":null,"date_published":"2015-06-11","notes":"Best single source on the 2015 housing proposal. Three-part series. Contains Maggie McCann quotes, Lucas lawyer Gary Giacomini quotes, and breakdown of who the 224 units would serve. Primary source for community opposition and the economic definition of \"affordable\" in Marin."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"George Lucas' Ambitious Affordable Housing Project in Marin County Appears Stalled","url":"https://www.livabl.com/articles/archives/george-lucas-affordable-housing-marin-county-stalled","publication":"Livabl","author":null,"date_published":"2016-11-01","notes":"Key source for \"on hold\" status and $70M lawsuit threat over creek restoration. Best single source for documenting when the project stalled. (Date approximate)"},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"George Lucas' Troll-ish Offer to Build Affordable Housing","url":"https://www.cracked.com/article_32246_george-lucas-troll-ish-offer-to-build-affordable-housing.html","publication":"Cracked.com","author":null,"date_published":"2022-01-08","notes":"Confirms project website went from \"on hold\" to a redirect — confirming permanent death without formal action. Primary source for confirming final status as of 2022."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"George Lucas, Reluctant YIMBY?","url":"https://www.pacificresearch.org/george-lucas-reluctant-yimby/","publication":"Pacific Research Institute","author":null,"date_published":"2022-08-17","notes":"Best post-mortem on the whole Grady Ranch arc (studio + two housing attempts). Confirms project \"remains in limbo five years later\" as of 2022. Provides context on Marin County's housing segregation history."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Grady Ranch Affordable Housing, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/marin-grady-ranch-2015, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-05-28T20:48:22.652621+00:00"},{"id":18,"slug":"oakland-howard-terminal-2019","name":"Howard Terminal Waterfront Housing","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/oakland-howard-terminal-2019","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/oakland-howard-terminal-2019/brief","address":"Howard Terminal (end of Market Street at Embarcadero West), Oakland, CA 94607","latitude":37.799,"longitude":-122.2871,"jurisdiction":{"id":13,"slug":"oakland-alameda","city":"Oakland","county":"Alameda","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/oakland-alameda"},"city":"Oakland","county":"Alameda","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Withdrawn","units_proposed":3000,"units_affordable":450,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2018-06-01","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":60,"cost_of_delay_usd":100000000,"data_quality":3,"description":"A proposed 55-acre mixed-use waterfront development at Howard Terminal in the Port of Oakland, near Jack London Square and within 1 mile of two BART stations. The Oakland Athletics baseball organization proposed the project as part of a plan to build a new 35,000-seat ballpark alongside 3,000 housing units (450 affordable at 15%), 1.5 million sq ft of commercial office space, 270,000 sq ft of retail, a 400-room hotel, an indoor performance venue, and 18.5 acres of public parks. Total estimated project cost: $12 billion. The Draft EIR was released in February 2021. The Oakland City Council certified the Final EIR 6-2 in February 2022. BCDC voted to remove Howard Terminal from port priority designation in June 2022. The California Court of Appeal upheld BCDC's approval in March 2023. Despite clearing these hurdles, the A's and Oakland never reached a signed final development agreement. The sticking point: how to fund approximately $350-$450 million in off-site infrastructure improvements. In April 2023, A's owner John Fisher signed a binding agreement to purchase land near the Las Vegas Strip, effectively ending the project. In a 2024 court settlement, BCDC reversed its 2022 approval, returning Howard Terminal to industrial/port priority. 3,000 housing units were never built. The site remains an active shipping container yard.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"City of Oakland / Oakland Athletics (mutual failure)","date_invoked":"2021-07-20","description":"Unlike most cases in this database, the primary mechanism that killed this project was not a regulatory denial but a failure to complete the discretionary development agreement negotiation. The city required: no general fund money for ~$400M infrastructure; 15% affordable housing; community benefits package. The A's required sufficient tax district revenue to fund infrastructure and subsidize the project. The impasse was never resolved. This is NOT a traditional NIMBY regulatory obstruction pattern — it is a financial negotiation failure where the A's owner ultimately preferred Las Vegas economics.","added_delay_months":24,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/after-five-years-as-rejected-a-12b-waterfront-ballpark-site-in-oakland-for-9-acres-on-the-strip"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"East Oakland Stadium Alliance (Pacific Merchant Shipping Association)","date_invoked":"2022-08-01","description":"The shipping industry coalition filed multiple lawsuits challenging BCDC's June 2022 removal of port priority designation, citing inadequate environmental analysis and arguing Howard Terminal was still needed for maritime operations. Initially lost at trial court and Court of Appeal (March 2023). However, a 2024 court settlement resulted in BCDC reversing its 2022 approval — a posthumous legal victory that definitively closed the door on housing at the site. NOTE: this is the only case in the database where litigation opponents lost in court but ultimately won the outcome through a post-collapse settlement.","added_delay_months":24,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://lasvegassun.com/news/2024/may/13/after-as-plan-falls-apart-a-new-twist-changes-ever/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Oakland Athletics (The A's Baseball Company LLC)","organization":"Oakland Athletics / The A's Baseball Company LLC","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / Project Proponent","stated_arguments":"Howard Terminal is an underutilized industrial site that can be transformed into a world-class mixed-use neighborhood with a $12B private investment. 3,000 housing units, parks, retail, and office space would revitalize Oakland's waterfront. \"Howard Terminal or bust.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oaklandside.org/2021/07/21/oakland-city-council-vote-athletics-howard-terminal-ballpark-term-sheet/"},{"name":"Libby Schaaf","organization":"City of Oakland","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"support","role":"Mayor of Oakland (2015-2023) / Project Champion","stated_arguments":"\"You have heard from your staff unequivocally and with deep research that Howard Terminal is not needed for future cargo growth. Through this commitment I ask that you give Oakland its shot.\" (BCDC June 2022). \"Tonight's vote by the City Council was a historic moment for Oakland's future.\" (EIR certification Feb 2022)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oaklandside.org/2022/06/30/howard-terminal-ballpark-athletics-bay-conservation-development-commission-vote/"},{"name":"City of Oakland","organization":"City of Oakland","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"support","role":"Approving Agency / Negotiating Partner","stated_arguments":"City supports the project with conditions: no general fund money for infrastructure; at least 15% affordable housing (~450 units); community benefits package protecting West Oakland and Chinatown residents; protections for port jobs.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oaklandside.org/2021/07/21/oakland-city-council-vote-athletics-howard-terminal-ballpark-term-sheet/"},{"name":"Carroll Fife","organization":"City of Oakland (District 3 — West Oakland)","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"City Councilmember / Affordable Housing Advocate","stated_arguments":"Abstained from term sheet vote; voted against EIR certification. Demanded more affordable housing (sought 35%, not 15%). The project will displace existing low-income residents in West Oakland and Chinatown without adequate mitigation. \"I don't know where we go from here after doing somersaults, after receiving insults, after being disrespected.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://abc7news.com/oakland-athletics-game-as-stadium-ballpark/10899332/"},{"name":"ILWU Local 10","organization":"International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 10","actor_type":"Trade Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Labor Union / Port Workforce","stated_arguments":"\"What we are facing here is a land grab and a billionaire's attempt to get access to public resources. [Dave Kaval] doesn't care about the city of Oakland.\" (Trent Willis, BCDC hearing, June 2022). Housing residents will complain about industrial port noise and truck traffic, creating a domino effect that will restrict port operations and eliminate longshore jobs.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oaklandside.org/2022/06/30/howard-terminal-ballpark-athletics-bay-conservation-development-commission-vote/"},{"name":"Pacific Merchant Shipping Association","organization":"Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)","actor_type":"Trade Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Shipping Industry Trade Group / Lead Litigant","stated_arguments":"\"Project proponents have consistently ignored concerns raised by environmental justice groups, business groups, labor groups, and local advocacy groups about the impacts of the proposed stadium project.\" (Mike Jacob, March 2023). Filed multiple lawsuits against EIR and BCDC approval. Won a 2024 court settlement reversing BCDC's approval.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/mlb/oakland-athletics/appeals-court-proposed-oakland-athletics-stadium/3195460/"},{"name":"Oakland Tenants Union / Community Groups","organization":"Oakland Tenants Union (OTU) / EBASE / Oakland United","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"neutral","role":"Housing Advocates / Community Benefit Demanders","stated_arguments":"\"If you play, then play by Oakland's rules. Give people the affordable housing that they need, make sure that we have clean air, and make sure that people have a place to stay.\" (Cherri Murphy, Oakland United). Supported housing at the site but demanded at least 35% affordable units and robust environmental mitigation.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/athletics-howard-terminal-stadium-battle-team-president-critics-dig-in/"},{"name":"Rob Manfred","organization":"Major League Baseball","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"MLB Commissioner","stated_arguments":"\"John Fisher has done everything I've asked him to do in terms of keeping the A's in Oakland.\" Warned at the 2021 All-Star Game that viewing Las Vegas as a bluff was \"a mistake\" and that a negative July 20 city council vote could \"spell the end of baseball in Oakland.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-ukiah-daily-journal/20210715/281638193214114"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2018-06-01","event_type":"Site Selection Announced","description":"The Oakland Athletics announce Howard Terminal as their preferred site for a new ballpark following failed efforts at Laney College (Oakland) and San Jose. The A's pitch a mixed-use development including a ballpark, housing, office, and retail on 55 acres of port-adjacent land near Jack London Square.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ballparkdigest.com/2019/07/17/as-howard-terminal-pitch-draws-opposition-from-port-stakeholders/","source_label":"Ballpark Digest"},{"event_date":"2019-07-01","event_type":"Port Industry Opposition Begins","description":"At an Oakland City Council meeting, representatives from the ILWU, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, Harbor Trucking Association, and other port industry groups speak out against the project. Core argument: the proposal will interfere with port operations, endanger jobs, and create incompatible land uses.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ballparkdigest.com/2019/07/17/as-howard-terminal-pitch-draws-opposition-from-port-stakeholders/","source_label":"Ballpark Digest"},{"event_date":"2021-02-26","event_type":"Draft EIR Released","description":"The City of Oakland releases the Draft Environmental Impact Report — a document exceeding 10,000 pages, one of the largest EIRs in Oakland's history. It covers the full mixed-use development: ballpark, 3,000 housing units, 1.5M sq ft office, 270K sq ft retail, 18.5 acres of parks, and a 400-room hotel.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-unveils-environmental-impact-report-on-as-howard-terminal-stadium-project","source_label":"CBS Bay Area"},{"event_date":"2021-07-15","event_type":"MLB Commissioner Warns Oakland","description":"MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred, speaking at the All-Star Game in Denver, warns that \"thinking of relocation to Las Vegas as a bluff is a mistake\" and that a negative July 20 City Council vote could \"spell the end of baseball in Oakland.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-ukiah-daily-journal/20210715/281638193214114","source_label":"Ukiah Daily Journal"},{"event_date":"2021-07-20","event_type":"City Council Votes 6-1-1 on Non-Binding Term Sheet","description":"The Oakland City Council votes 6-1-1 (Gallo no; Fife abstained) on a non-binding term sheet requiring 15% affordable housing, no general fund money for infrastructure, and a community benefits package. Dave Kaval calls it \"a no vote on the project.\" Both sides say they will continue talking. NOTE: this was NON-BINDING; no final development agreement was ever submitted to council.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oaklandside.org/2021/07/21/oakland-city-council-vote-athletics-howard-terminal-ballpark-term-sheet/","source_label":"Oaklandside"},{"event_date":"2022-01-20","event_type":"Planning Commission Recommends EIR Certification","description":"The Oakland Planning Commission votes to recommend that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oaklandside.org/2022/01/20/as-waterfront-ballpark-plan-passes-first-environment-review-vote/","source_label":"Oaklandside"},{"event_date":"2022-02-17","event_type":"City Council Certifies Final EIR (6-2)","description":"The Oakland City Council votes 6-2 to certify the Final EIR. Opposed: Noel Gallo (prefers Coliseum site) and Carroll Fife (wants more affordable housing). Mayor Schaaf: \"Tonight's vote was a historic moment for Oakland's future... a giant leap forward in our shared mission to create a regional destination that gives back our waterfront to the public.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.ktvu.com/news/oakland-city-council-certifies-eir-for-as-howard-terminal-ballpark-proposal","source_label":"KTVU Fox 2"},{"event_date":"2022-06-30","event_type":"BCDC Removes Port Priority Designation — Key Win","description":"The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission votes to remove Howard Terminal's \"port priority\" designation, opening it for mixed-use development. Mayor Schaaf speaks in favor. ILWU president Trent Willis speaks against: \"What we are facing here is a land grab and a billionaire's attempt to get access to public resources.\" Shipping industry groups immediately prepare legal challenges.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oaklandside.org/2022/06/30/howard-terminal-ballpark-athletics-bay-conservation-development-commission-vote/","source_label":"Oaklandside"},{"event_date":"2022-08-01","event_type":"Shipping Industry Files Lawsuit Against BCDC","description":"The East Oakland Stadium Alliance (Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, Harbor Trucking Association, ILWU) files a lawsuit challenging BCDC's June 2022 removal of port priority designation. This is one of several legal challenges filed against the project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ballparkdigest.com/2022/08/02/another-lawsuit-filed-against-new-howard-terminal-waterfront-ballpark/","source_label":"Ballpark Digest"},{"event_date":"2023-03-01","event_type":"Court of Appeal Upholds BCDC Approval","description":"A California Court of Appeal panel upholds the lower court's ruling that the environmental review was adequate and affirms BCDC's removal of port priority designation. The A's: \"We are pleased with the appellate court's decision.\" Mike Jacob (PMSA): \"The project proponents have consistently ignored concerns.\" The A's have now won all major legal battles — but it is too late.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/mlb/oakland-athletics/appeals-court-proposed-oakland-athletics-stadium/3195460/","source_label":"NBC Bay Area"},{"event_date":"2023-04-20","event_type":"A's Sign Las Vegas Land Purchase Agreement — Project Killed","description":"A's owner John Fisher signs a binding agreement to purchase 9 acres near the Las Vegas Strip. A's president calls Mayor Sheng Thao that evening. Thao announces Oakland is \"ceasing negotiations.\" The A's had never submitted a binding development agreement for the Oakland City Council to vote on. The sticking point: how to fund ~$400M in off-site infrastructure. \"The conditions and length of the project timeline were entirely dependent on those two decisions made by the ownership group\" — City of Oakland spokesperson.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://abc7news.com/post/athletics-news-oakland-new-stadium-as-moving-to-vegas-timeline/13161196/","source_label":"ABC7"},{"event_date":"2023-05-12","event_type":"Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Expires","description":"The Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the A's and the Port of Oakland expires. Neither side elects to extend it. The A's reportedly spent approximately $100 million on Howard Terminal preparation work before walking away.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://abc7news.com/post/athletics-news-oakland-new-stadium-as-moving-to-vegas-timeline/13161196/","source_label":"ABC7"},{"event_date":"2024-05-01","event_type":"BCDC Reverses 2022 Approval in Court Settlement","description":"In a court settlement of the shipping industry's lawsuit, BCDC reverses its June 2022 decision to remove Howard Terminal from port priority designation. Howard Terminal is re-designated for maritime/industrial use. Any new plan to build housing at the site would need to start entirely from scratch. Oakland's long-range downtown plan now lists Howard Terminal for \"industrial uses.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lasvegassun.com/news/2024/may/13/after-as-plan-falls-apart-a-new-twist-changes-ever/","source_label":"Las Vegas Sun"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"A's Stadium Battle: Team President, Howard Terminal Critics Dig In As Crucial Vote Nears","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/athletics-howard-terminal-stadium-battle-team-president-critics-dig-in/","publication":"CBS Bay Area","author":null,"date_published":"2021-07-17","notes":"Pre-vote community pressure coverage. Contains Cherri Murphy quote demanding Oakland's rules. Best source for community group demands and labor opposition framing."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Oakland City Council Approved a Howard Terminal Ballpark Roadmap, But Not on the Terms the A's Want","url":"https://oaklandside.org/2021/07/21/oakland-city-council-vote-athletics-howard-terminal-ballpark-term-sheet/","publication":"Oaklandside","author":"Darwin BondGraham","date_published":"2021-07-21","notes":"Best source for July 2021 term sheet vote and disconnect between city and A's positions. Contains councilmember quotes and voting record."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Oakland City Council Certifies EIR for A's Howard Terminal Ballpark Proposal","url":"https://www.ktvu.com/news/oakland-city-council-certifies-eir-for-as-howard-terminal-ballpark-proposal","publication":"KTVU Fox 2","author":null,"date_published":"2022-02-18","notes":"Coverage of 6-2 EIR certification vote. Contains Schaaf's quote and breakdown of council votes."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"A's Howard Terminal Ballpark Plan Advances with Bay Commission's Vote","url":"https://oaklandside.org/2022/06/30/howard-terminal-ballpark-athletics-bay-conservation-development-commission-vote/","publication":"Oaklandside","author":null,"date_published":"2022-06-30","notes":"Best source for BCDC vote (June 30, 2022). Contains Schaaf's quote and Trent Willis's \"land grab\" quote. Primary source for critical BCDC approval and labor opposition arguments."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"What It Will Take to Make the Howard Terminal Ballpark Project a Home Run for Oakland","url":"https://www.spur.org/news/2023-01-19/what-it-will-take-make-howard-terminal-ballpark-project-home-run-oakland","publication":"SPUR","author":null,"date_published":"2023-01-19","notes":"Best policy analysis of what remained to be done as of early 2023. Written weeks before the Las Vegas announcement. Lists all remaining approvals needed."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Proposed Oakland A's Stadium at Howard Terminal","url":"https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/mlb/oakland-athletics/appeals-court-proposed-oakland-athletics-stadium/3195460/","publication":"NBC Bay Area","author":null,"date_published":"2023-04-01","notes":"Coverage of Court of Appeal ruling upholding BCDC's approval. Contains Mike Jacob (PMSA) quote. Came three weeks before the A's signed their Las Vegas agreement. (Date approximate)"},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Oakland A's Moving to Vegas: How the Howard Terminal Deal Fell Apart","url":"https://abc7news.com/post/athletics-news-oakland-new-stadium-as-moving-to-vegas-timeline/13161196/","publication":"ABC7 San Francisco","author":null,"date_published":"2023-04-21","notes":"Day-of coverage of the Las Vegas announcement. Confirms A's spent ~$100M on prep work. Contains city spokesperson quote."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"After Five Years, A's Rejected a $12B Waterfront Ballpark Site in Oakland for 9 Acres on the Strip","url":"https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/after-five-years-as-rejected-a-12b-waterfront-ballpark-site-in-oakland-for-9-acres-on-the-strip","publication":"The Nevada Independent","author":null,"date_published":"2023-08-20","notes":"Best post-mortem on why the deal fell apart. Primary source for deal collapse analysis and Fisher's demands."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"After A's Plan Falls Apart, a New Twist Changes Everything for the Future of Oakland's Waterfront","url":"https://lasvegassun.com/news/2024/may/13/after-as-plan-falls-apart-a-new-twist-changes-ever/","publication":"Las Vegas Sun","author":null,"date_published":"2024-05-13","notes":"Best source for the 2024 BCDC reversal. Confirms Howard Terminal is back to industrial use and describes the settlement reversing BCDC's 2022 approval."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Howard Terminal Waterfront Housing, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/oakland-howard-terminal-2019, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-05-28T20:42:53.797265+00:00"},{"id":35,"slug":"huntington-beach-housing-element-2021","name":"Huntington Beach 6th Cycle Housing Program — 13,368 Units","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/huntington-beach-housing-element-2021","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/huntington-beach-housing-element-2021/brief","address":"2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648","latitude":33.6595,"longitude":-117.9988,"jurisdiction":{"id":34,"slug":"huntington-beach-orange","city":"Huntington Beach","county":"Orange","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":false,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/huntington-beach-orange"},"city":"Huntington Beach","county":"Orange","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Stalled","units_proposed":13368,"units_affordable":null,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2021-10-15","date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2023-04-04","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":60,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"The City of Huntington Beach's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation for the 6th Cycle (2021-2029): 13,368 new homes. The October 15, 2021 deadline passed without compliance. The city's own planning staff prepared a draft Housing Element in 2022 that HCD confirmed would comply with state law if adopted. On April 4, 2023, the Huntington Beach City Council voted 4-3 against adopting the housing element its staff had prepared. Mayor Pro Tem Gracey Van Der Mark: \"I do not believe the benefits of building outweigh the consequences of destroying our city.\" The city also banned SB 9 and ADU processing (February 2023), the council voted 4-3 on March 7, 2023 to block builder's remedy applications, and in March 2023, a day after the state first sued, the city filed a federal constitutional challenge to the RHNA system. The city lost every legal battle: federal district court (dismissed for lack of standing, November 2023), Ninth Circuit (affirmed, October 30, 2024), U.S. Supreme Court (certiorari denied, February 2026), California Superior Court (violation found, May 2024), California Court of Appeal (full remedies ordered, September 2025), and California Supreme Court (review denied, December 2025). In December 2025, a San Diego Superior Court judge issued a sweeping order: adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days; land use authority suspended; Builder's Remedy projects must be auto-approved within 60-90 days. In its May 14, 2026 order, the Superior Court imposed penalties of $10,000 a month from January 2025 through May 2026, which the governor's office totaled at $160,000, and $50,000 a month from June 2026 until the city cures the violation, and it held the city to a May 28, 2026 deadline to adopt a housing element. The council adopted a housing element update on June 16, 2026; under the court's order the city then had 120 days to adopt the required zoning changes, and the city attorney wrote that the Attorney General was seeking added penalties of up to $100,000 a month. HCD reviewed the adopted element and found it out of compliance on August 18, 2026. The 13,368 homes that should have been planned for in 2021 remain unbuilt.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"City of Huntington Beach City Council","date_invoked":"2021-10-15","description":"Huntington Beach deployed six obstruction mechanisms: (1) missing the October 15, 2021 Housing Element deadline; (2) voting 4-3 to block builder's remedy applications (March 7, 2023); (3) banning SB 9 and ADU processing (February 21, 2023); (4) rejecting its own staff's compliant draft housing element in a 4-3 council vote (April 4, 2023); (5) filing a federal constitutional challenge to the RHNA system (March 2023); and (6) appealing every adverse court ruling through all available channels. This is the only case in the database where a city explicitly made housing law non-compliance an affirmative political policy. The city lost every single legal battle across six courts over four years. It adopted a housing element update on June 16, 2026, under court-ordered penalties of $50,000 a month, and HCD found that element out of compliance on August 18, 2026.","added_delay_months":54,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/05/15/nimbys-be-warned-court-orders-huntington-beach-to-pay-up-for-repeated-violations-of-housing-law/"},{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"City of Huntington Beach City Council","date_invoked":"2023-03-07","description":"On March 7, 2023 the council voted 4-3 to block builder's remedy applications in the city. The ban was declared unlawful by the courts as part of the broader housing element enforcement action. The California Court of Appeal's September 2025 order specifically required expedited processing of all pending Builder's Remedy projects as a remedy for the ban.","added_delay_months":24,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2023/03/huntington-beach-blocks-state-housing-law-sets-up-confrontation-with-ca-attorney-general/"},{"short_name":"Measure J","full_name":"Voter Approval Requirements (Measure J/R and similar)","invoked_by":"Huntington Beach voters (Measure U)","date_invoked":"2026-06-16","description":"Measure U, approved by Huntington Beach voters in 2024, requires voter approval for general plan amendments or zoning changes when their environmental review finds significant and unavoidable impacts. City Attorney Mike Vigliotta wrote that the June 16, 2026 housing element adoption did not trigger it because no environmental review accompanied it; the court-ordered zoning changes had not yet been adopted.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/news_detail_T4_R641.php"}],"actors":[{"name":"Huntington Beach City Council (Majority)","organization":"City of Huntington Beach","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Non-Complying Local Government","stated_arguments":"\"We're doing a two-prong process. We're doing what the state has asked us to do, and, on a separate path, we're unleashing our city attorney to fight in court because we do believe in local control, and we do believe that the state is overstepping their bounds based on Huntington Beach being a charter city.\" The RHNA mandate is \"destroying our city.\" State housing mandates are unconstitutional overreach. The city pursued this position in six separate courts over four years and lost in all of them.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/04/06/destroying-our-city-huntington-beach-rejects-state-housing-plan/"},{"name":"Rob Bonta","organization":"California Attorney General's Office","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"California Attorney General / Lead Plaintiff","stated_arguments":"\"The deadline for Huntington Beach to submit a compliant housing element was October 15, 2021, nearly four years ago. At a time when California is experiencing a housing crisis of epic proportions, the City's continued reluctance to follow the law is inexcusable.\" \"After extensive proceedings in the courts, Governor Newsom, HCD Director Velasquez, and I have secured the relief that we sought all along.\" (December 2025, after Court of Appeal ruling)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-and-governor-newsom-secure-major-win-state%E2%80%99s-housing"},{"name":"Natalie Moser","organization":"City of Huntington Beach","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"support","role":"Council Minority / Pro-Compliance Advocate","stated_arguments":"\"The way to stop Builder's Remedy is to approve and receive a certified housing element. If the council was serious about wanting a certified housing element, it would not proceed with a direct violation of housing law.\" Voted consistently for compliance as a council minority of three.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2023/03/huntington-beach-blocks-state-housing-law-sets-up-confrontation-with-ca-attorney-general/"},{"name":"Kennedy Commission","organization":"Kennedy Commission","actor_type":"Trade Association","stance":"support","role":"Plaintiff Intervenor / Affordable Housing Advocate","stated_arguments":"\"This is an important victory in our challenge to Huntington Beach's refusal to do its fair share in addressing the statewide housing crisis.\" Orange County's low-income residents are directly harmed by HB's non-compliance, as the city's refusal ripples through one of California's most expensive regional housing markets.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2025/09/huntington-beach-housing-ruling/"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"State Housing Regulator / Co-Plaintiff","stated_arguments":"Confirmed that the city's own draft housing element would comply with state law if adopted — the element the council then rejected 4-3. Co-plaintiff with the Governor and AG in the April 2023 lawsuit. \"Huntington Beach has been out of compliance on its housing element since October 15, 2021.\" Under the December 2025 court order, HCD monitors future compliance.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/04/10/california-sues-huntington-beach-for-violating-state-housing-element-law/"},{"name":"Gracey Van Der Mark","organization":"Huntington Beach City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Mayor pro tem in April 2023; voted with the 4-3 majority against the staff housing element","stated_arguments":"\"I do not believe the benefits of building outweigh the consequences of destroying our city.\" (April 4, 2023)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/04/06/destroying-our-city-huntington-beach-rejects-state-housing-plan/"},{"name":"Judge Fred Slaughter","organization":"U.S. District Court, Central District of California","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Dismissed the city's federal lawsuit","stated_arguments":"\"This precedent precludes political subdivisions of a state like plaintiff city of Huntington Beach from asserting constitutional challenges to the validity of a state law in federal court.\" (November 2023)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/huntington-beach-loses-effort-to-dodge-california-housing-requirements/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2021-10-15","event_type":"6th Cycle Housing Element Deadline Missed","description":"The California deadline for Southern California jurisdictions to adopt their 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element passes. Huntington Beach, required to plan for 13,368 new homes, does not submit a compliant element. The city begins the process that will become the most prominent housing law enforcement action in California history.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://gdandb.com/2025/09/25/charter-cities-must-comply-court-orders-huntington-beach-to-meet-housing-mandates-in-120-days/","source_label":"GDB Law"},{"event_date":"2022-08-01","event_type":"City Submits Late Draft — HCD Confirms It Would Comply If Adopted","description":"Huntington Beach submits a draft Housing Element to HCD approximately 10 months after the October 2021 deadline. HCD confirms the draft would comply with state law if adopted. The city does not adopt it.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://gdandb.com/2025/09/25/charter-cities-must-comply-court-orders-huntington-beach-to-meet-housing-mandates-in-120-days/","source_label":"GDB Law"},{"event_date":"2023-02-21","event_type":"City Bans SB 9 and ADU Processing","description":"Huntington Beach City Council votes to ban the processing of applications under SB 9 (lot-splitting) and for accessory dwelling units. The combined effect of the Builder's Remedy ban, SB 9 ban, and ADU ban represents a comprehensive rejection of virtually every state housing streamlining mechanism enacted since 2017. State immediately issues warnings.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-governor-newsom-and-department-housing-and-community","source_label":"CA OAG"},{"event_date":"2023-03-07","event_type":"City Council Bans Builder's Remedy","description":"On March 7, 2023, the council votes 4-3 to block builder's remedy applications in the city, despite the threat of a state lawsuit. Councilwoman Natalie Moser: \"The way to stop builder's remedy is to approve and receive a certified housing element.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2023/03/huntington-beach-blocks-state-housing-law-sets-up-confrontation-with-ca-attorney-general/","source_label":"Voice of OC"},{"event_date":"2023-04-04","event_type":"City Council Rejects Its Own Staff's Compliant Housing Element (4-3)","description":"In a 4-3 vote, the Huntington Beach City Council rejects the draft Housing Element that its own planning staff had prepared and that HCD had confirmed would comply with state law if adopted. Mayor Pro Tem Gracey Van Der Mark, during the Tuesday night discussion: \"I do not believe the benefits of building outweigh the consequences of destroying our city.\" Governor Newsom: \"Another city where elected officials are resorting to cheap political stunts to avoid their responsibility to build desperately needed housing.\" This vote is the clearest single act of defiance in the database — a city rejecting its own staff's compliant work.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/04/06/destroying-our-city-huntington-beach-rejects-state-housing-plan/","source_label":"The Real Deal LA"},{"event_date":"2023-04-10","event_type":"State Amends Lawsuit To Add Housing Element Claims","description":"California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Governor Gavin Newsom, and HCD amend their March 2023 state court lawsuit against Huntington Beach to add claims that it violated Housing Element Law. City Attorney Michael Gates had filed a federal lawsuit in March, a day after the state's original suit, arguing RHNA requirements violate the city's 1st Amendment (compelled speech) and 14th Amendment (due process). HCD: \"Huntington Beach has been out of compliance on its housing element since October 15, 2021.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/04/10/california-sues-huntington-beach-for-violating-state-housing-element-law/","source_label":"CA Governor"},{"event_date":"2023-11-13","event_type":"Federal Judge Dismisses City's Lawsuit","description":"U.S. District Judge Fred Slaughter dismisses Huntington Beach's federal lawsuit with prejudice, ruling that a political subdivision of the state lacks standing to challenge state law in federal court. City Attorney Michael Gates says the city will appeal.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/huntington-beach-loses-effort-to-dodge-california-housing-requirements/","source_label":"Courthouse News"},{"event_date":"2024-05-15","event_type":"San Diego Superior Court: City Violated State Law — But Declines Full Remedies","description":"San Diego Superior Court finds that Huntington Beach violated California's Housing Element Law. However, the court declines to impose the 120-day deadline and full provisional remedies requested by the state. The state appeals.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-and-governor-newsom-secure-major-win-state%E2%80%99s-housing","source_label":"CA OAG"},{"event_date":"2024-10-30","event_type":"Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal","description":"A unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirms the dismissal of the city's federal lawsuit. Attorney General Rob Bonta: \"I am pleased that yet another court has emphatically rejected Huntington Beach's attempt to exempt itself from state housing laws.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/10/30/california-claims-victory-against-huntington-beachs-nimby-attempt-to-challenge-state-housing-law/","source_label":"CA Governor"},{"event_date":"2025-09-12","event_type":"California Court of Appeal: Full Remedies Ordered — 120-Day Deadline Imposed","description":"The California Fourth District Court of Appeal unanimously rules that the Superior Court erred by failing to impose the mandatory 120-day compliance deadline and provisional remedies. Orders Huntington Beach to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days, suspends its land use authority, and requires expedited approval of Builder's Remedy projects. Auto-approval kicks in if the city misses the 60-90 day processing window. Key ruling: \"Because local governments would not address the housing shortage if left to their own devices, state intervention is sensible — if not outright necessary.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/node/609841","source_label":"CA OAG"},{"event_date":"2025-12-11","event_type":"California Supreme Court Declines Review — Legal Fight Ends","description":"The California Supreme Court declines to hear Huntington Beach's petition for review of the Court of Appeal's ruling. This effectively ends HB's legal fight in state courts. The San Diego Superior Court subsequently sets a 120-day compliance deadline, later extended to May 28, 2026.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/huntington-beach-fight-over-california-housing-mandate-fizzles/","source_label":"Courthouse News"},{"event_date":"2025-12-19","event_type":"San Diego Superior Court Issues Sweeping Order — Land Use Authority Suspended","description":"San Diego Superior Court Judge Bacal issues the final remedial order. Huntington Beach must adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days. Its permitting, rezoning, and subdivision authority is suspended for RHNA sites. Builder's Remedy projects must be approved within 60-90 days or are automatically approved. Fast-track approval required for projects consistent with HB's draft housing element.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2025/12/judge-orders-huntington-beach-to-adopt-housing-plan/","source_label":"Voice of OC"},{"event_date":"2026-02-23","event_type":"U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Federal Constitutional Challenge","description":"The U.S. Supreme Court declines to review the Ninth Circuit's dismissal of Huntington Beach's federal lawsuit, which had argued RHNA requirements violated the city's 1st and 14th Amendment rights. This eliminates Huntington Beach's last remaining legal avenue. The city has now exhausted every court in the American legal system.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/02/supreme-court-denies-huntington-beach/","source_label":"Davis Vanguard"},{"event_date":"2026-05-14","event_type":"Court Orders Penalties, Sets May 28, 2026 Deadline","description":"The Superior Court orders Huntington Beach to pay $10,000 a month in penalties from January 2025 through May 2026, a total of $160,000, and $50,000 a month from June 2026 until it cures its violations. The court holds the city to a May 28, 2026 deadline to adopt a housing element.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/05/15/nimbys-be-warned-court-orders-huntington-beach-to-pay-up-for-repeated-violations-of-housing-law/","source_label":"CA Governor"},{"event_date":"2026-06-16","event_type":"Council Adopts Housing Element Update","description":"The council adopts a housing element update, the first phase of complying with the court's orders, which starts a 120-day period to adopt the required zoning changes. City Attorney Mike Vigliotta writes that the action did not trigger Measure U and that the Attorney General is seeking added penalties of up to $100,000 a month.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/news_detail_T4_R641.php","source_label":"City of Huntington Beach"},{"event_date":"2026-08-18","event_type":"State Finds Adopted Element Out of Compliance","description":"HCD finds the housing element the city adopted in June, which it received on June 19, out of compliance.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-open-data-tools/housing-element-review-and-compliance-report","source_label":"HCD"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2023-04-04","body":"City Council","action":"denied","action_label":"denied","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":4,"vote_against":3,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/04/06/destroying-our-city-huntington-beach-rejects-state-housing-plan/","source_label":"The Real Deal","notes":"Voted against adopting the housing element prepared by city staff."},{"decision_date":"2023-11-13","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/huntington-beach-loses-effort-to-dodge-california-housing-requirements/","source_label":"Courthouse News","notes":"U.S. District Court dismissed the city's federal lawsuit with prejudice for lack of standing."},{"decision_date":"2024-10-30","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":3,"vote_against":0,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/10/30/california-claims-victory-against-huntington-beachs-nimby-attempt-to-challenge-state-housing-law/","source_label":"CA Governor","notes":"A Ninth Circuit panel unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the federal lawsuit."},{"decision_date":"2026-05-14","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/30-2023-01312235-CU-WM-CJC_Minute%20Order%20SD%20%28JO%20Signature%29%5B1%5D.pdf","source_label":"Court minute order","notes":"Judge Katherine A. Bacal imposed penalties of $10,000 a month from January 2025 through May 2026 and $50,000 a month from June 2026 until the city cures the violation."},{"decision_date":"2026-06-16","body":"City Council","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/news_detail_T4_R641.php","source_label":"City of Huntington Beach","notes":"Adopted the housing element update, the first phase of complying with the court's orders; zoning changes due within 120 days. Propmodo reported Williams as the sole dissenting vote; the tally was not reported."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Huntington Beach Blocks State Housing Law, Sets Up Confrontation with CA Attorney General","url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2023/03/huntington-beach-blocks-state-housing-law-sets-up-confrontation-with-ca-attorney-general/","publication":"Voice of OC","author":"Jeanette Duran","date_published":"2023-03-08","notes":"Best coverage of the March 2023 Builder's Remedy ban vote. Contains Natalie Moser's dissenting quote and the McKeon/Strickland/Gates press conference framing."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"\"Destroying Our City\": Huntington Beach Rejects State Housing Plan","url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/04/06/destroying-our-city-huntington-beach-rejects-state-housing-plan/","publication":"The Real Deal LA","author":null,"date_published":"2023-04-06","notes":"Best source for the April 2023 council vote rejecting its own staff's housing element. Captures the \"destroying our city\" framing. Confirms the 4-3 vote."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"California Sues Huntington Beach for Violating State Housing Element Law","url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/04/10/california-sues-huntington-beach-for-violating-state-housing-element-law/","publication":"Office of the Governor of California","author":null,"date_published":"2023-04-10","notes":"State lawsuit filing press release. Confirms 13,368 RHNA requirement, October 15, 2021 deadline, and 4-3 vote rejecting the draft housing element."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Huntington Beach loses effort to dodge California housing requirements","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/huntington-beach-loses-effort-to-dodge-california-housing-requirements/","publication":"Courthouse News Service","author":"Hillel Aron","date_published":"2023-11-14","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"California claims victory against Huntington Beach's NIMBY attempt to challenge state housing law","url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/10/30/california-claims-victory-against-huntington-beachs-nimby-attempt-to-challenge-state-housing-law/","publication":"Office of the Governor of California","author":null,"date_published":"2024-10-30","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom Secure Appellate Victory in State Housing Lawsuit Against Huntington Beach","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/node/609841","publication":"California Attorney General","author":null,"date_published":"2025-09-12","notes":"Best source for the September 2025 Court of Appeal ruling. Contains full remedies ordered and the court's key language about state intervention being sensible if not outright necessary."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Charter Cities Must Comply: Court Orders Huntington Beach to Meet Housing Mandates in 120 Days","url":"https://gdandb.com/2025/09/25/charter-cities-must-comply-court-orders-huntington-beach-to-meet-housing-mandates-in-120-days/","publication":"Gatzke Dillon and Ballance LLP","author":null,"date_published":"2025-09-25","notes":"Best legal analysis of the September 2025 appellate ruling and its charter city implications. Explains Government Code sections 65754 and 65755 and the provisional remedies."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Huntington Beach Fight Over California Housing Mandate Fizzles","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/huntington-beach-fight-over-california-housing-mandate-fizzles/","publication":"Courthouse News Service","author":null,"date_published":"2025-12-11","notes":"California Supreme Court denial coverage. Captures the arc of the case as the city's legal strategy fizzles across multiple courts."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom Secure Major Win in State Housing Lawsuit Against Huntington Beach","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-and-governor-newsom-secure-major-win-state%E2%80%99s-housing","publication":"California Attorney General","author":null,"date_published":"2025-12-19","notes":"Coverage of the December 2025 Superior Court final order. Contains full scope of remedies: suspended land use authority, auto-approval of Builder's Remedy projects within 60-90 days, fast-track review requirements."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Attorney General Bonta Celebrates U.S. Supreme Court's Denial of Huntington Beach's Challenge to State Housing Laws","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-celebrates-us-supreme-court%E2%80%99s-denial-huntington-beach%E2%80%99s","publication":"California Attorney General","author":null,"date_published":"2026-02-23","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"US Supreme Court Declines to Hear Huntington Beach Housing Law Challenge","url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/02/supreme-court-denies-huntington-beach/","publication":"Davis Vanguard","author":null,"date_published":"2026-02-24","notes":"Confirms U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear HB's constitutional challenge, ending the federal litigation track. Explains the full multi-court scope of HB's legal fight."},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Minute order imposing penalties, People v. City of Huntington Beach (30-2023-01312235)","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/30-2023-01312235-CU-WM-CJC_Minute%20Order%20SD%20%28JO%20Signature%29%5B1%5D.pdf","publication":"San Diego County Superior Court","author":"Katherine A. Bacal","date_published":"2026-05-14","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"NIMBYs Be Warned: Court Orders Huntington Beach to Pay Up for Repeated Violations of Housing Law","url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/05/15/nimbys-be-warned-court-orders-huntington-beach-to-pay-up-for-repeated-violations-of-housing-law/","publication":"Office of the Governor of California","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-15","notes":"Most recent source — 13 days before research date. Confirms financial penalties under SB 1037, May 28, 2026 deadline, and $10K-$50K/month escalating penalty structure. Essential for confirming current status."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Huntington Beach adopts housing plan under court pressure and mounting fines","url":"https://propmodo.com/huntington-beach-adopts-housing-plan-under-court-pressure-and-mounting-fines/","publication":"Propmodo","author":null,"date_published":"2026-06-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Public Statement on the City Council's June 16, 2026 Housing Element Action","url":"https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/news_detail_T4_R641.php","publication":"City of Huntington Beach","author":"Mike Vigliotta","date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Housing Element Review and Compliance Report","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-open-data-tools/housing-element-review-and-compliance-report","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Huntington Beach 6th Cycle Housing Program — 13,368 Units, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/huntington-beach-housing-element-2021, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:42:59.673711+00:00"},{"id":82,"slug":"santa-cruz-county-builders-remedy-2024","name":"Live Oak Builder's Remedy Projects (841 Capitola Road and 3500 Paul Sweet Road)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-cruz-county-builders-remedy-2024","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-cruz-county-builders-remedy-2024/brief","address":"841 Capitola Road and 3500 Paul Sweet Road, Live Oak (unincorporated Santa Cruz County), CA","latitude":36.9784,"longitude":-121.9899,"jurisdiction":{"id":68,"slug":"unincorporated-santa-cruz-county-live-oak-area-santa-cruz","city":"Unincorporated Santa Cruz County (Live Oak area)","county":"Santa Cruz","region":"Central Coast","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/unincorporated-santa-cruz-county-live-oak-area-santa-cruz"},"city":"Unincorporated Santa Cruz County (Live Oak area)","county":"Santa Cruz","region":"Central Coast","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Litigated","units_proposed":162,"units_affordable":10,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2024-04-09","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"Santa Cruz County adopted its housing element on November 14, 2023, but HCD did not certify it until April 2024, after the region's December 15, 2023 deadline; the county says four builder's remedy proposals were filed during the four months it was out of compliance. This case covers the two in Live Oak from the Santa Cruz developer Workbench. At 841 Capitola Road, Workbench filed an SB 330 preliminary application on April 9, 2024 for a five-story, 57-unit apartment building, with three units for extremely low-income and one for very low-income households, on a lot zoned for single-family homes. At 3500 Paul Sweet Road, beside Dominican Hospital and the Dominican Oaks retirement community, it proposes a six-story building with 105 rental units, six of them for extremely low-income households; Workbench dates its preliminary application to April 9, 2024, while the county's project page lists April 22. HCD's records show the element found in compliance on April 12, 2024, and its certification letter was first dated April 23. Neighbors argue the county was effectively compliant on March 15, 2024, when, they say, HCD finished its review and county staff were told the plan would be certified. The Planning Commission approved 841 Capitola Road unanimously on October 22, 2025. Neighbor Michael Reis appealed for Supporters of Reasonable Development for Live Oak, and on February 10, 2026 the Board of Supervisors rejected the appeal 4-1, with Supervisor Justin Cummings dissenting, after County Counsel Jason Heath said that asking a judge to decide the compliance date would risk nearly $3 million in state fines and legal fees. On January 14, 2026 the commission continued 3500 Paul Sweet Road to a date uncertain, asking for more information on fire access, ambulance travel times, evacuation, parking, sewer service and the hospital helipad; lawyers for the hospital argue that the project missed the builder's remedy window. On March 10, 2026 the supervisors agreed to write to HCD, and their March 18 letter asked HCD to find the element in substantial compliance as of March 15, 2024, calling the delay \"largely administrative in nature.\" Neighbors sued over the Capitola Road approval on March 17, and on March 23 Workbench sued, saying the county missed its decision deadline and Paul Sweet Road is approved by operation of law; the item was pulled from the commission's March 25 agenda. A third builder's remedy project, 157 homes on Graham Hill Road filed by Lance Tate on April 11, 2024, has not had a hearing. Santa Cruz Local reported that a hearing in Workbench's suit was set for June 12, 2026; no ruling in either suit, and no HCD response to the county's letter, has been reported. The county's project pages, last updated September 1, 2026, list 841 Capitola Road as approved and 3500 Paul Sweet Road as continued to a date uncertain.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"Live Oak neighbors, Dominican Hospital and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors","date_invoked":"2025-11-03","description":"Neighbors argue the housing element was effectively compliant on March 15, 2024, before the applications were filed, so the builder's remedy does not apply. They appealed the 841 Capitola Road approval and sued after the supervisors upheld it. On March 18, 2026 the supervisors asked HCD to find the element compliant as of that date. Dominican Hospital's lawyers argue that 3500 Paul Sweet Road was filed too late. No court ruling or HCD response has been reported.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/04/17/as-lawsuits-ensnare-three-housing-proposals-what-could-it-mean-for-the-future-of-development-in-santa-cruz-county/"},{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"Santa Cruz County Planning Commission","date_invoked":"2026-01-14","description":"The commission continued 3500 Paul Sweet Road to a date uncertain with nine requests for information. Staff answered them and recommended approval for March 25, 2026, but Workbench sued on March 23, alleging a missed decision deadline, and the item was pulled. The county still lists the project as continued.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www2.santacruzcountyca.gov/planning/plnmeetings/PLNSupMaterial/PC/Agendas/2026/20260325/008.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"Justin Cummings","organization":"Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Supervisor; cast the only vote against the 841 Capitola Road approval","stated_arguments":"\"It's our responsibility to represent the people and not the developers.\" (March 10, 2026, on the letter to HCD)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/santa-cruz-county-facing-lawsuits-over-two-contentious-housing-developments-in-live-oak/story"},{"name":"Michael Reis","organization":"Supporters of Reasonable Development for Live Oak","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Grey Seal Road neighbor of 841 Capitola Road; filed the appeal and is listed on the March 17, 2026 suit","stated_arguments":"\"We believe, based on the evidence, that the county was compliant on the 15th with state law, and therefore this project was never eligible, or shouldn't be eligible for the builder's remedy.\" (December 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/supervisors-order-review-of-57-unit-capitola-road-project/story"},{"name":"Rachel Howley","organization":"Dominican Hospital","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Vice president of ancillary services at Dominican Hospital, next to 3500 Paul Sweet Road","stated_arguments":"\"This proposed development, given its scale, presents a direct and perilous risk to patient and resident safety.\" (March 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/03/27/developer-residents-sue-county-live-oak-apartment-proposals/"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"deciding","role":"Certified the county housing element; received the county's March 18, 2026 request","stated_arguments":"HCD found the adopted element in compliance as of April 12, 2024. County spokesperson Jason Hoppin said at the end of March 2026 that the county had not received a response to its request.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/santa-cruz-county-facing-lawsuits-over-two-contentious-housing-developments-in-live-oak/story"},{"name":"Ryan Patterson","organization":"Patterson & O'Neill","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Attorney for Workbench","stated_arguments":"\"This is a straightforward case of the county failing to make a decision by its deadline.\" Of the neighbors' suit: \"Unfortunately, NIMBY opposition never stops.\" (April 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/04/17/as-lawsuits-ensnare-three-housing-proposals-what-could-it-mean-for-the-future-of-development-in-santa-cruz-county/"},{"name":"Manu Koenig","organization":"Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"deciding","role":"Supervisor","stated_arguments":"\"It's very frustrating to be in this position.\" (Feb. 10, 2026) He said the neighbors' arguments were good but the risk of siding with the appeal influenced his decision.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/supervisors-reject-neighbors-appeal-of-57-unit-capitola-road-project/story"},{"name":"Santa Cruz County Planning Commission","organization":null,"actor_type":"Planning Commission","stance":"deciding","role":"Approved 841 Capitola Road on Oct. 22, 2025; continued 3500 Paul Sweet Road on Jan. 14, 2026","stated_arguments":"Chair Trina Barton: \"We want to make this project better for you, but our hands are tied, and it's very frustrating for us.\" (October 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/county-planning-commission-approves-workbench-project-on-capitola-road-neighbors-plan-appeal/story"},{"name":"Jason Heath","organization":"County of Santa Cruz","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"neutral","role":"County counsel","stated_arguments":"On asking a judge to decide the compliance date: \"I would not recommend that.\" He said it would risk nearly $3 million in state fines and legal fees. (Feb. 10, 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/supervisors-reject-neighbors-appeal-of-57-unit-capitola-road-project/story"},{"name":"Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"deciding","role":"Rejected the Capitola Road appeal 4-1; asked HCD to move the compliance date","stated_arguments":"Its March 18, 2026 letter asked that the housing element \"should be determined to be in substantial compliance and certified as of March 15, 2024.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/03/27/developer-residents-sue-county-live-oak-apartment-proposals/"},{"name":"Tim Gordin","organization":"Workbench","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"President of Workbench, applicant for both Live Oak projects","stated_arguments":"\"It's the appellants grasping at straws to try and prevent housing from being built in their neighborhood.\" (February 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/02/05/live-oak-apartment-proposal-appears-poised-for-legal-battle-over-state-housing-law/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2023-11-14","event_type":"County Adopts Housing Element","description":"The deadline for HCD certification in the Monterey Bay region is Dec. 15, 2023.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://cdi.santacruzcountyca.gov/UPC/GetInvolved/MajorProjectApplications/BuildersRemedy.aspx","source_label":"County of Santa Cruz"},{"event_date":"2024-03-15","event_type":"State Finishes Its Review, Neighbors Say","description":"Records cited by the neighbors, and later by the supervisors, show no substantive HCD review of the housing element after this date.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/04/17/as-lawsuits-ensnare-three-housing-proposals-what-could-it-mean-for-the-future-of-development-in-santa-cruz-county/","source_label":"Santa Cruz Local"},{"event_date":"2024-04-09","event_type":"Workbench Files Builder's Remedy Application for 841 Capitola Road","description":"The SB 330 preliminary application is followed by a formal application on Oct. 3, 2024. Workbench says it filed for 3500 Paul Sweet Road the same day.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://cdi.santacruzcountyca.gov/UPC/GetInvolved/MajorProjects/MajorProjects-ProjectDetails/TabId/12259/ArtMID/34572/ArticleID/1115/CategoryID/54/CategoryName/Major-Projects/841-Capitola-Road.aspx","source_label":"County of Santa Cruz"},{"event_date":"2024-04-11","event_type":"Builder's Remedy Application Filed on Graham Hill Road","description":"Lance Tate files for 157 homes on rural land. The project has not had a hearing.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://cdi.santacruzcountyca.gov/UPC/GetInvolved/MajorProjects/MajorProjects-ProjectDetails/TabId/12259/ArtMID/34572/ArticleID/1116/CategoryID/54/CategoryName/Major-Projects/Graham-Hill-Road.aspx","source_label":"County of Santa Cruz"},{"event_date":"2024-04-12","event_type":"State Certifies County Housing Element","description":"According to an HCD memo cited by the hospital's lawyers, the compliance letter first dated April 23 was revised to show compliance as of April 12.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www2.santacruzcountyca.gov/planning/plnmeetings/PLNSupMaterial/PC/Agendas/2026/20260114/009f.pdf","source_label":"County of Santa Cruz"},{"event_date":"2024-04-22","event_type":"County Records Paul Sweet Road Preliminary Application","description":"The county's project page gives this date. Workbench says it was a second filing and its operative application dates to April 9.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://cdi.santacruzcountyca.gov/UPC/GetInvolved/MajorProjects/MajorProjects-ProjectDetails/TabId/12259/ArtMID/34572/ArticleID/1114/CategoryID/54/CategoryName/Major-Projects/3500-Paul-Sweet-Road.aspx","source_label":"County of Santa Cruz"},{"event_date":"2025-10-22","event_type":"Planning Commission Approves 841 Capitola Road","description":"The vote is unanimous. Chair Trina Barton tells neighbors the commission's hands are tied.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/county-planning-commission-approves-workbench-project-on-capitola-road-neighbors-plan-appeal/story","source_label":"Lookout Santa Cruz"},{"event_date":"2025-11-03","event_type":"Neighbors Appeal to Supervisors","description":"Michael Reis files for Supporters of Reasonable Development for Live Oak, arguing the builder's remedy does not apply.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://cdi.santacruzcountyca.gov/UPC/GetInvolved/MajorProjects/MajorProjects-ProjectDetails/TabId/12259/ArtMID/34572/ArticleID/1115/CategoryID/54/CategoryName/Major-Projects/841-Capitola-Road.aspx","source_label":"County of Santa Cruz"},{"event_date":"2025-12-09","event_type":"Supervisors Agree To Rehear Capitola Road","description":"At a jurisdictional hearing the board unanimously orders a new review within 60 days.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/supervisors-order-review-of-57-unit-capitola-road-project/story","source_label":"Lookout Santa Cruz"},{"event_date":"2026-01-14","event_type":"Commission Continues Paul Sweet Road to a Date Uncertain","description":"The commission asks for nine items, including fire access, ambulance travel times, an evacuation plan and helipad compliance, and wants the fire marshal present.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www2.santacruzcountyca.gov/planning/plnmeetings/PLNSupMaterial/PC/Agendas/2026/20260325/008.pdf","source_label":"County of Santa Cruz"},{"event_date":"2026-02-10","event_type":"Supervisors Reject Appeal, Approve Capitola Road 4-1","description":"Justin Cummings dissents. County counsel says seeking a court ruling on the compliance date would risk nearly $3 million.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/supervisors-reject-neighbors-appeal-of-57-unit-capitola-road-project/story","source_label":"Lookout Santa Cruz"},{"event_date":"2026-03-10","event_type":"Supervisors Ask State To Move Compliance Date","description":"The board agrees to write to HCD. Its March 18 letter asks that the element be found compliant as of March 15, 2024.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/santa-cruz-county-facing-lawsuits-over-two-contentious-housing-developments-in-live-oak/story","source_label":"Lookout Santa Cruz"},{"event_date":"2026-03-17","event_type":"Neighbors Sue Over Capitola Road Approval","description":"Live Oak residents, including Michael Reis, sue the county and the Board of Supervisors.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/03/27/developer-residents-sue-county-live-oak-apartment-proposals/","source_label":"Santa Cruz Local"},{"event_date":"2026-03-23","event_type":"Workbench Sues Over Paul Sweet Road","description":"Workbench says the county is \"dragging their feet and refusing to issue an approval.\" The item is pulled from the commission's March 25 agenda.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/santa-cruz-county-facing-lawsuits-over-two-contentious-housing-developments-in-live-oak/story","source_label":"Lookout Santa Cruz"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2025-10-22","body":"Planning Commission","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/county-planning-commission-approves-workbench-project-on-capitola-road-neighbors-plan-appeal/story","source_label":"Lookout Santa Cruz","notes":"Approved 841 Capitola Road unanimously; individual votes were not reported."},{"decision_date":"2025-11-03","body":"Board of Supervisors","action":"appeal_filed","action_label":"appeal filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://cdi.santacruzcountyca.gov/UPC/GetInvolved/MajorProjects/MajorProjects-ProjectDetails/TabId/12259/ArtMID/34572/ArticleID/1115/CategoryID/54/CategoryName/Major-Projects/841-Capitola-Road.aspx","source_label":"County of Santa Cruz","notes":"Michael Reis appealed the 841 Capitola Road approval for Supporters of Reasonable Development for Live Oak."},{"decision_date":"2026-01-14","body":"Planning Commission","action":"continued","action_label":"continued to a later date","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www2.santacruzcountyca.gov/planning/plnmeetings/PLNSupMaterial/PC/Agendas/2026/20260325/008.pdf","source_label":"County of Santa Cruz","notes":"Continued 3500 Paul Sweet Road to a date uncertain and directed staff to provide more information."},{"decision_date":"2026-02-10","body":"Board of Supervisors","action":"appeal_rejected","action_label":"appeal rejected","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":4,"vote_against":1,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/supervisors-reject-neighbors-appeal-of-57-unit-capitola-road-project/story","source_label":"Lookout Santa Cruz","notes":"Rejected the appeal and approved 841 Capitola Road; Supervisor Justin Cummings dissented."},{"decision_date":"2026-03-17","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/03/27/developer-residents-sue-county-live-oak-apartment-proposals/","source_label":"Santa Cruz Local","notes":"Live Oak residents, including Michael Reis, sued the county and the Board of Supervisors over the 841 Capitola Road approval."},{"decision_date":"2026-03-23","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://lookout.co/santa-cruz-county-facing-lawsuits-over-two-contentious-housing-developments-in-live-oak/story","source_label":"Lookout Santa Cruz","notes":"Workbench sued the county and its Planning Commission over 3500 Paul Sweet Road, alleging a missed decision deadline."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"County planning commission approves Workbench project on Capitola Road; neighbors plan appeal","url":"https://lookout.co/county-planning-commission-approves-workbench-project-on-capitola-road-neighbors-plan-appeal/story","publication":"Lookout Santa Cruz","author":"Tania Ortiz","date_published":"2025-10-23","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"A battle over state housing law could send a Live Oak apartment proposal to court","url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2025/11/13/battle-over-state-housing-law-live-oak/","publication":"Santa Cruz Local","author":"Jesse Kathan","date_published":"2025-11-13","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Supervisors order review of 57-unit Capitola Road project","url":"https://lookout.co/supervisors-order-review-of-57-unit-capitola-road-project/story","publication":"Lookout Santa Cruz","author":"Tania Ortiz","date_published":"2025-12-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Dominican Hospital and retirement community object to housing development","url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/01/14/dominican-hospital-and-retirement-community-object-to-housing-development/","publication":"Santa Cruz Local","author":"Jesse Greenspan","date_published":"2026-01-14","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Late correspondence, Application No. 241360, January 14, 2026 Planning Commission hearing","url":"https://www2.santacruzcountyca.gov/planning/plnmeetings/PLNSupMaterial/PC/Agendas/2026/20260114/009f.pdf","publication":"County of Santa Cruz","author":null,"date_published":"2026-01-14","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Live Oak apartment proposal appears poised for legal battle over state housing law","url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/02/05/live-oak-apartment-proposal-appears-poised-for-legal-battle-over-state-housing-law/","publication":"Santa Cruz Local","author":"Jesse Greenspan","date_published":"2026-02-05","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Santa Cruz County Supervisors reluctantly approve Live Oak housing project","url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/02/11/santa-cruz-county-supervisors-reluctantly-approve-live-oak-housing-project/","publication":"Santa Cruz Local","author":"B. Sakura Cannestra","date_published":"2026-02-11","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Supervisors reject neighbors' appeal of 57-unit Capitola Road project","url":"https://lookout.co/supervisors-reject-neighbors-appeal-of-57-unit-capitola-road-project/story","publication":"Lookout Santa Cruz","author":"Tania Ortiz","date_published":"2026-02-11","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Memorandum: Additional Information, Application No. 241360, March 25, 2026 Planning Commission Hearing","url":"https://www2.santacruzcountyca.gov/planning/plnmeetings/PLNSupMaterial/PC/Agendas/2026/20260325/008.pdf","publication":"County of Santa Cruz","author":"Jonathan DiSalvo","date_published":"2026-03-25","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developer and residents sue County of Santa Cruz over two Live Oak apartment proposals","url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/03/27/developer-residents-sue-county-live-oak-apartment-proposals/","publication":"Santa Cruz Local","author":"Jesse Greenspan","date_published":"2026-03-27","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Santa Cruz County facing lawsuits over two contentious housing developments in Live Oak","url":"https://lookout.co/santa-cruz-county-facing-lawsuits-over-two-contentious-housing-developments-in-live-oak/story","publication":"Lookout Santa Cruz","author":"Tania Ortiz","date_published":"2026-03-31","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"As lawsuits ensnare three housing proposals, what could it mean for the future of development in Santa Cruz County?","url":"https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/04/17/as-lawsuits-ensnare-three-housing-proposals-what-could-it-mean-for-the-future-of-development-in-santa-cruz-county/","publication":"Santa Cruz Local","author":"Jesse Greenspan","date_published":"2026-04-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Graham Hill Road (Major Projects)","url":"https://cdi.santacruzcountyca.gov/UPC/GetInvolved/MajorProjects/MajorProjects-ProjectDetails/TabId/12259/ArtMID/34572/ArticleID/1116/CategoryID/54/CategoryName/Major-Projects/Graham-Hill-Road.aspx","publication":"County of Santa Cruz","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Builder's Remedy","url":"https://cdi.santacruzcountyca.gov/UPC/GetInvolved/MajorProjectApplications/BuildersRemedy.aspx","publication":"County of Santa Cruz","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"3500 Paul Sweet Road (Major Projects)","url":"https://cdi.santacruzcountyca.gov/UPC/GetInvolved/MajorProjects/MajorProjects-ProjectDetails/TabId/12259/ArtMID/34572/ArticleID/1114/CategoryID/54/CategoryName/Major-Projects/3500-Paul-Sweet-Road.aspx","publication":"County of Santa Cruz","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"841 Capitola Road (Major Projects)","url":"https://cdi.santacruzcountyca.gov/UPC/GetInvolved/MajorProjects/MajorProjects-ProjectDetails/TabId/12259/ArtMID/34572/ArticleID/1115/CategoryID/54/CategoryName/Major-Projects/841-Capitola-Road.aspx","publication":"County of Santa Cruz","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Live Oak Builder's Remedy Projects (841 Capitola Road and 3500 Paul Sweet Road), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-cruz-county-builders-remedy-2024, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:18:37.375093+00:00"},{"id":28,"slug":"palo-alto-lot-t-2025","name":"Lot T Affordable Housing — 450 Lytton Avenue","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/palo-alto-lot-t-2025","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/palo-alto-lot-t-2025/brief","address":"450 Lytton Avenue (Lot T at Lytton Ave & Kipling Street), Palo Alto, CA 94301","latitude":37.4445,"longitude":-122.1608,"jurisdiction":{"id":27,"slug":"palo-alto-santa-clara","city":"Palo Alto","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/palo-alto-santa-clara"},"city":"Palo Alto","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Stalled","units_proposed":72,"units_affordable":72,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":6,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2025-01-01","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":16,"cost_of_delay_usd":2750000,"data_quality":3,"description":"A proposed 100% affordable apartment building on Lot T, a city-owned surface parking lot at the corner of Lytton Avenue and Kipling Street in downtown Palo Alto, one block from the Palo Alto Caltrain station. Developer: Alta Housing (formerly Palo Alto Housing Corporation — the same nonprofit that proposed the Maybell Avenue senior housing killed by referendum in 2013). The project is the first to use Palo Alto's new program to build affordable housing on public parking lots, created to help the city meet its state housing mandates. The City Council in January 2025 selected Alta Housing to build 72 apartments on Lot T, with all seven council members supporting the project. The six-story building would include one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments, with a large share reserved for extremely low-income households, and one ground-floor level of parking to offset some lost spaces. The formal planning application was filed in February 2026. In April 2025, land use attorney David Lanferman filed a lawsuit against the city on behalf of \"Downtown Vibrancy,\" a coalition of downtown property owners. Their legal theory: because Lot T was funded through property owner assessments since the mid-1970s, the city cannot convert it to other uses without the owners' consent. No California court has ruled on this theory. The city's attorneys warned the lawsuit costs $2.75 million per year in rising construction costs and could make the project financially infeasible. A judge denied the city's request for a $500,000 bond from the plaintiffs, finding it would cause \"undue economic hardship.\" As of May 2026, the lawsuit is still pending and the project has not broken ground. City is aiming for a council development agreement vote in mid-2026. If the lawsuit is not resolved, construction cannot begin until 2027-2028 at the earliest.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Downtown Vibrancy (David Lanferman)","date_invoked":"2025-04-23","description":"The Downtown Vibrancy lawsuit does not invoke CEQA directly — it is a novel property rights theory based on historical assessment funding. However, it functions like a CEQA challenge in practice: a third-party lawsuit filed after unanimous government approval to delay a housing project through litigation. The city calls it an attempt to \"delay or thwart\" housing. The core theory — that property owners who paid assessments for parking decades ago retain a vested interest preventing repurposing — has never been tested in California courts. A judge has already denied the city's request for a bond, meaning plaintiffs face no financial penalty for the $2.75M/year in construction cost inflation they are causing. NOTE: if a \"Property Rights Litigation\" mechanism exists in your schema, use that instead. This is the closest available mechanism.","added_delay_months":16,"added_cost_usd":2750000,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/courts/2025/08/12/city-fears-legal-challenge-may-doom-affordable-housing-project/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Alta Housing","organization":"Alta Housing (formerly Palo Alto Housing Corporation)","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / Nonprofit Applicant","stated_arguments":"\"Each year of delay increases project costs.\" (Randy Tsuda, CEO). Moving forward with formal application despite pending lawsuit. Project is the first under the city's new program to build affordable housing on public parking lots. The economics of affordable housing development are thin — construction cost inflation caused by the lawsuit delay could push the project into financial infeasibility.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/courts/2025/08/12/city-fears-legal-challenge-may-doom-affordable-housing-project/"},{"name":"Palo Alto City Council (2025)","organization":"City of Palo Alto","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"support","role":"Unanimous Council (7-0) / Project Sponsor","stated_arguments":"All seven council members support the project. Reckdahl: \"Affordable housing – we have such demand for it. This is a great site. We want to make the most of this lot.\" City filed that the Downtown Vibrancy lawsuit \"intends to delay or thwart the Project.\" City sought $500,000 bond from plaintiffs (denied by judge on grounds of \"undue economic hardship\").","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/housing/2025/10/22/despite-lawsuit-palo-alto-aims-to-build-housing-on-public-parking-lot/"},{"name":"Downtown Vibrancy","organization":"Downtown Vibrancy (coalition of Palo Alto downtown property owners)","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Plaintiff / Downtown Property Owner Coalition","stated_arguments":"\"The Defendants' actions and efforts to replace vital parking facilities with housing is inconsistent with many of the City's land use plans and policies, and is in disregard of the rights and interests of the Downtown property owners who paid for the parking lots.\" (Lanferman complaint). Legal theory: property owners whose assessments funded Lot T have a vested interest in its continued use for parking that the city cannot extinguish unilaterally.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/housing/2025/04/23/suit-aims-to-kill-plan-for-housing-on-parking-lot/"},{"name":"David Lanferman","organization":"Lanferman (land use attorney)","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"oppose","role":"Lead Litigation Attorney for Downtown Vibrancy","stated_arguments":"Filed the April 2025 lawsuit on behalf of Downtown Vibrancy. His legal theory — that historical assessment funding creates a property interest preventing land-use conversion without owner consent — is untested in California courts. The city calls the lawsuit an attempt to \"delay or thwart\" housing construction. Lanferman has been a consistent presence in Palo Alto parking and land-use litigation over many years.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/housing/2025/04/23/suit-aims-to-kill-plan-for-housing-on-parking-lot/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2024-01-01","event_type":"City Creates Parking Lot Affordable Housing Program","description":"The City of Palo Alto creates a new program to build affordable housing on city-owned public parking lots, as part of the city's effort to comply with state housing mandates under its Housing Element. Lot T at Lytton Avenue and Kipling Street — one block from the Caltrain station — is identified as the first candidate. The program is a direct response to HCD's documented concerns about Palo Alto's housing production.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/housing/2025/04/23/suit-aims-to-kill-plan-for-housing-on-parking-lot/","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"},{"event_date":"2025-01-01","event_type":"City Council Unanimously Selects Alta Housing for Lot T","description":"The Palo Alto City Council votes unanimously — all seven members — to select Alta Housing (formerly Palo Alto Housing Corporation) as the developer for 72 units of 100% affordable housing on Lot T. All council members express strong support. Reckdahl: \"Affordable housing — we have such demand for it. This is a great site. We want to make the most of this lot.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/housing/2025/04/23/suit-aims-to-kill-plan-for-housing-on-parking-lot/","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"},{"event_date":"2025-04-23","event_type":"Downtown Vibrancy Files Lawsuit — Novel Parking Assessment Theory","description":"David Lanferman files a lawsuit against the City of Palo Alto on behalf of Downtown Vibrancy, a coalition of downtown property owners, seeking to block the conversion of Lot T to affordable housing. The legal theory: because Lot T and other downtown parking facilities were funded through property owner assessments levied since the mid-1970s, the city cannot convert the lots to other uses without the property owners' consent. No California court has ruled on this theory. The lawsuit is filed three months after the council's unanimous selection of Alta Housing.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/housing/2025/04/23/suit-aims-to-kill-plan-for-housing-on-parking-lot/","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"},{"event_date":"2025-08-12","event_type":"City Warns Lawsuit Could Make Project Financially Infeasible","description":"Palo Alto Online reports that city attorneys have warned the Downtown Vibrancy lawsuit is costing at least $2.75 million per year in rising construction costs due to delay, and that if the lawsuit continues much longer, the project could become financially infeasible entirely. The city seeks a $500,000 bond from the plaintiffs to cover damages if they lose; a judge denies the request, finding it would impose \"undue economic hardship\" on the property owners. Alta Housing CEO Randy Tsuda: \"Each year of delay increases project costs.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/courts/2025/08/12/city-fears-legal-challenge-may-doom-affordable-housing-project/","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"},{"event_date":"2025-10-23","event_type":"City Pursues Expanded Program Despite Lawsuit","description":"Despite the pending lawsuit, Palo Alto presses forward with the broader parking lot housing program. City staff present plans to the council for additional parking lot sites for affordable housing. The council remains unanimously supportive of Lot T and the expanded program.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/palo-alto-seeks-more-housing-on-downtown-lot-project/","source_label":"San Jose Spotlight"},{"event_date":"2025-12-15","event_type":"Attorneys Clash Over Evidence in Lawsuit","description":"Both sides argue over the scope of evidence admissible in the Downtown Vibrancy lawsuit. The dispute centers on documentary evidence about the historical funding of downtown parking facilities and what legal rights, if any, assessment payments created for property owners. No ruling yet. The lawsuit continues to delay project timelines.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/courts/2025/12/15/attorneys-clash-over-evidence-in-legal-dispute-over-downtown-housing/","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"},{"event_date":"2026-02-09","event_type":"Alta Housing Files Formal Planning Application","description":"Alta Housing files its formal planning application for the six-story, 72-unit affordable apartment building on Lot T, despite the Downtown Vibrancy lawsuit still pending. San José Spotlight: Alta Housing \"is pressing forward with a housing project in downtown Palo Alto despite a pending lawsuit.\" Tsuda: proceeding reflects Alta Housing's confidence in the project's legal foundation and the council's support. City aims for a development agreement vote in mid-2026. Construction cannot begin until the lawsuit is resolved or the city prevails in court.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/housing/2026/02/09/developer-applies-for-housing-project-on-downtown-lot-despite-suit/","source_label":"Palo Alto Online"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Suit Aims to Kill Plan for Housing on Parking Lot","url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/housing/2025/04/23/suit-aims-to-kill-plan-for-housing-on-parking-lot/","publication":"Palo Alto Online","author":null,"date_published":"2025-04-23","notes":"First coverage of the Downtown Vibrancy lawsuit. Confirms April 2025 filing, Lanferman as attorney, the assessment theory, and project specs. Best source for lawsuit origins."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"City Fears Legal Challenge May Doom Affordable Housing Project","url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/courts/2025/08/12/city-fears-legal-challenge-may-doom-affordable-housing-project/","publication":"Palo Alto Online","author":null,"date_published":"2025-08-12","notes":"Best single source on the financial impact. Confirms $2.75M/year construction cost inflation figure, \"financially infeasible\" warning, judge denial of $500K bond, and Randy Tsuda quote. Essential."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Palo Alto Seeks More Housing on Downtown Lot Project","url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/palo-alto-seeks-more-housing-on-downtown-lot-project/","publication":"San José Spotlight","author":null,"date_published":"2025-10-23","notes":"Covers the city pressing forward with the broader parking lot housing program despite the lawsuit. Confirms council support and expanded program scope."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Attorneys Clash Over Evidence in Legal Dispute Over Downtown Housing","url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/courts/2025/12/15/attorneys-clash-over-evidence-in-legal-dispute-over-downtown-housing/","publication":"Palo Alto Online","author":null,"date_published":"2025-12-15","notes":"Coverage of the evidentiary dispute in the lawsuit. Documents that the case is still actively litigated as of December 2025."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developer Applies for Housing Project on Downtown Lot Despite Suit","url":"https://www.paloaltoonline.com/housing/2026/02/09/developer-applies-for-housing-project-on-downtown-lot-despite-suit/","publication":"Palo Alto Online","author":null,"date_published":"2026-02-09","notes":"Confirms February 2026 formal application filing. Best source for current project status and mid-2026 development agreement timeline."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Parking Lot Showdown as Palo Alto Developer Pushes 72-Unit Downtown Housing Plan","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/02/parking-lot-showdown-as-palo-alto-developer-pushes-72-unit-downtown-housing-plan/","publication":"Hoodline","author":null,"date_published":"2026-02-10","notes":"Confirms 72 units, six stories, one ground-floor parking level. Good supplementary source for project specifications."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developer Applies for Palo Alto Housing Project Despite Lawsuit","url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/developer-applies-for-palo-alto-housing-project-despite-lawsuit/","publication":"San José Spotlight","author":null,"date_published":"2026-02-14","notes":"Second source on February 2026 application. Confirms \"pressing forward despite pending lawsuit\" framing and current project status."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Lot T Affordable Housing — 450 Lytton Avenue, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/palo-alto-lot-t-2025, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-05-30T02:03:42.857658+00:00"},{"id":85,"slug":"fairfax-marinda-heights-2023","name":"Marinda Heights Builder's Remedy Subdivision (Wall Property)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/fairfax-marinda-heights-2023","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/fairfax-marinda-heights-2023/brief","address":"Marinda Drive and Ridgeway Avenue, Fairfax, CA 94930","latitude":37.9921,"longitude":-122.5905,"jurisdiction":{"id":56,"slug":"fairfax-marin","city":"Fairfax","county":"Marin","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/fairfax-marin"},"city":"Fairfax","county":"Marin","region":"Bay Area","project_type":null,"status":"Withdrawn","units_proposed":25,"units_affordable":null,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":null,"date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"The Wall property is a roughly 100-acre hillside parcel above Marinda Drive in northeastern Fairfax. The town has designated it as proposed open space in its General Plan for 20 years, and its zoning allows one home per ten acres. Timberstone LLC, which Mill Valley developer Marshal Rothman formed to develop the land, bought it in 2013 and proposed Marinda Heights, a subdivision of ten lots of 10 acres or more with one house on each. The State Clearinghouse received the town's notice of preparation for an environmental impact report on August 12, 2019. Rothman says the review was too broad and too expensive, and that after he refused to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more for it, the town deemed his permit expired. In January 2023, days before Fairfax missed the January 31 housing element deadline, he submitted plans to use the builder's remedy for 25 units: the ten homes plus a stand-alone 15-unit condominium complex (KQED described the preliminary application as ten single-family homes). In a March 13, 2023 letter, Town Attorney Janet Coleson said the SB 330 preliminary application would be deemed submitted only when the town received a $50,000 deposit and a signed reimbursement and indemnity agreement, and Mayor Chance Cutrano said the fees include a legal review. Rothman told KQED he wanted to sue over the fee but feared the cost, and YIMBY Law founder Sonja Trauss was helping him develop a lawsuit. On May 19, 2023 his attorney, Ellis Raskin of Hanson Bridgett, wrote that Rothman would sue for damages if the town did not process the application; no lawsuit was reported. By late May, Timberstone had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to stay a foreclosure sale, and court documents attributed its loan default to its inability to secure approvals from the town, the North Bay Business Journal reported. The town said no application had been submitted. In November 2023 the Marin Open Space Trust signed an agreement to buy the property, for $2.3 million according to the San Anselmo Open Space Committee. HCD certified Fairfax's housing element on April 8, 2024. The State Coastal Conservancy gave the town $500,000 toward the purchase, and a $2.9 million fundraising goal was met in August 2024. The town closed escrow on September 30, 2024, and the land is now public open space.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Town of Fairfax","date_invoked":"2019-08-12","description":"The town began an EIR for the ten-lot subdivision. Rothman says the review was too broad and too costly, that the town deemed his permit expired after he refused to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more, and that $53,000 of his $100,000 deposit went to legal fees.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/developers-ready-to-pounce-as-bay-area-cities-fall-behind-on-housing-deadline/"},{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"Town of Fairfax","date_invoked":"2023-03-13","description":"The town said the builder's remedy preliminary application would be deemed submitted only after it received a $50,000 deposit and a signed reimbursement and indemnity agreement; the mayor said the fees covered legal review. Rothman's attorney called the fee unlawful and threatened to sue, but no lawsuit was reported. In May 2023 the town said no application had been submitted, and the land is now town open space.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/mill-valley-developer-seeks-builders-remedy-project-in-fairfax/"}],"actors":[{"name":"California State Coastal Conservancy","organization":null,"actor_type":"State Agency","stance":"neutral","role":"Helped fund the purchase","stated_arguments":"Provided $500,000 to the town to acquire the Wall property for natural resources, wildlife habitat, open space, tribal cultural resources and public access.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2024060187"},{"name":"Chance Cutrano","organization":"Town of Fairfax","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"oppose","role":"Mayor in April 2023; later on the council subcommittee that worked with the Marin Open Space Trust on the purchase","stated_arguments":"Defended the $50,000 in fees, saying they include a legal review of the application, and said the application would be incomplete until Rothman paid.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/11945744/california-building-boom-a-new-law-promised-big-but-has-yet-to-deliver-in-the-bay-area"},{"name":"David Woltering","organization":"Town of Fairfax","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"neutral","role":"Interim planning and building services director (January 2023)","stated_arguments":"Said the town had offered to meet with Rothman and planned to process his application quickly once he finished his submission.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/developers-ready-to-pounce-as-bay-area-cities-fall-behind-on-housing-deadline/"},{"name":"Heather Abrams","organization":"Town of Fairfax","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"neutral","role":"Town manager","stated_arguments":"\"To date, no application has been submitted.\" (May 2023)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/mill-valley-developer-seeks-builders-remedy-project-in-fairfax/"},{"name":"Town of Fairfax","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Required the deposit; took title to the land as open space in 2024","stated_arguments":"\"For 20 years, the Town of Fairfax has designated this property as proposed open space in its General Plan.\" The council made the land an open space priority in 2007, and the town closed escrow on Sept. 30, 2024.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://townoffairfax.org/wall-property-project"},{"name":"Janet Coleson","organization":"Town of Fairfax","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"oppose","role":"Town attorney","stated_arguments":"Wrote on March 13, 2023 that the SB 330 preliminary application \"will be deemed submitted on the date the town receives the required fees and executed reimbursement and indemnity agreement.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/mill-valley-developer-seeks-builders-remedy-project-in-fairfax/"},{"name":"Marshal Rothman","organization":"Timberstone LLC","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Mill Valley developer; formed Timberstone LLC, which bought the Wall property in 2013","stated_arguments":"\"So basically I was paying their attorney to figure out how to stop me.\" (May 2023.) Sought approval for ten homes for nearly a decade, then invoked the builder's remedy for 25 units in 2023.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/mill-valley-developer-seeks-builders-remedy-project-in-fairfax/"},{"name":"Sonja Trauss","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Founder of YIMBY Law; was helping Rothman develop a lawsuit over the fee","stated_arguments":"\"It's not hard to read between the lines that the only reason you need a special [legal] consultant for a builder's remedy project is if you are hiring a lawyer to stop it.\" (April 2023)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/11945744/california-building-boom-a-new-law-promised-big-but-has-yet-to-deliver-in-the-bay-area"},{"name":"Ellis Raskin","organization":"Hanson Bridgett","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Attorney for Rothman","stated_arguments":"\"The $50,000 fee is not something that passes legal muster.\" His May 19, 2023 letter to the town attorney said, \"we intend to file an action in the Superior Court to recover damages.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/mill-valley-developer-seeks-builders-remedy-project-in-fairfax/"},{"name":"Marin Open Space Trust","organization":null,"actor_type":"Landowner / Philanthropist","stance":"neutral","role":"Land trust that agreed in November 2023 to buy the property for open space","stated_arguments":"Agreed to buy the property for $2.3 million; extra costs for studies, appraisals, legal counsel, remediation and maintenance raised the total needed to $2.9 million. The town council agreed in May 2024 to accept the property from the trust.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.sananselmoopenspace.org/2024-newsletter"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2019-08-12","event_type":"Town Starts EIR for Ten-Lot Subdivision","description":"The State Clearinghouse receives the notice of preparation for Marinda Heights: ten lots of 10 acres or more, with one house on each.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2019080201/2","source_label":"CEQAnet"},{"event_date":"2023-01-27","event_type":"Developer Plans 25-Unit Builder's Remedy Project","description":"Days before the housing element deadline, Rothman says he has submitted plans for 25 units. The interim planning director says the town will process the application quickly once the submission is finished.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/developers-ready-to-pounce-as-bay-area-cities-fall-behind-on-housing-deadline/","source_label":"The San Francisco Standard"},{"event_date":"2023-03-13","event_type":"Town Requires $50,000 Deposit Before Application Counts","description":"Town Attorney Janet Coleson writes that the application \"will be deemed submitted on the date the town receives the required fees and executed reimbursement and indemnity agreement.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/mill-valley-developer-seeks-builders-remedy-project-in-fairfax/","source_label":"North Bay Business Journal"},{"event_date":"2023-04-06","event_type":"Mayor Defends Fee, Developer Weighs Suit","description":"Mayor Chance Cutrano says the fees include a legal review. YIMBY Law founder Sonja Trauss is helping Rothman develop a lawsuit.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/11945744/california-building-boom-a-new-law-promised-big-but-has-yet-to-deliver-in-the-bay-area","source_label":"KQED"},{"event_date":"2023-05-19","event_type":"Developer's Attorney Threatens Damages Suit","description":"Ellis Raskin of Hanson Bridgett writes that \"we intend to file an action in the Superior Court to recover damages\" if the town does not process the application.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/mill-valley-developer-seeks-builders-remedy-project-in-fairfax/","source_label":"North Bay Business Journal"},{"event_date":"2023-05-31","event_type":"Owner in Chapter 11, Town Says No Application Submitted","description":"Timberstone has filed for bankruptcy to stay a foreclosure sale of the land. Town Manager Heather Abrams: \"To date, no application has been submitted.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/mill-valley-developer-seeks-builders-remedy-project-in-fairfax/","source_label":"North Bay Business Journal"},{"event_date":"2023-09-26","event_type":"Council Moves Toward Open Space Purchase","description":"A council subcommittee of Chance Cutrano and Barbara Coler is assigned to work with the Marin Open Space Trust on a possible purchase. The trust signs an agreement with the owners in November 2023.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://townoffairfax.org/wall-property-project","source_label":"Town of Fairfax"},{"event_date":"2024-04-08","event_type":"State Certifies Fairfax Housing Element","description":"HCD finds the element adopted Dec. 13, 2023 in substantial compliance.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2024/04/HCD-Certifies-Fairfax-Housing-Element-Letter.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2024-06-06","event_type":"State Conservancy Funds Purchase","description":"A notice of exemption records $500,000 from the Coastal Conservancy for the town to acquire the property.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2024060187","source_label":"CEQAnet"},{"event_date":"2024-09-30","event_type":"Town Takes Title to Wall Property","description":"The town closes escrow and becomes owner of the 100-acre property, which it is preserving as open space.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://townoffairfax.org/event/open-space-acquisition-ribbon-cutting","source_label":"Town of Fairfax"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2023-03-13","body":"Staff","action":"deemed_incomplete","action_label":"deemed application incomplete","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/mill-valley-developer-seeks-builders-remedy-project-in-fairfax/","source_label":"North Bay Business Journal","notes":"The town attorney wrote that the SB 330 preliminary application would be deemed submitted only after the town received a $50,000 deposit and a signed reimbursement and indemnity agreement."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Marinda Heights Subdivision Project, notice of preparation (SCH 2019080201)","url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2019080201/2","publication":"CEQAnet","author":null,"date_published":"2019-08-12","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developers ready to pounce as Bay Area cities fall behind on housing deadline","url":"https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/developers-ready-to-pounce-as-bay-area-cities-fall-behind-on-housing-deadline/","publication":"The San Francisco Standard","author":"Sarah Wright","date_published":"2023-01-27","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California Building Boom? A New Law Promised Big, but Has Yet to Deliver in the Bay Area","url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/11945744/california-building-boom-a-new-law-promised-big-but-has-yet-to-deliver-in-the-bay-area","publication":"KQED","author":"Adhiti Bandlamudi","date_published":"2023-04-06","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Marin County housing developer seeks California's 'builder's remedy' for Fairfax project","url":"https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/mill-valley-developer-seeks-builders-remedy-project-in-fairfax/","publication":"North Bay Business Journal","author":"Richard Halstead","date_published":"2023-05-31","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"HCD letter finding the Fairfax housing element in substantial compliance","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2024/04/HCD-Certifies-Fairfax-Housing-Element-Letter.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":"Melinda Coy","date_published":"2024-04-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Wall Property Acquisition, notice of exemption (SCH 2024060187)","url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2024060187","publication":"CEQAnet","author":null,"date_published":"2024-06-06","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Announcement: Successful Fundraising for Wall Property Acquisition","url":"https://townoffairfax.org/announcement-successful-fundraising-for-wall-property-acquisition","publication":"Town of Fairfax","author":null,"date_published":"2024-08-20","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"2024 Newsletter: Wall Property Conveyed to Fairfax","url":"https://www.sananselmoopenspace.org/2024-newsletter","publication":"San Anselmo Open Space Committee","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Open Space Acquisition Ribbon Cutting","url":"https://townoffairfax.org/event/open-space-acquisition-ribbon-cutting","publication":"Town of Fairfax","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Wall Property","url":"https://townoffairfax.org/wall-property-project","publication":"Town of Fairfax","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Fairfax housing element lawsuit","url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/fairfax-housing-element","publication":"YIMBY Law","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Large Fairfax Property Acquired for Open Space","url":"https://friendsofcortemaderacreek.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/LargeFairfaxPropertyAcquiredforOpenSpace.docx.pdf","publication":"Friends of Corte Madera Creek","author":"Ann Thomas","date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Marinda Heights Builder's Remedy Subdivision (Wall Property), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/fairfax-marinda-heights-2023, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:23:09.355251+00:00"},{"id":21,"slug":"san-diego-midway-rising-2022","name":"Midway Rising — Midway District Sports Arena Redevelopment","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/san-diego-midway-rising-2022","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/san-diego-midway-rising-2022/brief","address":"3220 Sports Arena Blvd (Pechanga Arena site), San Diego, CA 92110","latitude":32.7583,"longitude":-117.2083,"jurisdiction":{"id":21,"slug":"san-diego-san-diego","city":"San Diego","county":"San Diego","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/san-diego-san-diego"},"city":"San Diego","county":"San Diego","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"In Review","units_proposed":4254,"units_affordable":2000,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2022-09-13","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":49,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"A proposed mixed-use redevelopment of 48-49 acres of city-owned land in San Diego's Midway District, centered on the site of Pechanga Arena. The Midway Rising development team — led by Zephyr Partners, with LA Rams owner Stan Kroenke as primary funder — was selected by the City of San Diego in September 2022. The plan calls for 4,254 apartments, a new modern arena, 14 acres of public parks, and retail. A critical requirement: the ability to build above San Diego's 30-foot coastal height limit, established by Measure D in 1972 to protect coastal views. In November 2020, San Diego voters approved Measure E (57% yes) to remove the height limit from the Midway District. Environmental nonprofit Save Our Access challenged this under CEQA; courts struck it down. In November 2022, voters approved Measure C (51% yes) using a revised EIR. Save Our Access sued again. California's Fourth District Court of Appeal struck it down in October 2025, finding the EIR inadequately analyzed impacts including \"Peregrine falcons' ability to nest,\" air flow, and construction noise. The California Supreme Court declined review December 30, 2025. The 30-foot height limit was restored. As of May 2026, the Midway Rising team is pursuing a density bonus law workaround validated by HCD, and State Senator Akilah Weber Pierson has introduced SB-958 for a project-specific CEQA exemption. On Sept. 29, 2026 Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 344 and SB 958, which change how CEQA applies to the project; SB 344, by Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson with Sen. Steve Padilla and Assemblymember Chris Ward, says approved environmental impact reports for Midway Rising \"can be relied on for compliance with CEQA.\" The city then scheduled a special meeting of the City Council's Land Use and Housing Committee for Oct. 16, 2026 on a Disposition and Development Agreement for at least 2,000 affordable units (including at least 200 permanent supportive housing units, at an average of no more than 60 percent of area median income), 2,254 market-rate units, a 16,000-seat arena and 8.2 acres of parks, at an estimated construction cost of about $4.2 billion. Staff asked the council to approve the agreement and certify the project's Subsequent EIR. The Independent Budget Analyst called the deal \"a fair and reasonable transaction for the City,\" and KPBS reported that the full council is expected to vote in November; the city's exclusive negotiation agreement with the team expires Dec. 4, 2026. Save Our Access says it will keep looking for ways to push back.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Height Limit","full_name":"Height and Density Limits","invoked_by":"San Diego Voters (1972) / Save Our Access (enforcement)","date_invoked":"1972-11-07","description":"The 1972 Measure D 30-foot coastal height limit — originally passed to protect coastal views in Ocean Beach and Pacific Beach — applies to the Midway District because it is west of I-5. Despite two voter-approved efforts to remove the limit from the inland Midway area (2020 and 2022), courts have upheld it on CEQA grounds. As of May 2026, the limit is in force. It prevents all Midway Rising buildings above 30 feet unless density bonus law or SB-958 successfully overrides it.","added_delay_months":54,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://obrag.org/2025/11/a-history-of-the-fight-for-san-diegos-30-foot-coastal-height-limit/"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Save Our Access","date_invoked":"2020-11-04","description":"Save Our Access filed a CEQA challenge to Measure E (2020), arguing the city's EIR failed to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of removing the 30-foot height limit. The court ruled in Save Our Access's favor, finding the city violated CEQA. Measure E was invalidated. This required the City to prepare a supplemental EIR before putting another measure on the ballot — a 2-year process that delayed the entire Midway Rising program. FIRST OF TWO CEQA VICTORIES for Save Our Access.","added_delay_months":24,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://obrag.org/2025/11/a-history-of-the-fight-for-san-diegos-30-foot-coastal-height-limit/"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Save Our Access","date_invoked":"2022-11-08","description":"Save Our Access filed a second CEQA challenge to Measure C (2022), arguing the Supplemental EIR still failed to adequately analyze environmental impacts of taller buildings — specifying inadequate analysis of effects on \"air flow, construction noise and Peregrine falcons' ability to nest.\" The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) ruled for Save Our Access in October 2025. The California Supreme Court declined review December 30, 2025. The 30-foot height limit is definitively restored. The broader Midway District housing program (10,000 homes) is effectively blocked for projects without density bonus law eligibility. The city's Oct. 16, 2026 staff report says the ruling \"interrupted the process to move the negotiations forward for Council consideration in November 2025 as planned.\" NOTE: this is the only case in the database where CEQA was used twice to override two separate voter-approved ballot measures.","added_delay_months":36,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/court-restores-midway-district-30-foot-height-limit/3956962/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Zephyr Partners","organization":"Zephyr Partners (lead developer, Midway Rising team)","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Lead Developer","stated_arguments":"\"Midway Rising is moving forward as planned under state density bonus law that encourages affordable housing development. This recent court ruling does not affect mixed-use housing development projects, such as Midway Rising, which proceed under state density bonus law.\" (Jeff Meyer, spokesperson, October 2025). \"Our project is predicated on state bonus density law, so the impact of the decision was minimal to Midway Rising.\" (Luke Termini, CEO, January 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/11/05/midways-ambitious-redevelopment-plan-is-now-a-massive-test-of-what-state-housing-laws-allow/"},{"name":"Todd Gloria","organization":"City of San Diego","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"support","role":"Mayor of San Diego / Project Champion","stated_arguments":"\"Failure is simply not an option, and we will get this done.\" \"While we are disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to hear the City's appeal, this procedural decision does not change our commitment or our momentum to redevelop the Sports Arena site.\" (January 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2025/12/05/after-multiple-delays-state-housing-law-could-clear-a-path-forward-for-midway-rising-development"},{"name":"San Diego Voters / Electorate","organization":"San Diego County Registered Voters","actor_type":"Electorate","stance":"support","role":"Democratic Mandate (overridden twice by courts)","stated_arguments":"November 2020 (Measure E): ~57% YES to remove height limit. November 2022 (Measure C): ~51% YES to remove height limit. Both democratic expressions of preference for housing development were subsequently struck down by courts on CEQA grounds. San Diego voters also originally approved the 30-foot height limit in 1972 (Measure D, 64% yes) — but that measure was intended for the coastal communities, not the Midway industrial area.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://obrag.org/2025/11/a-history-of-the-fight-for-san-diegos-30-foot-coastal-height-limit/"},{"name":"San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce","organization":"San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce","actor_type":"Trade Association","stance":"support","role":"Business Community Endorser","stated_arguments":"\"Midway Rising, which is strongly supported by the Chamber and numerous other organizations, is poised to make affordable housing history in California, with 2,000 units planned for San Diegans most in need.\" (October 2025 after Fourth District ruling)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sdchamber.org/2025/10/midwayrising/"},{"name":"Save Our Access","organization":"Save Our Access (environmental nonprofit)","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Environmental Nonprofit / Lead Litigant","stated_arguments":"The EIR for Measure C was inadequate because it failed to analyze the full range of environmental impacts associated with taller buildings in the Midway District, including effects on air flow, construction noise, and Peregrine falcon nesting. The 30-foot coastal height limit is a legally protected voter-approved law. On density bonus law: \"They can't use it. We'd also probably end up having to bring legal action.\" (John McNab, January 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/court-restores-midway-district-30-foot-height-limit/3956962/"},{"name":"Peninsula Community Planning Board","organization":"Peninsula Community Planning Board","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Community Planning Advisory Body","stated_arguments":"\"That's a whole neighborhood being lifted up vertically. If we continue to densify our neighborhoods and not invest in those neighborhoods... we're going to continue to have issues with the infrastructure, with traffic, with environmental issues.\" (Mandy Havlik, PCPB)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/court-restores-midway-district-30-foot-height-limit/3956962/"},{"name":"California Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division One)","organization":"California Courts of Appeal","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Appellate Court — Issued Height Limit Restoration Ruling","stated_arguments":"October 2025: found the Supplemental EIR for Measure C inadequate for failure to analyze effects of taller buildings on air flow, construction noise, and Peregrine falcon nesting. Directed reinstatement of the 30-foot height limit. California Supreme Court declined review December 30, 2025. Ruling is now final.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://obrag.org/2025/11/a-history-of-the-fight-for-san-diegos-30-foot-coastal-height-limit/"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"State Enforcement Agency / Density Bonus Validator","stated_arguments":"In a letter to the City of San Diego, HCD confirmed that California's density bonus law overrides local zoning ordinances — including voter-approved ones — and that Midway Rising can use the density bonus law to build taller than 30 feet. This validation was seen as a significant win for the Midway Rising team's workaround strategy.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofsandiego.org/2026/05/02/politics-report-state-validates-midway-rising-theory/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"1972-11-07","event_type":"30-Foot Height Limit Passed (Measure D, 1972)","description":"San Diego voters approve Measure D — the \"Coastal Height Initiative\" — by a 64% supermajority, limiting buildings west of I-5 to 30 feet to protect coastal views in Pacific Beach and Ocean Beach. The Midway District, an inland industrial area adjacent to but not on the coast, falls within the restriction's geographic scope because it is west of I-5. This vote — passed to protect ocean views in residential beach communities — will block housing development in an inland warehouse district for more than 50 years.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://obrag.org/2025/11/a-history-of-the-fight-for-san-diegos-30-foot-coastal-height-limit/","source_label":"OB Rag"},{"event_date":"2018-01-01","event_type":"Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan Updated — 10,000 Homes Envisioned","description":"The City of San Diego approves the updated Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan, calling for major redevelopment of the Midway District and approximately 10,000 new homes. Most of the envisioned housing is not feasible under a 30-foot maximum building height.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/11/05/midways-ambitious-redevelopment-plan-is-now-a-massive-test-of-what-state-housing-laws-allow/","source_label":"Voice of San Diego"},{"event_date":"2020-11-03","event_type":"Voters Approve Measure E — Remove Height Limit (57% YES)","description":"San Diego voters approve Measure E, removing the 30-foot height limit from the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan area by approximately 57% in favor. Save Our Access immediately begins preparing a legal challenge.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://obrag.org/2025/11/a-history-of-the-fight-for-san-diegos-30-foot-coastal-height-limit/","source_label":"OB Rag"},{"event_date":"2021-01-01","event_type":"Save Our Access Sues — First Court Win: Measure E Struck Down","description":"Save Our Access files a CEQA challenge to Measure E. A San Diego Superior Court rules in favor of Save Our Access, finding the city failed to comply with CEQA. Measure E is invalidated and the height limit is restored. The City of San Diego begins preparing a supplemental EIR to bring a revised measure back to voters.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://obrag.org/2025/11/a-history-of-the-fight-for-san-diegos-30-foot-coastal-height-limit/","source_label":"OB Rag"},{"event_date":"2022-09-13","event_type":"City Council Selects Midway Rising Team","description":"After a competitive RFP process, the San Diego City Council votes unanimously to select the Midway Rising team — led by Zephyr Partners, with Stan Kroenke as primary funder — to redevelop the 48-acre Sports Arena site. Midway Rising's proposal includes 4,254 apartments (~2,000 affordable), a new modern arena, 14 acres of parks, and retail. The project offers the highest affordable housing commitment in the city's history for a private development.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sdchamber.org/2025/10/midwayrising/","source_label":"SD Regional Chamber"},{"event_date":"2022-11-08","event_type":"Voters Approve Measure C — Remove Height Limit Again (51% YES)","description":"Using a revised Supplemental EIR designed to address the deficiencies found in 2021, San Diego puts the height limit removal before voters again as Measure C. Voters approve it 51% YES. Save Our Access files another CEQA lawsuit the same day.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/politics/elections/san-diego-measure-c-election-results-remove-midway-height-limit-nov-2022/509-a90890a7-9749-4dc4-8b5d-66674401fc51","source_label":"CBS 8 San Diego"},{"event_date":"2025-10-17","event_type":"Court of Appeal Strikes Down Measure C — Height Limit Restored Again","description":"California's Fourth District Court of Appeal rules that Measure C also violated CEQA, finding the Supplemental EIR inadequate for failure to analyze the full range of environmental impacts of taller buildings — including effects on \"air flow, construction noise and Peregrine falcons' ability to nest.\" The court directs reinstatement of the 30-foot height limit. Midway Rising developers claim density bonus law will allow them to proceed regardless.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://obrag.org/2025/11/a-history-of-the-fight-for-san-diegos-30-foot-coastal-height-limit/","source_label":"OB Rag"},{"event_date":"2025-11-18","event_type":"City Council Votes to Seek California Supreme Court Review","description":"In a 6-2 vote, the San Diego City Council authorizes a petition to the California Supreme Court to review the Fourth District's ruling striking down Measure C.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://obrag.org/2025/11/san-diego-to-appeal-to-californias-supreme-court-in-fight-against-ruling-on-midway-district-height-limit/","source_label":"OB Rag"},{"event_date":"2025-12-30","event_type":"California Supreme Court Declines Review — Height Limit Definitively Restored","description":"The Supreme Court of California formally denies the City of San Diego's petition for review. The Fourth District's ruling stands. The 30-foot height limit is restored in the Midway District. John McNab (Save Our Access): \"I consider the end of round one.\" The broader Midway District housing program — 10,000 homes in the community plan — is effectively blocked for all projects that cannot invoke density bonus law.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/court-restores-midway-district-30-foot-height-limit/3956962/","source_label":"NBC 7 San Diego"},{"event_date":"2026-03-26","event_type":"SB-958 Introduced — Project-Specific CEQA Exemption for Midway Rising","description":"California State Senator Akilah Weber Pierson introduces SB-958, which would exempt the Midway Rising project specifically from CEQA requirements — similar to the law passed for SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. Save Our Access has pledged to challenge any attempt to proceed, whether through density bonus law or legislation.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://obrag.org/2026/03/bill-introduced-in-state-senate-to-exempt-midway-rising-project-from-ceqa-review/","source_label":"OB Rag"},{"event_date":"2026-05-02","event_type":"HCD Validates Density Bonus Law Path — Project May Proceed","description":"The California Department of Housing and Community Development sends a letter to the City of San Diego confirming that density bonus law overrides the local 30-foot height limit — voter-approved or not — and that Midway Rising can legally build above 30 feet under this framework. Voice of San Diego: \"State Validates Midway Rising Theory.\" Save Our Access has pledged to challenge this route in court. As of May 28, 2026, the project's path remains contested but potentially viable. No groundbreaking date has been announced.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofsandiego.org/2026/05/02/politics-report-state-validates-midway-rising-theory/","source_label":"Voice of San Diego"},{"event_date":"2026-09-29","event_type":"Newsom Signs Midway Rising CEQA Bills","description":"Gov. Gavin Newsom signs SB 344 and SB 958, which change how CEQA applies to Midway Rising. SB 344 says approved environmental impact reports for the project \"can be relied on for compliance with CEQA.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/10/01/new-state-laws-push-midway-rising-closer-to-breaking-ground","source_label":"KPBS"},{"event_date":"2026-10-12","event_type":"Budget Analyst Calls Deal Fair and Reasonable","description":"IBA Report No. 26-24 says the proposed agreement \"represents a fair and reasonable transaction for the City\" and estimates $884 million to $1.23 billion in ticket fees and rent over about 105 years.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2026-10/_iba-report.pdf","source_label":"City of San Diego IBA"},{"event_date":"2026-10-16","event_type":"Development Agreement Goes to Council Committee","description":"The city schedules a special Land Use and Housing Committee meeting on the Disposition and Development Agreement, with the full council to follow. Staff asks the council to approve the agreement and certify the project's Subsequent EIR.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.sandiego.gov/economic-development/real-estate/midway-rising","source_label":"City of San Diego"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Midway's Ambitious Redevelopment Plan Is Now a Massive Test of What State Housing Laws Allow","url":"https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/11/05/midways-ambitious-redevelopment-plan-is-now-a-massive-test-of-what-state-housing-laws-allow/","publication":"Voice of San Diego","author":"Will Huntsberry","date_published":"2025-11-05","notes":"Best single source for the post-Measure-C-ruling analysis. Explains the density bonus law theory and confirms 4,254 units and ~2,000 affordable in Midway Rising."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"A History of the Fight for San Diego's 30-Foot Coastal Height Limit","url":"https://obrag.org/2025/11/a-history-of-the-fight-for-san-diegos-30-foot-coastal-height-limit/","publication":"OB Rag","author":"Frank Gormlie","date_published":"2025-11-20","notes":"Best historical narrative from the opposition perspective. Covers 1972 Measure D through 2025 Court of Appeal ruling."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"How Midway Rising Developers Plan to Sidestep Requirements and Avoid the 30-Foot Height Limit","url":"https://obrag.org/2025/12/how-midway-rising-developers-plan-to-sidestep-requirements-and-avoid-the-30-foot-height-limit/","publication":"OB Rag / San Diego Union-Tribune","author":"Jennifer Van Grove","date_published":"2025-11-28","notes":"Best developer-perspective source explaining the density bonus law strategy. Contains Jeff Meyer spokesperson quote."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"After Multiple Delays, State Housing Law Could Clear Path Forward for Midway Rising","url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2025/12/05/after-multiple-delays-state-housing-law-could-clear-a-path-forward-for-midway-rising-development","publication":"KPBS","author":null,"date_published":"2025-12-12","notes":"Best explanation of the density bonus law workaround and HCD letter confirming it applies. Contains full timeline of ballot measures."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Court Restores Midway District's 30-Foot Height Limit","url":"https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/court-restores-midway-district-30-foot-height-limit/3956962/","publication":"NBC 7 San Diego","author":null,"date_published":"2026-01-07","notes":"Contains John McNab quote about \"round one\" and density bonus law challenge threat. Best source for confirming Supreme Court denial (December 30, 2025) and height limit restoration."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"What's Next for Midway Rising","url":"https://www.axios.com/local/san-diego/2026/02/05/midway-rising-next-steps-san-diego-supreme-court-height-limit-housing","publication":"Axios San Diego","author":null,"date_published":"2026-02-05","notes":"February 2026 update. Confirms Stan Kroenke as funder and SoFi Stadium analogy. Contains Termini quote on density bonus law."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Bill Introduced in State Senate to Exempt Midway Rising Project From CEQA Review","url":"https://obrag.org/2026/03/bill-introduced-in-state-senate-to-exempt-midway-rising-project-from-ceqa-review/","publication":"OB Rag / Voice of San Diego","author":null,"date_published":"2026-03-26","notes":"Confirms SB-958 introduction (State Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson, March 2026). Explains the SoFi Stadium legislative precedent."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"State Validates Midway Rising Theory","url":"https://voiceofsandiego.org/2026/05/02/politics-report-state-validates-midway-rising-theory/","publication":"Voice of San Diego","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-02","notes":"Most recent significant development: HCD officially confirmed density bonus law allows Midway Rising to exceed the 30-foot limit. Confirms SB-958 is also moving."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"New state laws push Midway Rising one step closer to breaking ground","url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/10/01/new-state-laws-push-midway-rising-closer-to-breaking-ground","publication":"KPBS","author":"Carly Kay","date_published":"2026-10-01","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"IBA Report No. 26-24: Review of Proposed Midway Rising Development Project","url":"https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2026-10/_iba-report.pdf","publication":"City of San Diego Office of the Independent Budget Analyst","author":null,"date_published":"2026-10-12","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"San Diego Midway Rising project faces final hurdles","url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/10/13/officials-to-consider-san-diegos-midway-rising-development-agreement-friday","publication":"KPBS","author":"Jacob Aere","date_published":"2026-10-13","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Staff report: Midway Rising Disposition and Development Agreement","url":"https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2026-10/staff-report-midway-rising1.pdf","publication":"City of San Diego Economic Development Department","author":null,"date_published":"2026-10-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Midway Redevelopment presentation, Land Use and Housing Committee, Oct. 16, 2026","url":"https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2026-10/cosd_midway_luh_101626final_item6.pdf","publication":"City of San Diego","author":null,"date_published":"2026-10-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Midway Rising project page","url":"https://www.sandiego.gov/economic-development/real-estate/midway-rising","publication":"City of San Diego","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Midway Rising — Midway District Sports Arena Redevelopment, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/san-diego-midway-rising-2022, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:35:16.237568+00:00"},{"id":58,"slug":"newport-beach-housing-element-2024","name":"Newport Beach Housing Plan and Measure H","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/newport-beach-housing-element-2024","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/newport-beach-housing-element-2024/brief","address":"Citywide, Newport Beach, CA","latitude":33.617,"longitude":-117.9294,"jurisdiction":{"id":59,"slug":"newport-beach-orange","city":"Newport Beach","county":"Orange","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/newport-beach-orange"},"city":"Newport Beach","county":"Orange","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Mixed Residential","status":"On Ballot","units_proposed":4845,"units_affordable":null,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2022-09-13","date_approved":"2024-09-24","date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"Newport Beach adopted its sixth-cycle housing element on September 13, 2022, and HCD found it in substantial compliance on October 5, 2022. The plan must accommodate a regional housing need of 4,845 homes, 2,386 of them for very low- and low-income households. To carry it out, the council in July 2024 certified an environmental impact report, adopted general plan and coastal program amendments and introduced a Housing Opportunity overlay rezoning with capacity for about 8,174 homes in the Airport Area, West Newport Mesa, Dover-Westcliff, Newport Center and Coyote Canyon; the rezoning ordinances were adopted September 24, 2024. The council did not put the changes to a vote under Charter Section 423, the city's Greenlight measure, after staff said state law precluded one. Still Protecting Our Newport sued on August 8, 2024, and the Newport Beach Stewardship Association sued on September 24, 2024, arguing the charter required a vote. On June 18, 2025, Orange County Superior Court Judge Melissa R. McCormick ruled for the city. An appeal is pending, and the Attorney General and HCD filed an amicus brief backing the city in July 2026. Meanwhile residents collected signatures for the Responsible Housing Initiative, Measure H, which would replace the plan with about 2,900 affordable-only units capped by area. HCD warned in September 2025 that the initiative would cause the city to act inconsistently with its certified housing element. The council placed the measure on the 2026 ballot in November 2025, and the city later asked a court to block it; on August 19, 2026, Judge Julianne Bancroft ordered the city to move forward with the measure for the November 3, 2026 election. Unit figures above are the state housing target.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Measure J","full_name":"Voter Approval Requirements (Measure J/R and similar)","invoked_by":"Still Protecting Our Newport and Newport Beach Stewardship Association","date_invoked":"2024-08-08","description":"Two suits sought to void the rezoning because it was not put to a citywide vote under Charter Section 423, the Greenlight measure added by voters in 2000. The trial court rejected both on June 18, 2025; the appeal is pending.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.newportbeachindy.com/?p=67441"},{"short_name":"Downzoning","full_name":"Downzoning","invoked_by":"Newport Beach Stewardship Association (Measure H proponents)","date_invoked":"2025-11-18","description":"Measure H would cut the plan's capacity from about 8,174 homes to about 2,900 affordable-only units, capped by area. HCD says it would conflict with the certified housing element. It is on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://laist.com/news/politics/voter-guides/2026-election-california-orange-county-general-newport-beach-measure-h"}],"actors":[{"name":"Rob Bonta","organization":"California Attorney General's Office","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Attorney General; amicus for the city with HCD","stated_arguments":"The state's amicus brief: \"state law plainly precludes the City from subjecting the Program Action to its local greenlight measure.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/newportbeach-g065816.pdf"},{"name":"Newport Beach Stewardship Association","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Plaintiff and appellant; Measure H proponent","stated_arguments":"\"The Responsible Housing Initiative complies with State laws, puts Newport Beach on a path for more responsible growth.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2026/08/newport-beach-asks-judge-to-block-ballot-initiative-aimed-at-limiting-housing/"},{"name":"Ken Picerne","organization":"Picerne Group","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"oppose","role":"Donor to the Yes on Measure H campaign","stated_arguments":"Gave $1 million to the Yes on H campaign from January to mid-October 2026, according to LAist. He did not respond to Voice of OC.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://laist.com/news/politics/voter-guides/2026-election-california-orange-county-general-newport-beach-measure-h"},{"name":"Marshall Duffield","organization":null,"actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Former mayor; Measure H supporter","stated_arguments":"Measure H supporters say it meets state mandates by counting higher-income homes in the pipeline, and that voters should weigh in.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://laist.com/news/politics/voter-guides/2026-election-california-orange-county-general-newport-beach-measure-h"},{"name":"Noah Blom","organization":"Newport Beach City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"support","role":"Council member","stated_arguments":"\"This isn't a question of do we want to bypass the voters. Absolutely not.\" Also: \"We're trying to pass the best possible deal we can get.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/?p=3220794"},{"name":"Joe Stapleton","organization":"City of Newport Beach","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"support","role":"Mayor (2025)","stated_arguments":"After the June 2025 ruling: \"In what has been a difficult set of policy decisions in light of State mandates, we have stood on firm legal grounds.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.newportbeachindy.com/?p=67441"},{"name":"Orange County Superior Court","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Judges Melissa R. McCormick (2025 ruling) and Julianne Bancroft (2026 ballot order)","stated_arguments":"Judge Bancroft: \"The Court was required to order the City on multiple occasions to prepare ballot questions and arguments.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2026/08/judge-orders-newport-beach-to-move-forward-with-ballot-initiatives/"},{"name":"Still Protecting Our Newport","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"First plaintiff; backs Measure H","stated_arguments":"Sued Aug. 8, 2024, arguing the council violated Charter Section 423 by not letting voters decide on the rezoning.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://cp-dr.com/articles/cpampdr-news-briefs-august-27-2024"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Certified the housing element; warned that Measure H conflicts with it","stated_arguments":"Director Gustavo Velasquez: \"HCD is proud to stand with the City against efforts to stall implementation of its housing plan.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-and-newsom-administration-support-newport-beach%E2%80%99s-efforts"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2022-09-13","event_type":"Council Adopts Sixth Cycle Housing Element","description":"HCD finds the element in substantial compliance on Oct. 5, 2022.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/newportbeach-g065816.pdf","source_label":"HCD amicus brief"},{"event_date":"2024-07-23","event_type":"Council Approves Rezoning Without a Greenlight Vote","description":"The council certifies the EIR, adopts Resolutions 2024-50 to 2024-53 and 2024-58 (which removes the Charter Section 423 voter-approval reference) and introduces the rezoning ordinances. The vote tally was not found.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-division/general-plan-codes-and-regulations/general-plan-update/6th-cycle-housing-element-implementation","source_label":"City of Newport Beach"},{"event_date":"2024-08-08","event_type":"Still Protecting Our Newport Sues Over Bypassed Vote","description":"The writ petition alleges a violation of Charter Section 423.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/SPON%20Brief.pdf","source_label":"Court filing"},{"event_date":"2024-09-24","event_type":"Rezoning Ordinances Adopted, Second Suit Filed","description":"Ordinances 2024-16 and 2024-17 take effect Oct. 25, 2024. The Newport Beach Stewardship Association sues the same day.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/NBSA%20Brief.pdf","source_label":"Court filing"},{"event_date":"2025-06-18","event_type":"Judge Upholds Housing Plan, Rejects Both Suits","description":"Orange County Superior Court Judge Melissa R. McCormick rules for the city. The plaintiffs appeal.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.newportbeachindy.com/?p=67441","source_label":"Newport Beach Independent"},{"event_date":"2025-09-18","event_type":"HCD Warns Initiative Would Break Certified Plan","description":"HCD says the initiative \"would cause the City to take actions inconsistent with its adopted, certified housing element.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/newport-beach-hau-2031-ta-091825.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2025-11-18","event_type":"Council Sends Housing Initiative to 2026 Ballot","description":"The unanimous vote follows the submission of nearly 9,000 signatures.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/?p=3220835","source_label":"Voice of OC"},{"event_date":"2026-07-29","event_type":"State Backs City in Greenlight Appeal","description":"The Attorney General and HCD file an amicus brief in case G065816.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/newportbeach-g065816.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2026-08-19","event_type":"Judge Orders Housing Initiative Onto Ballot","description":"Judge Julianne Bancroft finds the notice was \"properly published\" and warns of possible \"obstructionism\" by the city.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2026/08/judge-orders-newport-beach-to-move-forward-with-ballot-initiatives/","source_label":"Voice of OC"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2024-08-08","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/SPON%20Brief.pdf","source_label":"Court filing","notes":"Still Protecting Our Newport v. City of Newport Beach (Charter Section 423)."},{"decision_date":"2024-09-24","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/NBSA%20Brief.pdf","source_label":"Court filing","notes":"Newport Beach Stewardship Association v. City of Newport Beach."},{"decision_date":"2025-06-18","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.newportbeachindy.com/?p=67441","source_label":"Newport Beach Independent","notes":"Orange County Superior Court upheld the rezoning against both suits. An appeal is pending."},{"decision_date":"2026-08-19","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2026/08/judge-orders-newport-beach-to-move-forward-with-ballot-initiatives/","source_label":"Voice of OC","notes":"Ordered the city to move forward with Measure H for the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Daily Pilot e-newspaper, July 25, 2024","url":"https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/a0/12/d4b6133a4b4a8b99c5f1ef1d6797/daily-pilot-e-newspaper-for-july-25-2024.pdf","publication":"Daily Pilot","author":null,"date_published":"2024-07-25","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"CP&DR News Briefs, August 27, 2024","url":"https://cp-dr.com/articles/cpampdr-news-briefs-august-27-2024","publication":"California Planning & Development Report","author":null,"date_published":"2024-08-27","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"OC Superior Court Rules in Favor of Newport Beach","url":"https://www.newportbeachindy.com/?p=67441","publication":"Newport Beach Independent","author":null,"date_published":"2025-07-01","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"HCD technical assistance letter on the Responsible Housing Initiative","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/newport-beach-hau-2031-ta-091825.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":"Melinda Coy","date_published":"2025-09-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Amici brief, Newport Beach Stewardship Association v. City of Newport Beach (G065816)","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/newportbeach-g065816.pdf","publication":"California Attorney General and HCD","author":null,"date_published":"2026-07-29","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge Orders Newport Beach to Move Forward with Ballot Initiatives","url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2026/08/judge-orders-newport-beach-to-move-forward-with-ballot-initiatives/","publication":"Voice of OC","author":"Noah Biesiada","date_published":"2026-08-24","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Measure H: Slashing the number of new homes that can be built in Newport Beach","url":"https://laist.com/news/politics/voter-guides/2026-election-california-orange-county-general-newport-beach-measure-h","publication":"LAist","author":"Jill Replogle","date_published":"2026-10-14","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Newport Beach asks judge to block ballot initiative aimed at limiting housing","url":"https://voiceofoc.org/2026/08/newport-beach-asks-judge-to-block-ballot-initiative-aimed-at-limiting-housing/","publication":"Voice of OC","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation","url":"https://newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-division/general-plan-codes-and-regulations/general-plan-update/6th-cycle-housing-element-implementation","publication":"City of Newport Beach","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Amicus brief, Still Protecting Our Newport v. City of Newport Beach","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/SPON%20Brief.pdf","publication":"California Attorney General","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Amicus brief, Newport Beach Stewardship Association v. City of Newport Beach","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/NBSA%20Brief.pdf","publication":"California Attorney General","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Attorney General Bonta and Newsom Administration Support Newport Beach's Efforts","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-and-newsom-administration-support-newport-beach%E2%80%99s-efforts","publication":"California Attorney General","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Newport Beach Housing Plan and Measure H, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/newport-beach-housing-element-2024, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:24:52.59738+00:00"},{"id":60,"slug":"redondo-beach-401-pch-2025","name":"Nivasa: 401-417 South Pacific Coast Highway","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/redondo-beach-401-pch-2025","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/redondo-beach-401-pch-2025/brief","address":"401-417 S. Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach, CA 90277","latitude":33.8468,"longitude":-118.3888,"jurisdiction":{"id":29,"slug":"redondo-beach-los-angeles","city":"Redondo Beach","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/redondo-beach-los-angeles"},"city":"Redondo Beach","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Approved","units_proposed":49,"units_affordable":8,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":4,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":null,"date_approved":"2026-02-17","date_denied":"2025-12-18","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":2,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"Redondo Seaside Living LLC proposed Nivasa, a four-story, 45-foot mixed-use building on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway between Pearl and Ruby streets, at 401 to 417 S. Pacific Coast Highway in the coastal zone (city permit 2025-0074). The plan has 49 apartments, eight of them affordable (five very low income and three moderate income), about 17,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space and a two-level underground garage. It relies on the State Density Bonus Law and AB 2011, which AB 2243 extended to qualifying coastal sites. On December 18, 2025 the Planning Commission unanimously denied the coastal development permit and two of three requested density bonus concessions, citing parking, coastal access and safety; one rejected concession would have cut commercial parking from 68 to 44 spaces. The developer appealed on December 22. On February 13, 2026 HCD wrote that the denial conflicted with AB 2011 and the Density Bonus Law, in a letter that also served as a notice of potential violation. Four days later the City Council granted the appeal unanimously and approved the project. Mayor Jim Light said that under current state law, \"with residential, we don't have a say anymore.\" The decision came after an October 2025 appellate ruling that Redondo Beach's housing element did not comply with state law; HCD found a revised element compliant on May 20, 2026. The filing date was not found, and no construction start has been reported.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Parking Min","full_name":"Parking Minimums","invoked_by":"Redondo Beach Planning Commission","date_invoked":"2025-12-18","description":"The commission refused the concession reducing commercial parking from 68 to 44 spaces. The council reversed it on Feb. 17, 2026.","added_delay_months":2,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/redondo-beach-planning-commission-cites-parking-denies-49-unit-building"},{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"Redondo Beach Planning Commission","date_invoked":"2025-12-18","description":"The commission denied the coastal development permit on coastal-access, fire-station access and driveway findings; HCD said AB 2011 required approval. Reversed on appeal.","added_delay_months":2,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/redondo-beach-ta-nopv-021326.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"Marc Wiener","organization":"City of Redondo Beach","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"neutral","role":"Community development director","stated_arguments":"\"Previously, a city could use subjective design standards (to deny a project), such as neighborhood compatibility.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/redondo-beach-approves-four-story-residential-building-for-pch"},{"name":"Redondo Seaside Living LLC","organization":null,"actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Applicant and appellant","stated_arguments":"Appealed the Planning Commission denial on Dec. 22, 2025, submitting a traffic study and adding safety and mobility measures.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/redondo-beach-approves-four-story-residential-building-for-pch"},{"name":"Redondo Beach Planning Commission","organization":null,"actor_type":"Planning Commission","stance":"oppose","role":"Denied the coastal development permit and two concessions unanimously (Dec. 18, 2025)","stated_arguments":"Cited parking, coastal access and safety.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.redondo.org/departments/community_development/planning/current_projects.php"},{"name":"Gale Hazeltine","organization":"Redondo Beach Planning Commission","actor_type":"Planning Commission","stance":"oppose","role":"Planning commissioner","stated_arguments":"\"It's short 24 spaces.\" Also: \"The city can't absolve itself of its responsibility to preserve access to the beach\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/redondo-beach-planning-commission-cites-parking-denies-49-unit-building"},{"name":"Brad Waller","organization":"Redondo Beach City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"deciding","role":"Council member; voted to approve","stated_arguments":"\"Sacramento is forcing our hands here. That is where my vote is coming from.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/redondo-beach-approves-four-story-residential-building-for-pch"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Issued a letter of technical assistance and notice of potential violation (Feb. 13, 2026)","stated_arguments":"Melinda Coy: \"denial of the Project is inconsistent with state housing law.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/redondo-beach-ta-nopv-021326.pdf"},{"name":"Jim Light","organization":"City of Redondo Beach","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"deciding","role":"Mayor; voted to approve","stated_arguments":"\"My interpretation of the (current state law) is, with residential, we don't have a say anymore.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/redondo-beach-approves-four-story-residential-building-for-pch"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2025-10-10","event_type":"Appeals Court Finds Redondo Housing Element Noncompliant","description":"The court rejects the city's overlay strategy, the backdrop for the PCH decision.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2025/b336042.html","source_label":"Court of Appeal"},{"event_date":"2025-12-18","event_type":"Planning Commission Denies 49-Unit PCH Project","description":"Unanimous denial of the coastal development permit and two of three density bonus concessions, citing parking, coastal access and safety.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.redondo.org/departments/community_development/planning/current_projects.php","source_label":"City of Redondo Beach"},{"event_date":"2025-12-22","event_type":"Developer Appeals to City Council","description":"Redondo Seaside Living LLC appeals the denial.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/redondo-beach-ta-nopv-021326.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2026-02-13","event_type":"State Warns Denial Violates Housing Law","description":"HCD says the denial conflicts with AB 2011 and the Density Bonus Law; the letter is also a notice of potential violation.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/redondo-beach-ta-nopv-021326.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2026-02-17","event_type":"Council Overturns Denial, Approves Project","description":"The council grants the appeal unanimously.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/redondo-beach-approves-four-story-residential-building-for-pch","source_label":"Easy Reader"},{"event_date":"2026-05-20","event_type":"State Certifies Revised Redondo Housing Element","description":"City attorney Joy Abaquin-Ford: \"The city is not subject to Builder's Remedy with the newly certified Housing Element.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/builders-remedy-immune-state-certifies-revised-redondo-beach-housing-element","source_label":"Easy Reader"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2025-12-18","body":"Planning Commission","action":"denied","action_label":"denied","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.redondo.org/departments/community_development/planning/current_projects.php","source_label":"City of Redondo Beach","notes":"Denied the coastal development permit and two of three density bonus concessions. The vote was unanimous; the tally was not reported."},{"decision_date":"2026-02-17","body":"City Council","action":"appeal_upheld","action_label":"appeal upheld","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/redondo-beach-approves-four-story-residential-building-for-pch","source_label":"Easy Reader","notes":"Granted the developer's appeal and approved the project. The vote was unanimous; the tally was not reported."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"New Commune v. City of Redondo Beach (B336042)","url":"https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2025/b336042.html","publication":"California Court of Appeal","author":null,"date_published":"2025-10-10","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Controversial PCH development project rejected","url":"https://patch.com/california/redondobeach/controversial-pch-development-project-rejected-redondo-beach-report","publication":"Patch","author":"Daniella Segura","date_published":"2025-12-29","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Letter of Technical Assistance and Notice of Potential Violation, 401-417 Pacific Coast Highway","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/redondo-beach-ta-nopv-021326.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":"Melinda Coy","date_published":"2026-02-13","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Redondo Beach approves four-story residential building for PCH","url":"https://easyreadernews.com/redondo-beach-approves-four-story-residential-building-for-pch","publication":"Easy Reader","author":"Garth Meyer","date_published":"2026-02-19","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Redondo Beach City Council approves mixed-use project at 401 Pacific Coast Highway","url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/redondo-beach-city-council-approves-mixed-use-project-401-pacific-coast-highway","publication":"Urbanize LA","author":"Steven Sharp","date_published":"2026-02-20","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Builder's remedy immune: state certifies revised Redondo Beach housing element","url":"https://easyreadernews.com/builders-remedy-immune-state-certifies-revised-redondo-beach-housing-element","publication":"Easy Reader","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-28","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Redondo Beach Planning Commission cites parking, denies 49-unit building","url":"https://easyreadernews.com/redondo-beach-planning-commission-cites-parking-denies-49-unit-building","publication":"Easy Reader","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Major development projects","url":"https://www.redondo.org/departments/community_development/planning/current_projects.php","publication":"City of Redondo Beach","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Nivasa: 401-417 South Pacific Coast Highway, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/redondo-beach-401-pch-2025, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:27:26.289469+00:00"},{"id":65,"slug":"norwalk-shelter-ban-2024","name":"Norwalk Ban on Shelters and Supportive Housing","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/norwalk-shelter-ban-2024","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/norwalk-shelter-ban-2024/brief","address":"Citywide, Norwalk, CA","latitude":33.9156,"longitude":-118.0724,"jurisdiction":{"id":53,"slug":"norwalk-los-angeles","city":"Norwalk","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/norwalk-los-angeles"},"city":"Norwalk","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Mixed Residential","status":"Litigated","units_proposed":null,"units_affordable":null,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2024-08-06","date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2024-08-06","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"On August 6, 2024 the Norwalk City Council unanimously adopted an urgency ordinance banning new emergency shelters, supportive housing, single-room occupancy housing and transitional housing citywide for 45 days, along with some types of businesses. City officials later tied the ban to Los Angeles County's Pathway Home interim housing at the former Saddleback Inn, 12500 Firestone Boulevard, and a planned mental health village at Metropolitan State Hospital, saying the county acted without consulting the city. HCD sent a notice of violation on September 16, 2024, and the next day the council unanimously extended the ban for 10 months and 15 days. The city stayed enforcement after an October 1 closed session. HCD revoked Norwalk's housing element compliance on October 2, 2024, cutting off key state funds and exposing the city to the builder's remedy, and on November 4, 2024 the Attorney General and HCD sued. On February 19, 2025 Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant refused to dismiss the case, finding that the pause had not resolved the dispute. The council removed the housing uses from the moratorium on August 5, 2025, and on September 5 the court entered a stipulated judgment requiring the city to repeal the ban, put $250,000 into a new housing trust fund, complete overdue housing element programs, make fair-housing findings for any denial and report to HCD quarterly through 2029. HCD restored the city's compliance, with conditions, on September 19, 2025. No court ruled on the merits, and no fine was reported. Los Angeles County broke ground on the Metropolitan State Hospital campus, with 162 beds including 60 supportive apartments, in March 2026. The entry has no unit count because the ban was citywide rather than aimed at one application.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Moratorium","full_name":"Development Moratoriums","invoked_by":"Norwalk City Council","date_invoked":"2024-08-06","description":"An urgency moratorium under Gov. Code 65858 banned new emergency shelters, supportive, single-room occupancy and transitional housing citywide. Enforcement was stayed on Oct. 1, 2024, and the housing uses were dropped on Aug. 5, 2025 under a settlement with the state.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Proposed%20Final%20Judgment%20and%20Order.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"Margarita Rios","organization":"City of Norwalk","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"oppose","role":"Mayor (2024)","stated_arguments":"\"As local leaders, we know best what our population looks like here, including those that are suffering.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/california-norwalk-homeless-shelter-ban-newsom-housing-violation-hcd-rios"},{"name":"Norwalk City Council","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Adopted and extended the ban (2024); removed housing uses from it (2025)","stated_arguments":"City statement: \"The original moratorium followed Los Angeles County's decision to launch a transitional housing program at 12500 Firestone Boulevard without City consultation\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.thedowneypatriot.com/articles/norwalk-lifts-moratorium-on-emergency-shelters-as-part-of-settlement-discussions-with-state"},{"name":"Judge James C. Chalfant","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Los Angeles Superior Court (case 24STCP03551)","stated_arguments":"\"No facts or evidence supported the City's conclusion that the existence of Shelter and Supportive Housing poses an immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.thedowneypatriot.com/articles/trial-date-set-in-californias-lawsuit-against-norwalk-over-homeless-shelter-moratorium"},{"name":"Rob Bonta","organization":"California Attorney General's Office","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Attorney General; sued the city with HCD (Nov. 4, 2024)","stated_arguments":"\"Regrettably, our warnings went unheeded, and we were forced to take legal action.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-reach-settlement-city-norwalk-over"},{"name":"Jesus Gomez","organization":"City of Norwalk","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"oppose","role":"City manager","stated_arguments":"Said the county's projects came \"without any detailed discussion with the city.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.thedowneypatriot.com/articles/trial-date-set-in-californias-lawsuit-against-norwalk-over-homeless-shelter-moratorium"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Revoked (2024) and restored (2025) Norwalk's housing element compliance","stated_arguments":"Director Gustavo Velasquez: \"Instead of working to correct their missteps, they dug in their heels and are now ineligible for key funding and subject to the builder's remedy.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/10/03/governor-newsom-takes-action-against-norwalk-for-its-unlawful-shelter-ban/"},{"name":"Janice Hahn","organization":"Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors","actor_type":"Government Official","stance":"support","role":"County supervisor","stated_arguments":"Said the county is \"locking arms with the state\" to reuse buildings that \"are doing no one any good sitting empty.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/03/norwalk-s-ghost-hospital-to-become-huge-mental-health-village/"},{"name":"Tony Ayala","organization":"City of Norwalk","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"support","role":"Mayor (2025)","stated_arguments":"On the repeal: \"Norwalk is opening the door to housing that works.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.thedowneypatriot.com/articles/norwalk-lifts-moratorium-on-emergency-shelters-as-part-of-settlement-discussions-with-state"},{"name":"Gavin Newsom","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Governor","stated_arguments":"\"The Norwalk City Council's failure to reverse this ban without a lawsuit, despite knowing it is unlawful, is inexcusable.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-reach-settlement-city-norwalk-over"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2020-04-01","event_type":"Judge Orders Norwalk To Allow Project Roomkey Motel","description":"Judge Samantha Jessner's temporary restraining order lets the county use Hotel Saddleback, 12500 Firestone Boulevard (month only).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://lmlamplighter.com/2020/05/02/judge-orders-norwalk-to-place-houseless-in-hotel/","source_label":"Lamplighter"},{"event_date":"2024-08-06","event_type":"Norwalk Bans New Shelters for 45 Days","description":"The five-member council votes unanimously.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-reach-settlement-city-norwalk-over","source_label":"California Attorney General"},{"event_date":"2024-09-17","event_type":"Council Extends Ban a Day After State Warning","description":"The unanimous 10-month, 15-day extension follows HCD's Sept. 16 notice of violation.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-reach-settlement-city-norwalk-over","source_label":"California Attorney General"},{"event_date":"2024-10-02","event_type":"HCD Revokes Housing Element Compliance","description":"Norwalk loses eligibility for key state funds and protection from the builder's remedy.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/10/03/governor-newsom-takes-action-against-norwalk-for-its-unlawful-shelter-ban/","source_label":"Office of the Governor"},{"event_date":"2024-11-04","event_type":"State Sues Norwalk","description":"The Attorney General and HCD file in Los Angeles Superior Court.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.thedowneypatriot.com/articles/state-sues-norwalk-over-housing-policies","source_label":"The Downey Patriot"},{"event_date":"2025-02-19","event_type":"Judge Rejects City's Bid To Dismiss","description":"Judge James C. Chalfant says the temporary pause did not resolve the dispute.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.thedowneypatriot.com/articles/trial-date-set-in-californias-lawsuit-against-norwalk-over-homeless-shelter-moratorium","source_label":"The Downey Patriot"},{"event_date":"2025-08-05","event_type":"Council Drops Housing Uses From Moratorium","description":"Ordinance 25-1758U passes unanimously, with one member absent.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.thedowneypatriot.com/articles/norwalk-lifts-moratorium-on-emergency-shelters-as-part-of-settlement-discussions-with-state","source_label":"The Downey Patriot"},{"event_date":"2025-09-05","event_type":"Settlement Requires Repeal and $250,000 Trust Fund","description":"The stipulated final judgment also requires quarterly reports to HCD through 2029.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-reach-settlement-city-norwalk-over","source_label":"California Attorney General"},{"event_date":"2025-09-19","event_type":"HCD Restores Compliance With Conditions","description":"Conditioned on an amended housing element and six programs by the end of 2025.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/norwalk-succ-comp-rev-091925.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2026-03-01","event_type":"County Breaks Ground at Metropolitan State Hospital","description":"The campus will have 162 beds, including 60 supportive apartments; interim housing is expected in late 2027 (month only).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/03/norwalk-s-ghost-hospital-to-become-huge-mental-health-village/","source_label":"Hoodline"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2024-11-04","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.thedowneypatriot.com/articles/state-sues-norwalk-over-housing-policies","source_label":"The Downey Patriot","notes":"People ex rel. Bonta and HCD v. City of Norwalk (24STCP03551), Los Angeles County Superior Court."},{"decision_date":"2025-09-05","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-reach-settlement-city-norwalk-over","source_label":"California Attorney General","notes":"Stipulated final judgment entered: repeal of the ban, a $250,000 housing trust fund deposit and reporting to HCD through 2029."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge orders Norwalk to place houseless in hotel","url":"https://lmlamplighter.com/2020/05/02/judge-orders-norwalk-to-place-houseless-in-hotel/","publication":"Lamplighter","author":null,"date_published":"2020-05-02","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Governor Newsom takes action against Norwalk for its unlawful shelter ban","url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/10/03/governor-newsom-takes-action-against-norwalk-for-its-unlawful-shelter-ban/","publication":"Office of the Governor","author":null,"date_published":"2024-10-03","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Trial date set in California's lawsuit against Norwalk over homeless shelter moratorium","url":"https://www.thedowneypatriot.com/articles/trial-date-set-in-californias-lawsuit-against-norwalk-over-homeless-shelter-moratorium","publication":"The Downey Patriot","author":"Vincent Medina","date_published":"2025-04-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Norwalk lifts moratorium on emergency shelters as part of settlement discussions with state","url":"https://www.thedowneypatriot.com/articles/norwalk-lifts-moratorium-on-emergency-shelters-as-part-of-settlement-discussions-with-state","publication":"The Downey Patriot","author":"Vincent Medina","date_published":"2025-08-07","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Attorney General Bonta, Newsom Administration Reach Settlement with City of Norwalk over Unlawful Housing Ban","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-reach-settlement-city-norwalk-over","publication":"California Attorney General","author":null,"date_published":"2025-09-05","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"City of Norwalk: Reinstatement of Housing Element Compliance","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/norwalk-succ-comp-rev-091925.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":"David Zisser","date_published":"2025-09-19","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"[Proposed] Stipulated Final Judgment and Order, People v. City of Norwalk (24STCP03551)","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Proposed%20Final%20Judgment%20and%20Order.pdf","publication":"Los Angeles County Superior Court","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"LAist report on Norwalk's shelter ban and the state's violation notice","url":"https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/california-norwalk-homeless-shelter-ban-newsom-housing-violation-hcd-rios","publication":"LAist","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"CalMatters report on Norwalk and the builder's remedy","url":"https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/10/norwalk-builders-remedy/","publication":"CalMatters","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"State sues Norwalk over housing policies","url":"https://www.thedowneypatriot.com/articles/state-sues-norwalk-over-housing-policies","publication":"The Downey Patriot","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Norwalk's ghost hospital to become huge mental health village","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/03/norwalk-s-ghost-hospital-to-become-huge-mental-health-village/","publication":"Hoodline","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Norwalk Ban on Shelters and Supportive Housing, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/norwalk-shelter-ban-2024, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:33:51.309969+00:00"},{"id":34,"slug":"elk-grove-oak-rose-2022","name":"Oak Rose Apartments — Old Town Elk Grove","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/elk-grove-oak-rose-2022","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/elk-grove-oak-rose-2022/brief","address":"9252 Elk Grove Boulevard (at Kent Street), Elk Grove, CA 95624","latitude":38.414,"longitude":-121.3716,"jurisdiction":{"id":33,"slug":"elk-grove-sacramento","city":"Elk Grove","county":"Sacramento","region":"Sacramento","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/elk-grove-sacramento"},"city":"Elk Grove","county":"Sacramento","region":"Sacramento","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Withdrawn","units_proposed":67,"units_affordable":66,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":3,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2021-11-21","date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2022-07-27","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":25,"cost_of_delay_usd":10000000,"data_quality":3,"description":"Oak Rose Apartments was a proposed three-story building with 67 units of permanent supportive housing at 9252 Elk Grove Boulevard in Old Town Elk Grove: 66 units for lower-income households at risk of homelessness and one manager's unit. A subsidiary of Excelerate Housing Group submitted a preliminary application on Nov. 21, 2021 and a formal application for streamlined ministerial approval under SB 35 on March 4, 2022. City staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny SB 35 streamlining, the commission denied the application on June 2, 2022, and on July 27, 2022 the City Council denied the developer's appeal, relying on an Old Town Special Planning Area rule that reserves ground floors for commercial uses. On Oct. 12, 2022 HCD issued a notice of violation finding that the denial violated SB 35, the Housing Accountability Act and state fair housing laws. The Attorney General, Gov. Gavin Newsom and HCD sued the city in Sacramento County Superior Court on May 1, 2023, pointing to Railroad Courtyards, a market-rate project in the same planning area that the Planning Commission had approved with ground-floor residential uses on May 5, 2022; Excelerate filed its own suit. On Feb. 22, 2024 the city and Excelerate settled: the city agreed to buy the Old Town parcel, to give the developer city-owned land at 8484 Elk Grove-Florin Road and a $5 million grant, and to pay the developer $2.2 million if it did not approve the project there by June 30, 2024. The Planning Commission later allowed the relocated project, renamed Coral Blossom Apartments, to proceed; the Attorney General's office described it as 80 one-bedroom apartments, and the Elk Grove Citizen reported 66 units. In a settlement announced Sept. 4, 2024 the city agreed to pay the state $150,000 in fees and costs, to five years of reporting on affordable housing applications, and to identify and rezone a site for lower-income housing in a highest resource area by July 1, 2025. Nothing was built at 9252 Elk Grove Boulevard.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"City of Elk Grove City Council","date_invoked":"2022-07-01","description":"The Elk Grove City Council denied the developer's appeal on July 27, 2022, relying on the Old Town rule reserving ground floors for commercial uses. This constituted violations of: (1) SB 35 — the project qualified for streamlined approval; (2) the Housing Accountability Act — the denial was not based on a legitimate objective standard because the same standard had not been applied to a market-rate project in the same district; (3) the Nondiscrimination in Land Use Law and AFFH — applying different standards to supportive housing for homeless residents than to market-rate housing is discriminatory. This is the only case in the database where the primary mechanism is discriminatory application of objective zoning standards based on the characteristics of future residents rather than the merits of the building. Some residents explicitly stated concerns about the type of future residents during public comment, which strengthened the AFFH violation finding.","added_delay_months":25,"added_cost_usd":10000000,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-announce-settlement-city-elk-grove"}],"actors":[{"name":"Excelerate Housing Group","organization":"Excelerate Housing Group","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / Applicant","stated_arguments":"\"After months of negotiations with the City of Elk Grove, we are grateful to have reached a compromise that allows us to move forward with developing affordable housing for those experiencing homelessness in the City. The 8484 Elk Grove-Florin Road site allows us to increase the size and number of units in the project and provide additional amenities to future residents.\" (Dana Trujillo, February 2024 settlement)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://elkgrove.gov/news/city-elk-grove-resolves-legal-dispute-oak-rose-apartments-project-developers"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"State Housing Regulator / Co-Plaintiff","stated_arguments":"Issued Notice of Violation October 12, 2022. Joined the state lawsuit. HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez at settlement: \"We are resolute to see that every community in our state affirmatively furthers fair housing and expands integrative communities of opportunities.\" Under the settlement, HCD monitors Elk Grove's future compliance.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about-hcd/newsroom/governor-newsom-and-attorney-general-bonta-announce-settlement-resolving-elk-groves-unlawful-denial-of-housing-project"},{"name":"City of Elk Grove","organization":"City of Elk Grove","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Denying Authority","stated_arguments":"Denied July 2022: density too high; ground-floor residential units violated Old Town zoning. Had previously approved market-rate project in same district with same ground-floor residential configuration without invoking the same standard. Voted May 2023 to fight the AG lawsuit. Postponed reconsideration twice in fall 2023 despite staff recommending approval. After settlement: \"This settlement underscores our dedication to fostering a partnership.\" (Mayor Singh-Allen, February 2024)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.egcitizen.com/2024/09/12/505064/city-settles-second-oak-rose-lawsuit"},{"name":"Old Town Elk Grove Residents / Opposition","organization":"Old Town Elk Grove residents (unorganized)","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Public Opposition / Council Influencers","stated_arguments":"Welcoming formerly homeless neighbors could \"cause an unsafe environment.\" Concerns about density, neighborhood character, and the specific resident population. These statements were made publicly at council hearings and documented in press coverage. The state's AFFH argument was strengthened by the nature of these objections — focused on WHO would live in the building rather than its objective physical characteristics.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/elk-grove/elk-grove-oak-rose-apartments/103-df5022f6-04c0-4f5e-b7be-f5a23a7b215a"},{"name":"Gustavo Velasquez","organization":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","actor_type":"Government Official","stance":"support","role":"HCD director","stated_arguments":"At the September 2024 settlement: \"This is a victory in the state's efforts to expand the availability of much needed supportive housing.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-announce-settlement-city-elk-grove"},{"name":"Gavin Newsom","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Governor; co-plaintiff in the state lawsuit","stated_arguments":"Called the city's decision to block the project \"especially shameful\" and said \"Elk Grove is not immune to this challenge\" (Sept. 4, 2024).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-announce-settlement-city-elk-grove"},{"name":"Rob Bonta","organization":"California Attorney General's Office","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"California Attorney General / Plaintiff","stated_arguments":"\"This settlement reflects what I've said all along: California's housing laws are not optional.\" (Settlement announcement, Sept. 4, 2024.) The denial violated SB 35, HAA, the Nondiscrimination in Land Use Law, and AFFH by applying an objective standard to affordable housing that was not applied to market-rate housing.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-announce-settlement-city-elk-grove"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2021-11-21","event_type":"Oak Rose Apartments Application Filed Under SB 35","description":"Excelerate Housing Group files an application under SB 35 for a 67-unit supportive housing project at 9252 Elk Grove Boulevard in Old Town Elk Grove. SB 35 requires streamlined nondiscretionary approval for qualifying affordable housing that meets objective zoning and design standards. A subsidiary of Excelerate submitted a preliminary application on Nov. 21, 2021 and the formal SB 35 application on March 4, 2022. City staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny SB 35 streamlining. The project is the first in Elk Grove to provide permanent housing and support services for formerly homeless residents.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/elk-grove/elk-grove-oak-rose-apartments/103-df5022f6-04c0-4f5e-b7be-f5a23a7b215a","source_label":"ABC10 Sacramento"},{"event_date":"2022-05-05","event_type":"Market-Rate Project Approved With Ground-Floor Homes","description":"The Planning Commission approves Railroad Courtyards, a market-rate project at 9676 Railroad Street in the same Old Town planning area. The state later cites it as an example of the city allowing ground-floor residential uses that it denied to Oak Rose.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/People%20v.%20Elk%20Grove%20Petition%205.1.23%20-%20FINAL.pdf","source_label":"Court filing"},{"event_date":"2022-06-02","event_type":"Planning Commission Denies Oak Rose","description":"On staff's recommendation, the commission denies the application in Resolution No. 2022-19. The developer appeals to the City Council.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/elk-grove-NOV-101222.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2022-07-27","event_type":"City Council Denies Oak Rose Appeal","description":"The Elk Grove City Council votes to deny the Oak Rose Apartments application. Stated reasons: density is too high, and the project's ground-floor residential units do not comply with Old Town zoning requiring ground-floor commercial uses. The state will later document that Elk Grove had recently approved a market-rate project in the SAME historic district that ALSO included ground-floor residential — without citing the same standard. The selective application constitutes the core fair housing violation finding. The council acted on July 27, 2022, upholding the Planning Commission's June 2, 2022 denial.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.egcitizen.com/2024/09/12/505064/city-settles-second-oak-rose-lawsuit","source_label":"Elk Grove Citizen"},{"event_date":"2022-10-12","event_type":"HCD Issues Notice of Violation","description":"The California Department of Housing and Community Development issues a Notice of Violation to Elk Grove, warning that its denial of the Oak Rose Apartments violated state housing law — specifically SB 35 and the Housing Accountability Act. HCD notes the city applied standards to the affordable project that were not applied to comparable market-rate development.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-announce-settlement-city-elk-grove","source_label":"CA OAG settlement announcement"},{"event_date":"2023-03-16","event_type":"AG Bonta Sends Formal Warning Letter","description":"California Attorney General Rob Bonta sends a letter to Elk Grove urging the city to reconsider its unlawful denial of the Oak Rose Apartments or face legal consequences. The city does not act.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-announce-settlement-city-elk-grove","source_label":"CA OAG"},{"event_date":"2023-05-01","event_type":"State Sues Elk Grove","description":"California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Governor Newsom, and HCD file suit against Elk Grove for violating: (1) SB 35; (2) the Housing Accountability Act; (3) the Nondiscrimination in Land Use Law; (4) the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing statute. The petition is filed in Sacramento County Superior Court. Excelerate Housing Group files its own suit. Elk Grove votes in May 2023 to fight the AG's legal action.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about-hcd/newsroom/governor-newsom-and-attorney-general-bonta-announce-settlement-resolving-elk-groves-unlawful-denial-of-housing-project","source_label":"CA HCD"},{"event_date":"2023-09-27","event_type":"City Staff Recommends Approval — Council Postpones Instead","description":"The Elk Grove City Council holds a reconsideration hearing for the Oak Rose project. City staff recommends approval, citing the risks of continued litigation. The developer does not attend the meeting. After hours of public comment, the council postpones the vote and directs staff to find an alternate site. State continues its lawsuit: \"California is full speed ahead with lawsuit against Elk Grove after postponed housing vote.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.aol.com/california-ag-lawsuit-coaxes-elk-120000322.html","source_label":"Sacramento Bee"},{"event_date":"2023-10-11","event_type":"Second Postponement — Negotiations Continue","description":"The Elk Grove City Council holds a second reconsideration hearing for the Oak Rose project. Excelerate Housing Group again does not attend, citing ongoing good-faith negotiations. The council postpones again. Negotiations between the city and developer continue in the background.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/elk-grove/oak-rose-apartments-elk-grove/103-54bc77ea-65ab-4a26-84db-fed57664f3fa","source_label":"ABC10 Sacramento"},{"event_date":"2024-02-22","event_type":"City and Developer Settle — Project Relocated to Elk Grove-Florin Road","description":"Elk Grove and Excelerate Housing Group announce a settlement. The Oak Rose project is relocated from 9252 Elk Grove Boulevard (Old Town Historic District, high-resource area) to 8484 Elk Grove-Florin Road (commercial arterial, lower-resource area). The city: transfers the Elk Grove-Florin Road property to Excelerate; provides a $5 million grant to the project; purchases the Elk Grove Boulevard site. In the event the city later denies the new location, it must pay Excelerate $2.2 million. The state lawsuit remains pending.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://elkgrove.gov/news/city-elk-grove-resolves-legal-dispute-oak-rose-apartments-project-developers","source_label":"City of Elk Grove"},{"event_date":"2024-09-04","event_type":"State Settlement: City Pays $150,000, Agrees to Monitoring and a New Site","description":"California Governor Newsom, AG Bonta, HCD, and BCSH announce a settlement with Elk Grove resolving the state lawsuit. Terms: (1) Elk Grove pays $150,000 in state attorneys' fees; (2) undergoes reporting requirements for future compliance monitoring; (3) must identify and rezone a site for lower-income housing in a highest resource area by July 1, 2025. Governor Newsom calls the city's decision \"especially shameful.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-announce-settlement-city-elk-grove","source_label":"CA OAG"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2022-06-02","body":"Planning Commission","action":"denied","action_label":"denied","staff_recommendation":"deny","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/elk-grove-NOV-101222.pdf","source_label":"HCD notice of violation","notes":"Resolution No. 2022-19 denied the SB 35 application."},{"decision_date":"2022-07-27","body":"City Council","action":"appeal_rejected","action_label":"appeal rejected","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-file-lawsuit-challenging-elk-grove","source_label":"California Attorney General","notes":"The council denied the developer's appeal, citing the Old Town ground-floor use restriction."},{"decision_date":"2023-05-01","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-file-lawsuit-challenging-elk-grove","source_label":"California Attorney General","notes":"The Attorney General, Governor and HCD sued the city in Sacramento County Superior Court."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Notice of Violation to the City of Elk Grove (9252 Elk Grove Boulevard)","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/elk-grove-NOV-101222.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":"David Zisser","date_published":"2022-10-12","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Attorney General Bonta, Newsom Administration File Lawsuit Challenging Elk Grove's Denial of Oak Rose Supportive Housing Project","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-file-lawsuit-challenging-elk-grove","publication":"California Attorney General","author":null,"date_published":"2023-05-01","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Petition, People ex rel. Bonta and HCD v. City of Elk Grove","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/People%20v.%20Elk%20Grove%20Petition%205.1.23%20-%20FINAL.pdf","publication":"Sacramento County Superior Court","author":null,"date_published":"2023-05-01","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California AG Lawsuit Coaxes Elk Grove to Take Second Look at Rejected Housing Project","url":"https://www.aol.com/california-ag-lawsuit-coaxes-elk-120000322.html","publication":"Sacramento Bee","author":"Darrell Smith","date_published":"2023-09-15","notes":"Best source for the September 2023 staff recommendation and council postponement. Contains description of the project as the first in Elk Grove for formerly homeless families, the dual-lawsuit timeline, and the state lawsuit allegations."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"City of Elk Grove Resolves Legal Dispute with Oak Rose Apartments Project Developers","url":"https://elkgrove.gov/news/city-elk-grove-resolves-legal-dispute-oak-rose-apartments-project-developers","publication":"City of Elk Grove","author":null,"date_published":"2024-02-22","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"New Location of Elk Grove Affordable Housing Project Released After City and Developers Settle","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/new-location-of-elk-grove-affordable-housing-project-released-after-city-developers-settle-lawsuit","publication":"CBS Sacramento","author":null,"date_published":"2024-02-23","notes":"Confirms the new location (8484 Elk Grove-Florin Road), original project specs (3-story, 67 units, Old Town historic district). Confirms city provides $5M grant."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Elk Grove City Officials Settle Dispute with Oak Rose Apartments Developers","url":"https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/elk-grove/elk-grove-oak-rose-apartments/103-df5022f6-04c0-4f5e-b7be-f5a23a7b215a","publication":"ABC10 Sacramento","author":null,"date_published":"2024-02-26","notes":"Coverage of the February 2024 developer settlement. Contains Dana Trujillo quote, Bobbie Singh-Allen statement, and description of terms (land transfer, $5M grant, $2.2M penalty clause)."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Attorney General Bonta, Newsom Administration Announce Settlement with City of Elk Grove","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-announce-settlement-city-elk-grove","publication":"California Attorney General","author":null,"date_published":"2024-09-04","notes":"Best single source for the settlement. Contains all three of the state's legal theories (SB 35, HAA, AFFH), the $150K payment, monitoring requirements, and the highest-resource-area rezone requirement."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta Announce Settlement with Elk Grove","url":"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/09/04/governor-newsom-and-attorney-general-bonta-announce-settlement-resolving-elk-groves-unlawful-denial-of-housing-project/","publication":"Office of the Governor of California","author":null,"date_published":"2024-09-04","notes":"Governor Newsom's press release. Contains his \"especially shameful\" quote. Confirms the political significance of the case."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Governor Newsom and AG Bonta Announce Settlement Resolving Elk Grove Unlawful Denial of Housing Project","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about-hcd/newsroom/governor-newsom-and-attorney-general-bonta-announce-settlement-resolving-elk-groves-unlawful-denial-of-housing-project","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":null,"date_published":"2024-09-04","notes":"HCD settlement announcement. Contains HCD Director Velasquez's quote about AFFH compliance."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"City Settles Second Oak Rose Lawsuit","url":"https://www.egcitizen.com/2024/09/12/505064/city-settles-second-oak-rose-lawsuit","publication":"Elk Grove Citizen","author":null,"date_published":"2024-09-12","notes":"Best local source. Explains the dual-lawsuit structure (developer + state), the ground-floor zoning argument, and how a comparable market-rate project was approved without the same standard."},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Settlement agreement, People of California et al. v. City of Elk Grove","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/People%20of%20California%2C%20et%20al.%20v.%20Elk%20Grove%20-%20Final%20Executed%20Settlement%20Agreement.pdf","publication":"California Attorney General","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Oak Rose Apartments — Old Town Elk Grove, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/elk-grove-oak-rose-2022, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:31:31.137578+00:00"},{"id":30,"slug":"redondo-beach-one-redondo-2022","name":"One Redondo — AES Power Plant Waterfront Redevelopment","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/redondo-beach-one-redondo-2022","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/redondo-beach-one-redondo-2022/brief","address":"1100 North Harbor Drive, Redondo Beach, CA 90277","latitude":33.8514,"longitude":-118.395,"jurisdiction":{"id":29,"slug":"redondo-beach-los-angeles","city":"Redondo Beach","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/redondo-beach-los-angeles"},"city":"Redondo Beach","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Stalled","units_proposed":2700,"units_affordable":540,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":3500000,"date_filed":"2022-08-10","date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2023-05-09","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":45,"cost_of_delay_usd":150000000,"data_quality":3,"description":"A proposed mixed-use waterfront redevelopment of the 50-54 acre former AES Redondo Beach Generating Station at 1100 North Harbor Drive — a power plant that operated from 1907 until December 31, 2023. Developer: Leo Pustilnikov, operating through Next Century Power LLC and SLH Investments. Pustilnikov acquired the site from AES in 2020 for approximately $150 million. The August 10, 2022 preliminary application under SB 330 — the first Builder's Remedy application filed anywhere in Southern California — proposed approximately 2,700 residential units, 540 affordable units (20% of total), a 300-room hotel, approximately 550,000 square feet of office space, ground-floor retail, and 22.5 acres of public park and open space. Buildings would range from an 8-wing apartment compound to a 200-foot residential tower. The preserved AES concrete plant building would host event space or a museum. The Builder's Remedy basis: Redondo Beach's Housing Element was not HCD-certified at the time of the August 2022 SB 330 application. The City of Redondo Beach contested Builder's Remedy at every step: arguing its Housing Element was already \"substantially compliant\" (rejected by HCD); voting to ban Builder's Remedy entirely in December 2022 (struck down by courts); issuing multiple \"incomplete\" determinations in 2023; and invoking coastal zone requirements and Charter City voter-approval claims. The state (Governor Newsom, AG Bonta, and HCD) sued Redondo Beach in March 2023. A Feb. 8, 2024 Superior Court ruling against Pustilnikov on Coastal Act grounds came in a separate case over Ten21, his 30-unit builder's remedy project at 1021 N. Harbor Drive across the street; in April 2024 two of his suits over the power plant site were stayed pending the appeal of that ruling, and on July 30, 2026 the Court of Appeal upheld the city's denial of Ten21. YIMBY Law filed a separate suit in August 2023. On Oct. 10, 2025, in New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judgment that had upheld the city's housing element. It held that the element did not comply with state law because the base zoning on its overlay sites still allowed projects with no housing, and ordered the trial court to issue a writ requiring the city to revise it. The California Supreme Court denied the city's petition for review on Jan. 28, 2026. The council adopted a revised housing element in May 2026, HCD found it in compliance on May 20, 2026, and City Attorney Joy Abaquin-Ford said the city is not subject to the builder's remedy under it. On March 30, 2026 the site's owners settled one of their six lawsuits against the city, a $120 million suit claiming that the city had engaged in a multi-year scheme to block development of the site; five suits remain pending. The project has not been approved.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"City of Redondo Beach","date_invoked":"2022-12-20","description":"Redondo Beach's multi-pronged obstruction of the first Builder's Remedy application filed in Southern California: (1) Voted to explicitly BAN Builder's Remedy in December 2022 — the first city in California to do so; (2) Issued multiple incomplete determinations citing Charter City vote requirements, coastal zone compliance, and CEQA materials; (3) Invoked the Coastal Act to require materials the developer refused to submit without Builder's Remedy recognition. The city lost the state's lawsuit on SB 9/ADU but continued fighting One Redondo. A February 2024 Superior Court ruling for the city on Coastal Act grounds came in Pustilnikov's separate Ten21 case across the street; two of his suits over this site were stayed pending its appeal, which the city won on July 30, 2026. The Court of Appeal struck down the city's housing element in October 2025, the California Supreme Court denied review on Jan. 28, 2026, and HCD certified a revised housing element on May 20, 2026; the city says the builder's remedy no longer applies. Five suits by the site's owners are pending.","added_delay_months":45,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/pustilnikov-redondo-beach-settle-one-waterfront-case-five-pending"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"City of Redondo Beach","date_invoked":"2023-02-01","description":"The city cited California Coastal Act compliance requirements as the basis for all incomplete determinations. The coastal zone layer is genuine: any development on the AES site requires California Coastal Commission review and Coastal Act compliance, in addition to Builder's Remedy. The February 2024 Superior Court ruling that accepted the city's Coastal Act argument came in Pustilnikov's separate Ten21 case across the street, not in a One Redondo case; the Court of Appeal upheld the city's denial of Ten21 on July 30, 2026.","added_delay_months":45,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/judge-rules-against-pustilnikov-for-s-e-a-lab-project"}],"actors":[{"name":"City of Redondo Beach","organization":"City of Redondo Beach","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Local Government / Lead Obstructor","stated_arguments":"First California city to vote to ban Builder's Remedy (December 20, 2022). Issued multiple incomplete determinations. Charter City argument: any major land use change at the AES site requires a citywide vote. Coastal Act argument: the application lacks required coastal development permit materials. Lost state lawsuit over SB 9/ADU ban but continued fighting One Redondo separately. Had Housing Element struck down by Court of Appeal in October 2025.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2024/02/08/court-denies-huge-builders-remedy-project-in-redondo-beach/"},{"name":"Brandy Forbes","organization":"City of Redondo Beach Community Development Director","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"oppose","role":"Community Development Director / Incomplete Determination Author","stated_arguments":"\"Since Redondo Beach is a Charter City, the proposal at the AES site would fall under a major change in allowable land use, requiring it to be put to a vote of the people.\" Issued all incompleteness determinations. Her position on coastal zone: the developer must submit Coastal Act compliance materials before the application can be processed.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/redondo-beach-builders-remedy-aes-site/"},{"name":"Rob Bonta","organization":"California Attorney General's Office","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"California Attorney General / State Enforcement","stated_arguments":"Filed lawsuit against Redondo Beach in March 2023 (with Governor Newsom and HCD) for banning SB 9, ADU, and Builder's Remedy applications. State won on SB 9/ADU. Issued a \"Builder's Remedy Legal Alert\" in June 2025 calling out cities for non-compliance patterns.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-governor-newsom-and-state-housing-department-sue-redondo"},{"name":"YIMBY Law","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Pro-Housing Legal Advocates / Second Litigant","stated_arguments":"Filed a separate lawsuit against Redondo Beach on August 4, 2023. Policy director Rafa Sonnenfeld: \"Redondo Beach has ignored state law as well as their own municipal code. Because of their actions, they don't have a compliant housing plan and the builder's remedy applies. These homes must be approved.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://urbanize.la/post/yimby-law-sues-redondo-beach-over-builders-remedy-project-rejection"},{"name":"Redondo Beach Waterfront Advocates","organization":"Redondo Beach park and open space advocacy groups","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Community Opposition / Park and Open Space Advocates","stated_arguments":"Redondo Beach residents have organized for 20+ years to reclaim the AES waterfront as parks and open space after the power plant closed. Unlike most opposition in this database, this represents a genuine and longstanding democratic community vision — not pretextual obstruction. Thousands have signed petitions and voted in advisory measures for coastal parkland.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/one-redondo-builders-remedy/"},{"name":"Joy Abaquin-Ford","organization":"City of Redondo Beach","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"oppose","role":"City attorney","stated_arguments":"\"The city is not subject to Builder's Remedy with the newly certified Housing Element.\" (May 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/builders-remedy-immune-state-certifies-revised-redondo-beach-housing-element"},{"name":"Leo Pustilnikov","organization":"Next Century Power LLC / SLH Investments","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / First Southern California Builder's Remedy Applicant","stated_arguments":"Filed the first Builder's Remedy application in Southern California on August 10, 2022. Paid $150M for the site. Has pursued the project through multiple city denials, a state lawsuit, YIMBY Law's separate suit, a stay of two of his suits pending the appeal in his separate Ten21 case, and an October 2025 appellate ruling on the Housing Element. \"I think every developer in Redondo in the past decade can say working on the city's timeline requires incredible longevity.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/one-redondo-builders-remedy/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2020-01-01","event_type":"Pustilnikov Acquires AES Power Plant Site for $150 Million","description":"Leo Pustilnikov and SLH Investments acquire the 50-54 acre AES Redondo Beach Generating Station site for approximately $150 million. The plant was required by state regulations to close by the end of 2023 due to the ban on once-through ocean cooling.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/one-redondo-builders-remedy/","source_label":"Easy Reader News"},{"event_date":"2022-08-10","event_type":"First Builder's Remedy Application in Southern California Filed","description":"Leo Pustilnikov files a preliminary application under SB 330 for One Redondo — the first Builder's Remedy application filed anywhere in Southern California. The application proposes approximately 2,300+ residential units (later expanded to ~2,700), 540 affordable units, a hotel, office space, retail, and 22.5 acres of public park on the former AES power plant site. Mayor Pro-Tem Nehrenheim's immediate reaction: \"The drawing is absurd.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://reason.com/2022/09/09/this-renegade-california-developer/","source_label":"Reason"},{"event_date":"2022-12-20","event_type":"Redondo Beach Votes to Explicitly Ban Builder's Remedy","description":"The Redondo Beach City Council becomes the first city council in California to vote to explicitly ban Builder's Remedy applications. Governor Newsom and AG Bonta begin preparing a lawsuit.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/redondo-beach-builders-remedy-ban/","source_label":"Easy Reader News"},{"event_date":"2023-02-01","event_type":"City Issues First Incompleteness Determination","description":"Community Development Director Brandy Forbes issues the first incompleteness determination for One Redondo, citing missing coastal development permit materials, Charter City requirements, and CEQA compliance.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/05/denying-one-redondo/","source_label":"The Real Deal LA"},{"event_date":"2023-03-01","event_type":"State Sues Redondo Beach — Newsom, Bonta, HCD","description":"Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development file a lawsuit against the City of Redondo Beach for its ban on SB 9, ADU, and Builder's Remedy applications. The city is ordered to process SB 9 and ADU applications.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-governor-newsom-and-state-housing-department-sue-redondo","source_label":"California Attorney General"},{"event_date":"2023-05-09","event_type":"City Council Denies Builder's Remedy Appeal","description":"The Redondo Beach City Council votes to uphold the incompleteness determination and denies the developer's appeal. The city's position: Charter City argument requires a popular vote; application lacks Coastal Act compliance materials; Builder's Remedy does not apply.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/05/denying-one-redondo/","source_label":"The Real Deal LA"},{"event_date":"2023-08-04","event_type":"YIMBY Law Files Separate Lawsuit","description":"YIMBY Law files a lawsuit against Redondo Beach alleging the city violated state housing law by denying the One Redondo Builder's Remedy application. Rafa Sonnenfeld: \"Redondo Beach has ignored state law as well as their own municipal code. These homes must be approved.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://urbanize.la/post/yimby-law-sues-redondo-beach-over-builders-remedy-project-rejection","source_label":"Urbanize LA"},{"event_date":"2023-10-30","event_type":"Trial Court Upholds Housing Element","description":"In New Commune DTLA and Leonid Pustilnikov v. City of Redondo Beach (22TRCP00203), Judge Ronald Frank denies the developer's petition, finding that the city substantially complied with housing element law when the council adopted its element on July 5, 2022, before HCD's Sept. 1, 2022 certification.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf","source_label":"Court filing"},{"event_date":"2023-12-31","event_type":"AES Power Plant Closes Permanently","description":"The AES Redondo Beach Generating Station closes permanently. The plant, operational since 1907, is now shuttered. The 50-acre site begins decommissioning and is now entirely vacant — a blank slate on the Los Angeles waterfront with no approved development plan.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2024/01/power-plant-closes-redondo-beach/","source_label":"The Real Deal LA"},{"event_date":"2024-02-08","event_type":"Ruling in Neighboring Ten21 Case Backs City on Coastal Act","description":"Judge James Chalfant denies a petition by Pustilnikov's New Commune DTLA (23STCP00426) over Ten21, a separate 30-unit builder's remedy project at 1021 N. Harbor Drive, across the street from the power plant site. He finds that the developer could invoke the builder's remedy but could not ignore the city's certified Local Coastal Program, which does not allow housing on that parcel. Two of Pustilnikov's suits over the power plant site are stayed in April 2024 pending the appeal, and on July 30, 2026 the Court of Appeal upholds the city's denial of Ten21.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/judge-rules-against-pustilnikov-for-s-e-a-lab-project","source_label":"Easy Reader"},{"event_date":"2025-10-10","event_type":"Court of Appeal Strikes Down Redondo Beach Housing Element","description":"The California Second District Court of Appeal issues its ruling in New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (B336042), finding that Redondo Beach's Housing Element violates state law. The ruling means the city's Housing Element is invalid — potentially reopening Builder's Remedy eligibility for One Redondo and other projects.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2025/10/california-court-strikes-down-redondo-beachs-housing-element-plan/","source_label":"Davis Vanguard"},{"event_date":"2026-01-28","event_type":"Supreme Court Declines To Review Housing Element Ruling","description":"At its Jan. 28 conference the California Supreme Court denies review in New Commune DTLA v. City of Redondo Beach (S294028) and denies a request to depublish the opinion, leaving the Oct. 10, 2025 ruling in place.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/conference%20results%20-%20012826.pdf","source_label":"Supreme Court of California"},{"event_date":"2026-03-30","event_type":"Owners Settle One of Six Suits Against City","description":"Pustilnikov agrees to dismiss, with prejudice, a $120 million suit he and developer Ely Dromy filed claiming the city engaged in a multi-year scheme against the property. Five other suits by the site's owners remain pending.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/pustilnikov-redondo-beach-settle-one-waterfront-case-five-pending","source_label":"Easy Reader"},{"event_date":"2026-05-20","event_type":"State Certifies Revised Housing Element","description":"HCD finds the housing element the council adopted earlier in May in compliance. City Attorney Joy Abaquin-Ford: \"The city is not subject to Builder's Remedy with the newly certified Housing Element.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/builders-remedy-immune-state-certifies-revised-redondo-beach-housing-element","source_label":"Easy Reader"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2023-10-30","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf","source_label":"Court filing","notes":"Judge Ronald Frank denied New Commune DTLA's housing element petition (22TRCP00203), finding the element compliant from its July 5, 2022 adoption."},{"decision_date":"2025-10-10","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/aes-ruling-against-redondo-may-open-door-to-builders-remedy-developments-statewide","source_label":"Easy Reader","notes":"New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (B336042), Second District Court of Appeal: the housing element did not comply with state law; the trial court must issue a writ requiring revision."},{"decision_date":"2026-01-28","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/conference%20results%20-%20012826.pdf","source_label":"Supreme Court of California","notes":"California Supreme Court denied review and depublication (S294028)."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"This Renegade California Developer Is Forcing Cities to Build Affordable Housing","url":"https://reason.com/2022/09/09/this-renegade-california-developer/","publication":"Reason","author":"Christian Britschgi","date_published":"2022-09-09","notes":"Best early profile of Pustilnikov and the Builder's Remedy legal theory. Documents the first Southern California BR filing and initial city reaction."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Attorney General Bonta, Governor Newsom, and State Housing Department Sue Redondo Beach","url":"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-governor-newsom-and-state-housing-department-sue-redondo","publication":"California Attorney General (Official Press Release)","author":null,"date_published":"2023-03-01","notes":"Official state press release announcing the joint state lawsuit against Redondo Beach."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Redondo Beach Again Denies Pustilnikov's Power Plant Project","url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/05/denying-one-redondo/","publication":"The Real Deal LA","author":null,"date_published":"2023-05-15","notes":"Coverage of May 2023 city council denial. Confirms city's Charter City argument and Brandy Forbes's role."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"YIMBY Law Sues Redondo Beach Over Builder's Remedy Project Rejection","url":"https://urbanize.la/post/yimby-law-sues-redondo-beach-over-builders-remedy-project-rejection","publication":"Urbanize LA","author":null,"date_published":"2023-08-04","notes":"Coverage of YIMBY Law's August 2023 lawsuit. Contains Rafa Sonnenfeld quote."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge rules against Pustilnikov AES development plan","url":"https://easyreadernews.com/judge-rules-against-pustilnikov-aes-development-plan","publication":"Easy Reader","author":"Garth Meyer","date_published":"2023-12-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Court Denies Huge Builder's Remedy Project in Redondo Beach","url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2024/02/08/court-denies-huge-builders-remedy-project-in-redondo-beach/","publication":"The Real Deal LA","author":null,"date_published":"2024-02-08","notes":"Primary source for the February 2024 Superior Court ruling against the developer on coastal zone grounds."},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate, New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (23STCP00426, Ten21)","url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf","publication":"Los Angeles County Superior Court (posted by Cox, Castle & Nicholson)","author":null,"date_published":"2024-02-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge rules against Pustilnikov for S.E.A. Lab project","url":"https://easyreadernews.com/judge-rules-against-pustilnikov-for-s-e-a-lab-project","publication":"Easy Reader","author":"Garth Meyer","date_published":"2024-02-22","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Lawsuits over Redondo Beach development stayed pending appeal","url":"https://dailyjournal.com/article/378057-lawsuits-over-redondo-beach-development-stayed-pending-appeal","publication":"Daily Journal","author":null,"date_published":"2024-04-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California Court Strikes Down Redondo Beach's Housing Element Plan","url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2025/10/california-court-strikes-down-redondo-beachs-housing-element-plan/","publication":"Davis Vanguard","author":null,"date_published":"2025-10-10","notes":"Coverage of October 2025 Court of Appeal ruling. Confirms case citation: New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, B336042."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Court ruling against Redondo may open door to Builder's Remedy developments statewide","url":"https://easyreadernews.com/aes-ruling-against-redondo-may-open-door-to-builders-remedy-developments-statewide","publication":"Easy Reader","author":"Garth Meyer","date_published":"2025-10-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Court of Appeal Rejects Housing Element Overlay Strategy","url":"https://www.ashurstperkinscoie.com/en/insights/court-of-appeal-rejects-housing-element-overlay-strategy/","publication":"Ashurst Perkins Coie","author":null,"date_published":"2025-12-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Results from the petition conference of 1/28/2026 (New Commune DTLA v. City of Redondo Beach, S294028)","url":"https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/conference%20results%20-%20012826.pdf","publication":"Supreme Court of California","author":null,"date_published":"2026-01-28","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California Supreme Court declines to hear housing overlay case","url":"https://www.championnewspapers.com/community_news/article_3c6b1550-9cb9-4ec5-8300-41176c47955f.html","publication":"Champion Newspapers","author":"Vanessa Siguenza","date_published":"2026-02-14","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Pustilnikov, Redondo Beach settle one waterfront case; five pending","url":"https://easyreadernews.com/pustilnikov-redondo-beach-settle-one-waterfront-case-five-pending","publication":"Easy Reader","author":"Garth Meyer","date_published":"2026-04-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Redondo Beach sets new housing plan after court loss","url":"https://easyreadernews.com/redondo-beach-sets-new-housing-plan-after-court-loss","publication":"Easy Reader","author":"Garth Meyer","date_published":"2026-05-07","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Builder's Remedy immune? State certifies revised Redondo Beach Housing Element","url":"https://easyreadernews.com/builders-remedy-immune-state-certifies-revised-redondo-beach-housing-element","publication":"Easy Reader","author":"Garth Meyer","date_published":"2026-05-28","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Appeals Court Leaves the Door Open for the Builder's Remedy in the Coastal Zone","url":"https://natlawreview.com/article/appeals-court-leaves-door-open-builders-remedy-coastal-zone","publication":"The National Law Review","author":"Brooke Miller and Ali V. Tehrani","date_published":"2026-08-06","notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, One Redondo — AES Power Plant Waterfront Redevelopment, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/redondo-beach-one-redondo-2022, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:29:19.126864+00:00"},{"id":63,"slug":"berkeley-peoples-park-2021","name":"People's Park Student and Supportive Housing","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/berkeley-peoples-park-2021","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/berkeley-peoples-park-2021/brief","address":"People's Park, 2556 Haste Street, Berkeley, CA 94704","latitude":37.8659,"longitude":-122.2572,"jurisdiction":{"id":11,"slug":"berkeley-alameda","city":"Berkeley","county":"Alameda","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/berkeley-alameda"},"city":"Berkeley","county":"Alameda","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed Residential","status":"Under Construction","units_proposed":1238,"units_affordable":125,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":12,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":null,"date_approved":"2021-09-01","date_denied":null,"date_construction":"2024-07-01","date_completed":null,"delay_months":36,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"The University of California's People's Park Housing project (Housing Project No. 2) builds on part of People's Park, a city landmark since 1984 off Telegraph Avenue between Haste Street and Dwight Way. It includes a student residence hall, Judith E. Heumann House, and a separate building of supportive housing for formerly homeless residents, and keeps about 1.7 acres as open space. As approved in September 2021, after UC certified its EIR in July, the project had 1,113 student beds and 125 beds of lower-income and supportive housing; the dorm's north wing has 11 residential floors over a ground floor. Two groups, Make UC A Good Neighbor and the People's Park Historic District Advocacy Group, sued under CEQA. The trial court denied their petition in August 2022. When crews began clearing the park on August 3, 2022, protesters tore down fencing and damaged equipment, and the next day the Court of Appeal ordered work stopped. On February 24, 2023 the Court of Appeal voided the EIR, holding that UC had to analyze noise from student parties and justify not considering other sites. The supportive housing partner, Resources for Community Development, withdrew in May 2023. In September 2023 Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1307, which says occupant noise is not a CEQA impact for residential projects. UC walled off the park with shipping containers in January 2024, and on June 6, 2024 the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, 7-0. Construction began in July 2024. The dorm, whose opening target moved from fall 2024 to fall 2027, has topped out. The supportive building, now about 100 to 110 units with Satellite Affordable Housing Associates as partner, has not broken ground. UC reported $16.1 million in site security costs from 2022 to February 2024. Unit figures above count beds.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Make UC A Good Neighbor and People's Park Historic District Advocacy Group","date_invoked":"2021-10-01","description":"The Court of Appeal stayed work from Aug. 4, 2022 and voided the EIR on Feb. 24, 2023. AB 1307 and the Supreme Court's June 6, 2024 ruling ended the challenge.","added_delay_months":22,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A165451.PDF"},{"short_name":"Hist Pres","full_name":"Historic Preservation Designation","invoked_by":"People's Park Historic District Advocacy Group","date_invoked":"2021-10-01","description":"The park's 1984 landmark status fed the CEQA challenge: the EIR found a significant historic-resource impact, which supported the alternative-sites argument, and the status kept the project out of SB 886's exemption for campus housing.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A165451.PDF"}],"actors":[{"name":"People's Park Historic District Advocacy Group","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"CEQA petitioner (president Harvey Smith)","stated_arguments":"Harvey Smith: \"It's a national historic site, so this goes beyond Berkeley; it goes beyond the state of California.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://kqed.org/news/11989237/uc-berkeley-can-start-building-on-peoples-park-california-supreme-court-rules"},{"name":"Resources for Community Development","organization":null,"actor_type":"Developer","stance":"neutral","role":"Original supportive housing partner; withdrew in May 2023","stated_arguments":"Withdrew, citing delays from the Court of Appeal ruling.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/developer-ends-deal-uc-berkeley-housing-peoples-park"},{"name":"Satellite Affordable Housing Associates","organization":null,"actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Supportive housing partner since December 2025","stated_arguments":"Senior vice president Eve Stewart said that without more subsidies \"we're concerned that we won't be able to operate the building long term.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/2026/08/06/peoples-park-berkeley-dorm-unhoused/"},{"name":"Regents of the University of California","organization":"UC Berkeley","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer","stated_arguments":"Spokesperson Kyle Gibson: \"The housing components of the project are desperately needed by our students and unhoused people.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://kqed.org/news/11989237/uc-berkeley-can-start-building-on-peoples-park-california-supreme-court-rules"},{"name":"Make UC A Good Neighbor","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"CEQA petitioner","stated_arguments":"Argued the EIR ignored \"vocal noise from house parties and from late-night pedestrians\" (as quoted by the Supreme Court).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S279242.PDF"},{"name":"Jesse Arreguín","organization":"City of Berkeley","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"support","role":"Mayor of Berkeley","stated_arguments":"2023: \"Their campaign of 'no' has resulted in the loss of millions of dollars.\" 2024: \"Thankfully, that will no longer be a barrier for this project or any project in California.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/developer-ends-deal-uc-berkeley-housing-peoples-park"},{"name":"California Court of Appeal (First District)","organization":"California Courts of Appeal","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Division Five (Justice Burns) voided the EIR on Feb. 24, 2023","stated_arguments":"\"The Regents must analyze the potential noise impacts relating to loud student parties.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A165451.PDF"},{"name":"California Supreme Court","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Reversed the Court of Appeal, 7-0 (June 6, 2024)","stated_arguments":"\"this lawsuit poses no obstacle to the development of the People's Park housing project.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S279242.PDF"},{"name":"Gavin Newsom","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Governor; signed AB 1307","stated_arguments":"After the February 2023 ruling: \"This law needs to change\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/2023/02/27/california-governor-vows-to-change-law-blocking-new-housing"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2021-09-01","event_type":"UC Regents Approve People's Park Housing","description":"After UC certifies the EIR in July 2021, the project is approved with 1,113 student beds and 125 supportive beds (month only).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S279242.PDF","source_label":"California Supreme Court"},{"event_date":"2022-08-03","event_type":"Protesters Halt First Construction Attempt","description":"Protesters tear down fencing and damage equipment after crews begin cutting trees.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/11921415/protesters-block-construction-at-berkeleys-peoples-park-after-standoff-with-police","source_label":"KQED"},{"event_date":"2022-08-04","event_type":"Appeals Court Orders Work Stopped","description":"A stay, then a writ of supersedeas, halts construction pending appeal.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A165451.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal"},{"event_date":"2023-02-24","event_type":"Court of Appeal Voids EIR Over Party Noise","description":"\"The Regents must analyze the potential noise impacts relating to loud student parties.\" UC must also justify not considering other sites.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A165451.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal"},{"event_date":"2023-05-12","event_type":"Supportive Housing Partner Quits","description":"Resources for Community Development withdraws, citing delays from the ruling (date of report).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/developer-ends-deal-uc-berkeley-housing-peoples-park","source_label":"CBS News"},{"event_date":"2023-09-07","event_type":"Newsom Signs AB 1307","description":"The urgency law says occupant noise is not a CEQA impact for residential projects.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/08/ceqa-noise-pollution/","source_label":"CalMatters"},{"event_date":"2024-01-04","event_type":"UC Clears Park, Builds Container Wall","description":"About 160 shipping containers surround the site; seven people are arrested.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfstandard.com/2026/08/06/peoples-park-berkeley-dorm-unhoused/","source_label":"San Francisco Standard"},{"event_date":"2024-06-06","event_type":"Supreme Court Clears Project, 7-0","description":"Chief Justice Guerrero writes that \"this lawsuit poses no obstacle to the development of the People's Park housing project.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S279242.PDF","source_label":"California Supreme Court"},{"event_date":"2024-07-01","event_type":"Construction Begins","description":"Work on the student housing starts (month only).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://peoplesparkhousing.berkeley.edu/faq","source_label":"UC Berkeley"},{"event_date":"2025-12-11","event_type":"UC Names SAHA for Supportive Housing","description":"Construction of the supportive building is to follow the dorm's opening.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://news.berkeley.edu/2025/12/11/uc-berkeley-announces-partner-for-supportive-and-affordable-housing-at-peoples-park/","source_label":"Berkeley News"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2023-02-24","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A165451.PDF","source_label":"Court of Appeal","notes":"The Court of Appeal voided the EIR, requiring analysis of noise from student parties and of alternative sites."},{"decision_date":"2024-06-06","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":7,"vote_against":0,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S279242.PDF","source_label":"California Supreme Court","notes":"The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (A165451)","url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A165451.PDF","publication":"California Court of Appeal, First District","author":null,"date_published":"2023-02-24","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California governor vows to change law blocking new housing","url":"https://sfstandard.com/2023/02/27/california-governor-vows-to-change-law-blocking-new-housing","publication":"San Francisco Standard","author":null,"date_published":"2023-02-27","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"As one more housing project stalls on noise concerns, another head sprouts from 'CEQA Hydra'","url":"https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/08/ceqa-noise-pollution/","publication":"CalMatters","author":"Mikhail Zinshteyn and Ben Christopher","date_published":"2023-08-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"UC Berkeley releases preliminary costs for closure of People's Park","url":"http://news.berkeley.edu/2024/02/28/uc-berkeley-releases-preliminary-costs-for-closure-of-people-s-park/","publication":"Berkeley News","author":null,"date_published":"2024-02-28","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (S279242)","url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S279242.PDF","publication":"California Supreme Court","author":null,"date_published":"2024-06-06","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"UC Berkeley Can Start Building on People's Park, California Supreme Court Rules","url":"https://kqed.org/news/11989237/uc-berkeley-can-start-building-on-peoples-park-california-supreme-court-rules","publication":"KQED","author":"Adhiti Bandlamudi","date_published":"2024-06-06","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"UC Berkeley announces partner for supportive and affordable housing at People's Park","url":"https://news.berkeley.edu/2025/12/11/uc-berkeley-announces-partner-for-supportive-and-affordable-housing-at-peoples-park/","publication":"Berkeley News","author":"Jason Pohl","date_published":"2025-12-11","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"The battle over People's Park is over. Berkeley hasn't yet kept its promise","url":"https://sfstandard.com/2026/08/06/peoples-park-berkeley-dorm-unhoused/","publication":"San Francisco Standard","author":"Riley Ramirez","date_published":"2026-08-06","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"People's Park Housing FAQ","url":"https://peoplesparkhousing.berkeley.edu/faq","publication":"UC Berkeley","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developer ends deal with UC Berkeley on People's Park housing","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/developer-ends-deal-uc-berkeley-housing-peoples-park","publication":"CBS News Bay Area","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Protesters block construction at Berkeley's People's Park after standoff with police","url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/11921415/protesters-block-construction-at-berkeleys-peoples-park-after-standoff-with-police","publication":"KQED","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, People's Park Student and Supportive Housing, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/berkeley-peoples-park-2021, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:31:16.702757+00:00"},{"id":10,"slug":"burbank-pickwick-2021","name":"Pickwick Project Townhomes","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/burbank-pickwick-2021","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/burbank-pickwick-2021/brief","address":"921-1001 W. Riverside Drive, Burbank, CA 91506","latitude":34.1763,"longitude":-118.3374,"jurisdiction":{"id":10,"slug":"burbank-los-angeles","city":"Burbank","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/burbank-los-angeles"},"city":"Burbank","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","project_type":"For-Sale Residential","status":"Approved","units_proposed":92,"units_affordable":10,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":3,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2021-07-01","date_approved":"2022-10-25","date_denied":"2022-04-18","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":15,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"92 three-story for-sale townhomes on a 5.01-acre site occupied by the Pickwick Bowl, a beloved Burbank bowling alley operating since the 1950s. Each unit is 1,816 to 1,931 sq ft with a two-car garage. Ten units are deed-restricted affordable to low-income households, meeting the 10% threshold for SB 35 ministerial approval. MW Investment Group acquired the site in July 2021 for $21 million and filed an SB 35 application the same month. Both the city's own planning staff and HCD independently confirmed the project's eligibility. The City Council nonetheless voted unanimously to deny it in April 2022, citing zoning. YIMBY Law and the developer both sued. The city reversed course in October 2022, approving a 92-unit version with an equestrian trail added. Pickwick Bowl closed August 2023 and demolition began December 2023.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"SB 35","full_name":"SB 35 Ministerial Streamlining","invoked_by":"City of Burbank","date_invoked":"2022-04-18","description":"The City Council voted 5-0 to deny the SB 35 application claiming the site's Commercial Recreation zoning did not permit residential uses. This denial contradicted formal eligibility determinations by the city's own planning staff and HCD. The city's General Plan anticipated low-density residential potential for the site. Developer attorneys characterized the denial as bad-faith use of a zoning pretext to oppose state housing law. Reversed 6 months later under dual-lawsuit pressure.","added_delay_months":6,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/burbank-city-council-gives-a-thumbs-down-to-current-planned-pickwick-housing-development/"},{"short_name":"Downzoning","full_name":"Downzoning","invoked_by":"City of Burbank","date_invoked":"2022-04-18","description":"The city cited its Commercial Recreation zoning designation as an objective zoning standard precluding residential use under SB 35. However, the city's own General Plan anticipated residential use on the site at 20 units/acre, undermining the argument. Developer attorneys argued this was a discretionary interpretation rather than an objective standard. The city's capitulation in October 2022 effectively conceded this point.","added_delay_months":6,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://burbankleader.outlooknewspapers.com/2022/05/21/developer-sues-city-over-pickwick-project-denial/"}],"actors":[{"name":"MW Investment Group","organization":"MW Investment Group","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / Project Applicant","stated_arguments":"Project meets every requirement of SB 35. City staff reviewed and confirmed eligibility. HCD independently confirmed eligibility. City has no legal basis to deny.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/burbank-city-council-gives-a-thumbs-down-to-current-planned-pickwick-housing-development/"},{"name":"Matthew Waken","organization":"MW Investment Group","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Principal, MW Investment Group","stated_arguments":"\"Ultimately, the project that was presented before you and that we submitted under SB 35 is what we feel is very appropriate for the site.\" (April 18, 2022 City Council meeting)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/burbank-city-council-gives-a-thumbs-down-to-current-planned-pickwick-housing-development/"},{"name":"Andrew Sabey","organization":null,"actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Developer Attorney","stated_arguments":"The city acted in bad faith and was knowingly and willingly in violation of state housing law. The council's decision was driven by a desire to appease existing homeowners. The project was collateral damage in the City Council's effort to send a message to Sacramento affirming opposition to state housing laws.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://burbankleader.outlooknewspapers.com/2022/05/21/developer-sues-city-over-pickwick-project-denial/"},{"name":"City of Burbank","organization":"City of Burbank","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Permitting Authority / Respondent","stated_arguments":"The Pickwick site has a Commercial Recreation zoning designation that does not permit residential uses. The project does not comply with the city's objective zoning standards and is ineligible for SB 35 ministerial approval.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/burbank-city-council-gives-a-thumbs-down-to-current-planned-pickwick-housing-development/"},{"name":"Konstantine Anthony","organization":"City of Burbank","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"City Councilmember (voted to deny)","stated_arguments":"\"The goal of this decision is to ensure proper zoning regulations are followed and the Burbank community has a say in plans for the site moving forward.\" Framed his vote as a rejection of the interpretation that Pickwick zoning permits residential use under SB 35.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/burbank-city-council-gives-a-thumbs-down-to-current-planned-pickwick-housing-development/"},{"name":"Sharon Springer","organization":"City of Burbank","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"City Councilmember (voted to deny)","stated_arguments":"\"I regret that we were not included from the beginning, now almost nine months ago.\" Voted to deny in April 2022.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/burbank-city-council-passes-motion-to-allow-earlier-say-in-sb-35-projects/"},{"name":"Patrick Prescott","organization":"City of Burbank Community Development Department","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"neutral","role":"Burbank Development Director","stated_arguments":"\"SB 35 takes away our discretion. This project will go through what the state intends it to be, which is to remove our discretion and require us to approve it if it complies with the state statute.\" (2021, upon project filing)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/pickwick-bowl-and-gardens-property-to-be-sold-for-potentially-98-homes/"},{"name":"Rancho Neighborhood Residents","organization":"Rancho/Burbank Equestrian Neighborhood (informal)","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Community Opposition","stated_arguments":"Traffic on W. Riverside Drive will worsen dramatically with 92 households. Equestrian riders use this street regularly to reach the LA River trail system. The Pickwick Bowl is a 60-year community institution. One councilmember characterized the project as jamming a square peg into a round hole and warned it would potentially shatter the Rancho neighborhood.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/burbank-city-council-gives-a-thumbs-down-to-current-planned-pickwick-housing-development/"},{"name":"YIMBY Law","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Pro-Housing Litigation Organization / Plaintiff","stated_arguments":"\"There is no legal basis for the Burbank City Council to deny this proposed housing project. The Pickwick project meets all requirements under SB 35. YIMBY Law is looking forward to winning this case.\" (Rafa Sonnenfeld, June 2022)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://yimbylaw.org/press/burbank-lawsuit"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"State Enforcement Agency","stated_arguments":"Independently reviewed and confirmed the project's eligibility for SB 35 ministerial approval after an inquiry from Assemblymember Laura Friedman's office. Issued Notice of Violation to Burbank following the April 2022 denial.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://yimbylaw.org/press/burbank-lawsuit"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2017-01-01","event_type":"Prior Redevelopment Attempt Fails","description":"Owners of the Pickwick Bowl attempt to partner with developer Shea Homes on a residential redevelopment plan for the site. The project does not move forward, facing the same community resistance that would recur with MW Investment Group.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/burbanks-pickwick-bowl-could-make-way-townhomes","source_label":"Urbanize LA"},{"event_date":"2021-05-01","event_type":"Notice of Intent to Apply Filed","description":"MW Investment Group files a notice of intent to submit an SB 35 application for the Pickwick Bowl property, indicating plans to build approximately 98 townhomes.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/pickwick-bowl-and-gardens-property-to-be-sold-for-potentially-98-homes/","source_label":"myBurbank"},{"event_date":"2021-07-01","event_type":"SB 35 Application Filed / Property Purchased","description":"MW Investment Group files its formal SB 35 ministerial application for 98 for-sale townhomes (10% affordable) on the 5.01-acre Pickwick site. Simultaneously closes on the purchase of both parcels from Pickwick Recreation Center for $21 million. Pickwick Ice (the on-site rink) is not part of the sale and will remain operational.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2022/10/28/facing-yimby-suit-burbank-approves-pickwick-bowl-project/","source_label":"The Real Deal LA"},{"event_date":"2021-11-01","event_type":"City Planning Staff Confirms SB 35 Eligibility","description":"Burbank's planning department formally determines that the Pickwick project meets all SB 35 requirements. Development Director Patrick Prescott acknowledges publicly that SB 35 takes away the city's discretion and the project will be required to be approved if it complies.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/pickwick-bowl-and-gardens-property-to-be-sold-for-potentially-98-homes/","source_label":"myBurbank"},{"event_date":"2021-12-01","event_type":"HCD Independently Confirms Eligibility at Council Meeting","description":"At a Burbank City Council meeting, City Planner Fred Ramirez reveals that HCD independently reviewed the project after an inquiry from Assemblymember Laura Friedman's office, and reached the same conclusion as city staff: the project qualifies for SB 35.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/burbank-city-council-passes-motion-to-allow-earlier-say-in-sb-35-projects/","source_label":"myBurbank"},{"event_date":"2022-04-18","event_type":"City Council Unanimously Denies Project (5-0)","description":"The Burbank City Council votes 5-0 to deny the Pickwick project under SB 35, claiming the site's Commercial Recreation zoning does not permit residential uses. The council acts despite its own planning staff's eligibility determination, HCD's independent confirmation, and explicit legal warnings that denial risked litigation. Council members acknowledge during the meeting that the denial could prompt a lawsuit.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/burbank-city-council-gives-a-thumbs-down-to-current-planned-pickwick-housing-development/","source_label":"myBurbank"},{"event_date":"2022-05-01","event_type":"Developer Files Lawsuit","description":"Matthew Waken / MW Investment Group files suit against the City of Burbank, arguing the council violated SB 35. Developer attorneys argue the city acted in bad faith and was knowingly and willingly in violation of state housing law, motivated by a desire to appease homeowners.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://burbankleader.outlooknewspapers.com/2022/05/21/developer-sues-city-over-pickwick-project-denial/","source_label":"Burbank Leader"},{"event_date":"2022-06-01","event_type":"HCD Issues Notice of Violation","description":"California HCD issues a Notice of Violation to the City of Burbank, requiring the city to reverse course and approve the Pickwick project under SB 35. (Exact date unconfirmed — VERIFY with HCD primary document)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://yimbylaw.org/press/burbank-lawsuit","source_label":"YIMBY Law press release"},{"event_date":"2022-06-21","event_type":"YIMBY Law Files Lawsuit","description":"YIMBY Law files a separate lawsuit against the City of Burbank challenging the April 18 denial. Rafa Sonnenfeld: \"There is no legal basis for the Burbank City Council to deny this proposed housing project. The Pickwick project meets all requirements under SB 35.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://yimbylaw.org/press/burbank-lawsuit","source_label":"YIMBY Law press release"},{"event_date":"2022-10-01","event_type":"Developer Lawsuit Settled","description":"Matthew Waken / MW Investment Group settles its lawsuit with the City of Burbank prior to the October 25 council vote. Terms not publicly disclosed.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/pickwick-development-settles-lawsuit-with-city-of-burbank/","source_label":"myBurbank"},{"event_date":"2022-10-25","event_type":"City Council Approves Amended Project","description":"The Burbank City Council approves a modified 92-unit version of the Pickwick project under pressure of two active lawsuits. The approved project adds a dedicated equestrian trail and pedestrian/equestrian safety measures. Ten units remain deed-restricted for low-income households. Sonja Trauss, YIMBY Law: \"It's good news for housing and the expectation of cities that the state law is real and there's not any point in trying to fight it.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://yimbylaw.org/press/burbank-lawsuit-results","source_label":"YIMBY Law press release"},{"event_date":"2022-12-01","event_type":"YIMBY Law Lawsuit Settled","description":"YIMBY Law settles its remaining lawsuit with the City of Burbank. Settlement terms not disclosed.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/burbank-pickwick-gardens","source_label":"YIMBY Law case page"},{"event_date":"2023-08-15","event_type":"Pickwick Bowl Closes Permanently","description":"The Pickwick Bowl holds its last business day after 62+ years of operation. General Manager Darin Mathewson confirms the permanent closure via Instagram. The bowling alley had been a Burbank community institution since its construction in the 1950s.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://myburbank.com/the-community-says-goodbye-to-pickwick-bowl-a-gem-of-burbank-history/","source_label":"myBurbank"},{"event_date":"2023-12-22","event_type":"Demolition Begins","description":"Heavy machinery begins demolishing the Pickwick Bowl building. ABC7 reports: \"Nearly 100 townhomes will be built on the site. No word on when that construction will begin.\" Pickwick Ice (the on-site rink) remains operational.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://abc7.com/pickwick-bowl-burbank-closed-demolition-bowling/14213074/","source_label":"ABC7"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Pickwick Bowl and Gardens Property To Be Sold for Potentially 98 Homes","url":"https://myburbank.com/pickwick-bowl-and-gardens-property-to-be-sold-for-potentially-98-homes/","publication":"myBurbank","author":null,"date_published":"2021-08-09","notes":"Earliest detailed coverage. Contains Patrick Prescott's SB 35 takes away our discretion quote; confirms initial 98-unit count, SB 35 submission date, Pickwick Ice retention, and 10% affordable threshold."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Burbank City Council Gives a Thumbs Down to Current Planned Pickwick Housing Development","url":"https://myburbank.com/burbank-city-council-gives-a-thumbs-down-to-current-planned-pickwick-housing-development/","publication":"myBurbank","author":null,"date_published":"2022-04-23","notes":"Best coverage of the April 18, 2022 denial. Contains Konstantine Anthony quote; describes council objections and community opposition dynamics."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developer Sues City Over Pickwick Project Denial","url":"https://burbankleader.outlooknewspapers.com/2022/05/21/developer-sues-city-over-pickwick-project-denial/","publication":"Burbank Leader","author":null,"date_published":"2022-05-21","notes":"Best source for developer attorney Andrew Sabey quotes about bad faith and message to Sacramento. Confirms developer lawsuit filed."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"YIMBY Law Press Release: Sues City of Burbank Over Illegal Denial","url":"https://yimbylaw.org/press/burbank-lawsuit","publication":"YIMBY Law","author":null,"date_published":"2022-06-21","notes":"Contains Rafa Sonnenfeld quote; confirms HCD Notice of Violation; confirms both city staff and HCD found project eligible before council denial."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Facing YIMBY Suit, Burbank Approves Pickwick Bowl Project","url":"https://therealdeal.com/la/2022/10/28/facing-yimby-suit-burbank-approves-pickwick-bowl-project/","publication":"The Real Deal LA","author":"Trevor Bach","date_published":"2022-10-28","notes":"Best single narrative source. Confirms developer, land purchase price ($21M), approval date, unit reduction (96 to 92), equestrian trail addition, Sonja Trauss quote, and Patrick Prescott's 2021 statement."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Demolition Underway at Burbank Pickwick Bowl","url":"https://abc7.com/pickwick-bowl-burbank-closed-demolition-bowling/14213074/","publication":"ABC7 Los Angeles","author":null,"date_published":"2023-12-22","notes":"Visual confirmation that demolition was underway December 2023. Notes no confirmed construction start date."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"921-1001 W. Riverside Drive (Pickwick Project Site) — City of Burbank Community Development","url":"https://www.burbankca.gov/web/community-development/921-1001-w.-riverside-drive-pickwick-project-site","publication":"City of Burbank","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Official city planning page. Confirms address, 92 units, unit sizes (1,816-1,931 sq ft), 10 affordable units, 5.01 acres, and SB 35 Ministerial Design Review process. Primary source for confirmed project specifications."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"YIMBY Law — Burbank Pickwick Gardens Case Page","url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/burbank-pickwick-gardens","publication":"YIMBY Law","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Official YIMBY Law case page. Confirms lawsuit filed June 21, 2022; approval October 25, 2022; settlement December 2022. Primary source for legal framing and timeline."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Pickwick Project Townhomes, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/burbank-pickwick-2021, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-05-26T22:39:30.957165+00:00"},{"id":83,"slug":"san-francisco-family-zoning-2025","name":"San Francisco Family Zoning Plan","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/san-francisco-family-zoning-2025","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/san-francisco-family-zoning-2025/brief","address":"Citywide, San Francisco, CA (rezoning focused on the northern and western neighborhoods)","latitude":37.7793,"longitude":-122.4193,"jurisdiction":{"id":9,"slug":"san-francisco-san-francisco","city":"San Francisco","county":"San Francisco","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/san-francisco-san-francisco"},"city":"San Francisco","county":"San Francisco","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed Residential","status":"Litigated","units_proposed":36282,"units_affordable":null,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2025-06-24","date_approved":"2025-12-09","date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"San Francisco's 2023-2031 housing element, adopted in January 2023 and approved by the state, committed the city to rezone for about 36,282 more homes, 20,327 of them for lower-income households, mostly in well-resourced neighborhoods near transit, by January 31, 2026. The state's housing target for the city is 82,069 homes by 2031. Mayor Daniel Lurie introduced that rezoning, the Family Zoning Plan, on June 24, 2025. It allows mid-rise (6 to 8 stories) and high-rise (9 or more stories) housing on major transit and commercial streets and creates Housing Choice San Francisco, a local bonus program offered as an optional alternative to the State Density Bonus Law. HCD preliminarily found the draft package consistent with the housing element on September 9, 2025, and the Planning Commission adopted it on September 11. The Board of Supervisors amended it to exempt rent-controlled buildings with more than two units and historic buildings and to lower heights in some places while raising them in others, approved it 7-4 on December 2 and gave final approval 6-4 on December 9, 2025. Lurie signed it on December 12, and it took effect January 12, 2026. An October 2025 report by the city's chief economist estimated that the plan as proposed would produce 8,504 to 14,646 additional homes by about 2045. On January 9, 2026, Neighborhoods United SF, Small Business Forward and two residents sued in San Francisco County Superior Court (Case No. CPF26519501), arguing that the city relied on an addendum to the 2022 Housing Element EIR instead of preparing new environmental review, and asking the court to set the plan aside. On February 12, 2026, YIMBY Law, the California Housing Defense Fund and Californians for Homeownership sued from the other side, arguing that the plan does not create the capacity the housing element promised, adds limits on unit size, parking and curb cuts, and unlawfully bars projects that use the local program from using the State Density Bonus Law, SB 9 and AB 2011. The plan has stayed in effect during both cases, and by September 2026 the Planning Commission had approved the first project under it, an eight-story building with nine condominiums in Lone Mountain. The same pro-housing groups filed a third suit, reported in August 2026, over the city's SB 79 alternative plan, which they say repackages capacity from the Family Zoning Plan. A September 2, 2026 summary by the law firm Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass said the CEQA case had a case management meeting set for the end of September and that the first merits hearing in the pro-housing suit is scheduled for November 18, 2026. Unit figures above are the housing element's rezoning target.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Height Limit","full_name":"Height and Density Limits","invoked_by":"San Francisco Board of Supervisors","date_invoked":"2025-12-09","description":"The pro-housing suit says the adopted zoning falls short of the roughly 36,000 homes the housing element promised, adds limits on unit size, parking and curb cuts, and bars projects that use the local bonus program from the State Density Bonus Law, SB 9 and AB 2011. Before adoption the board exempted rent-controlled buildings with more than two units and historic buildings and lowered heights in some places. The first merits hearing is set for Nov. 18, 2026.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/press/yimby-law-california-housing-defense-fund-and-californians-for-homeownership-sue-san-francisco-for-violating-state-housing-law-with-family-zoning-plan"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Neighborhoods United SF and Small Business Forward","date_invoked":"2026-01-09","description":"The petition says the city should have prepared a supplemental EIR instead of relying on an addendum to the 2022 Housing Element EIR, and asks the court to rescind the plan. The plan has stayed in effect while the case is pending.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.reedsmith.com/our-insights/blogs/viewpoints/102mekj/caught-in-a-pickle-a-ceqa-challenge-to-the-sf-family-zoning-plan-creates-uncer/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Neighborhoods United SF","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Lead petitioner in the CEQA suit, Case No. CPF26519501","stated_arguments":"Sued Jan. 9, 2026 with Small Business Forward and residents Romalyn Schmaltz and Paul Erickson, arguing the city should have prepared a supplemental EIR instead of relying on the 2022 Housing Element EIR, and asking the court to rescind the plan until it does.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.reedsmith.com/our-insights/blogs/viewpoints/102mekj/caught-in-a-pickle-a-ceqa-challenge-to-the-sf-family-zoning-plan-creates-uncer/"},{"name":"San Francisco Board of Supervisors","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"deciding","role":"Amended and adopted the plan; final approval 6-4 on Dec. 9, 2025","stated_arguments":"Initial approval 7-4 on Dec. 2, 2025: Rafael Mandelman, Danny Sauter, Bilal Mahmood, Matt Dorsey, Stephen Sherrill, Myrna Melgar and Alan Wong voted yes; Connie Chan, Shamann Walton, Chyanne Chen and Jackie Fielder voted no. The final vote on Dec. 9 was 6-4, with Wong absent.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ktvu.com/news/luries-family-zoning-plan-approved-majority-san-francisco-supervisors"},{"name":"Romalyn Schmaltz","organization":null,"actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"North Beach renter; petitioner in the CEQA suit","stated_arguments":"\"It was the ultimate game of goalpost moving.\" Also: \"The Family Zoning plan was inappropriately planned and was rushed through without sufficient input and was understudied.\" (February 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/urban-development/sf-family-zoning-plan-dueling-housing-lawsuits/article_69f5f3b2-a077-4aa6-bc5b-02eaed7a2b37.html"},{"name":"San Francisco County Superior Court","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Court hearing both suits","stated_arguments":"No ruling as of October 2026. The CEQA case had a case management meeting set for the end of September 2026; the first merits hearing in the pro-housing suit is scheduled for Nov. 18, 2026.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.coblentzlaw.com/unfamiliar-terrain/family-zoning-and-sb-79-in-court-whats-next-for-san-francisco-housing/"},{"name":"Jen Kwart","organization":"San Francisco City Attorney's Office","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"support","role":"Spokesperson for City Attorney David Chiu","stated_arguments":"\"The Family Zoning Plan is the product of years of study, outreach and hearings.\" Also: \"We are comforted that the California Department of Housing and Community Development reviewed the Family Zoning Plan and felt it complied with state law\" (Jan. 9, 2026).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/12069226/neighborhood-small-business-groups-file-lawsuit-over-san-francisco-rezoning-plan"},{"name":"California Housing Defense Fund","organization":"California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF)","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Co-petitioner in the pro-housing suit","stated_arguments":"Staff attorney Nick Eckenwiler: \"When the time came to fulfill the promises that San Francisco made in its housing element, the city came up short.\" Executive director Dylan Casey, on the day of the final vote, on the local bonus program: \"This, in our view, sets a very bad precedent for other cities around California, and is frankly illegal.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/12073193/yimby-groups-sue-san-francisco-arguing-upzoning-doesnt-go-far-enough"},{"name":"Stephen Sherrill","organization":"San Francisco Board of Supervisors (District 2)","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"support","role":"Supervisor; pushed amendments that lowered heights in some places and raised them in others","stated_arguments":"\"The status quo is unacceptable.\" Also: \"Zoning is only the first step.\" (Dec. 9, 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/urban-development/sf-family-zoning-plan-passes-upzoning-approved/article_3938b98d-df49-401f-b857-18e03c72c848.html"},{"name":"Sonja Trauss","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Executive director of YIMBY Law","stated_arguments":"\"The Family Zoning Plan is inadequate; it's not a real upzoning.\" (Feb. 12, 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/12073193/yimby-groups-sue-san-francisco-arguing-upzoning-doesnt-go-far-enough"},{"name":"Daniel Lurie","organization":"City and County of San Francisco","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"support","role":"Mayor; introduced the Family Zoning Plan on June 24, 2025 and signed it on Dec. 12, 2025","stated_arguments":"On signing: \"we are creating a generational roadmap for how our city builds housing\" (Dec. 12, 2025). After the pro-housing suit, his spokesperson Charles Lutvak: \"As the cost of housing continues to rise, the Family Zoning Plan is going to help ensure that the next generation of San Franciscans can afford to raise their kids here.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.sf.gov/news-mayor-lurie-signs-historic-family-zoning-legislation-to-make-city-affordable-for-generations-of-san-franciscans"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Reviewed the rezoning; preliminary finding Sept. 9, 2025 (letter signed by Paul McDougall)","stated_arguments":"\"HCD is pleased to preliminarily find that the Package is consistent with statutory requirements and meets the objectives and commitments of Programs 7.1.1 and 8.4.4.\" In February 2026 HCD's David Zisser said the lawsuits do not invalidate the housing element.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/housing-for-all/housingelement-HCD-sf-draft-rezoning-package-09092025.pdf"},{"name":"Small Business Forward","organization":null,"actor_type":"Trade Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Co-petitioner in the CEQA suit","stated_arguments":"Christin Evans, owner of The Booksmith: \"The mayor's plan left in thousands of rent-controlled housing units. A lot of our small business employees live in these.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/12069226/neighborhood-small-business-groups-file-lawsuit-over-san-francisco-rezoning-plan"},{"name":"Connie Chan","organization":"San Francisco Board of Supervisors (District 1)","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Supervisor; voted no on Dec. 2, 2025","stated_arguments":"\"Our city does have the ability to meet the goal while maintaining local control and developing housing that people can afford without displacing residents and small businesses.\" Also: \"But the plan that's before us does not achieve that.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ktvu.com/news/luries-family-zoning-plan-approved-majority-san-francisco-supervisors"},{"name":"YIMBY Law","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Lead petitioner in the pro-housing suit filed Feb. 12, 2026","stated_arguments":"Argues the plan falls short of the housing element's rezoning commitment and seeks to strike provisions of Housing Choice San Francisco that bar projects from using the State Density Bonus Law, SB 9 and AB 2011.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/press/yimby-law-california-housing-defense-fund-and-californians-for-homeownership-sue-san-francisco-for-violating-state-housing-law-with-family-zoning-plan"},{"name":"Katherine Petrin","organization":"Neighborhoods United SF","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Co-founder of Neighborhoods United SF; historic preservationist","stated_arguments":"\"You cannot claim to support families and affordability while advancing a rezoning that encourages displacement, strains infrastructure, and offers no clear path to housing people can afford\" (statement, Jan. 9, 2026). Also: \"We are not filing this to prevent the plan from going forward.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/12069226/neighborhood-small-business-groups-file-lawsuit-over-san-francisco-rezoning-plan"},{"name":"Californians for Homeownership","organization":"Californians for Homeownership (CFH)","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Co-petitioner in the pro-housing suit","stated_arguments":"Supervising counsel Matt Gelfand: \"Housing Element law requires cities to show they have local zoning in place to meet their regional housing needs, and that cannot be done through a local bonus program.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/press/yimby-law-california-housing-defense-fund-and-californians-for-homeownership-sue-san-francisco-for-violating-state-housing-law-with-family-zoning-plan"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2025-06-24","event_type":"Mayor Lurie Introduces Family Zoning Legislation","description":"The package, a Planning Code ordinance and a Zoning Map ordinance, carries out the rezoning program in the 2023-2031 housing element.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfplanning.org/sf-family-zoning-plan","source_label":"SF Planning"},{"event_date":"2025-09-09","event_type":"State Gives Preliminary OK to Rezoning Package","description":"HCD preliminarily finds the draft package consistent with the housing element's rezoning commitments and reminds the city of the Jan. 31, 2026 deadline.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/housing-for-all/housingelement-HCD-sf-draft-rezoning-package-09092025.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2025-09-11","event_type":"Planning Commission Adopts Plan","description":"The Board of Supervisors' Land Use and Transportation Committee then amends the ordinances at hearings from Oct. 20 to Dec. 1.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfplanning.org/sf-family-zoning-plan","source_label":"SF Planning"},{"event_date":"2025-12-02","event_type":"Supervisors Give Initial Approval, 7-4","description":"Amendments adopted along the way exempt rent-controlled buildings with more than two units and historic buildings and lower heights in some places while raising them in others.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/sf-supervisors-pass-daniel-luries-housing-zoning-revamp/article_0f57298d-39bb-4343-a512-e089c4c5cd9e.html","source_label":"San Francisco Examiner"},{"event_date":"2025-12-09","event_type":"Board Gives Final Approval, 6-4","description":"The vote comes without discussion. Supervisor Alan Wong, who voted yes a week earlier, is absent.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/urban-development/sf-family-zoning-plan-passes-upzoning-approved/article_3938b98d-df49-401f-b857-18e03c72c848.html","source_label":"San Francisco Examiner"},{"event_date":"2025-12-12","event_type":"Mayor Signs Family Zoning Plan","description":"The ordinances are set to take effect Jan. 12, 2026, ahead of the state's Jan. 31 deadline.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfplanning.org/sf-family-zoning-plan","source_label":"SF Planning"},{"event_date":"2026-01-09","event_type":"Neighborhood and Small Business Groups Sue Under CEQA","description":"Neighborhoods United SF, Small Business Forward, Romalyn Schmaltz and Paul Erickson file Case No. CPF26519501, asking the court to rescind the plan until the city prepares a supplemental EIR.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.reedsmith.com/our-insights/blogs/viewpoints/102mekj/caught-in-a-pickle-a-ceqa-challenge-to-the-sf-family-zoning-plan-creates-uncer/","source_label":"Reed Smith"},{"event_date":"2026-01-12","event_type":"Family Zoning Plan Takes Effect","description":"As of Jan. 15 the petitioners had not moved for a stay, which they would need to suspend the plan during the case.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.reubenlaw.com/tag/familyzoningplan/","source_label":"Reuben, Junius & Rose"},{"event_date":"2026-02-12","event_type":"Pro-Housing Groups Sue, Saying Plan Falls Short","description":"YIMBY Law, the California Housing Defense Fund and Californians for Homeownership argue the plan does not deliver the capacity the housing element promised and unlawfully limits use of the State Density Bonus Law.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/press/yimby-law-california-housing-defense-fund-and-californians-for-homeownership-sue-san-francisco-for-violating-state-housing-law-with-family-zoning-plan","source_label":"YIMBY Law"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2025-12-09","body":"Board of Supervisors","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":6,"vote_against":4,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/urban-development/sf-family-zoning-plan-passes-upzoning-approved/article_3938b98d-df49-401f-b857-18e03c72c848.html","source_label":"San Francisco Examiner","notes":"Final approval of the Family Zoning Plan ordinances. The initial vote on Dec. 2, 2025 was 7-4; Supervisor Alan Wong was absent for the final vote."},{"decision_date":"2026-01-09","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.reedsmith.com/our-insights/blogs/viewpoints/102mekj/caught-in-a-pickle-a-ceqa-challenge-to-the-sf-family-zoning-plan-creates-uncer/","source_label":"Reed Smith","notes":"CEQA petition by Neighborhoods United SF, Small Business Forward, Romalyn Schmaltz and Paul Erickson, Case No. CPF26519501, San Francisco County Superior Court."},{"decision_date":"2026-02-12","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/sf-family-zoning-plan","source_label":"YIMBY Law","notes":"Petition by YIMBY Law, the California Housing Defense Fund and Californians for Homeownership under housing element law. First merits hearing set for Nov. 18, 2026."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"San Francisco's 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element and Draft Rezoning Package","url":"https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/housing-for-all/housingelement-HCD-sf-draft-rezoning-package-09092025.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":"Paul McDougall","date_published":"2025-09-09","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Supes approve SF mayor's zoning plan to allow much more housing","url":"https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/sf-supervisors-pass-daniel-luries-housing-zoning-revamp/article_0f57298d-39bb-4343-a512-e089c4c5cd9e.html","publication":"San Francisco Examiner","author":"Patrick Hoge","date_published":"2025-12-02","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Lurie's Family Zoning Plan approved by majority of San Francisco supervisors","url":"https://ktvu.com/news/luries-family-zoning-plan-approved-majority-san-francisco-supervisors","publication":"KTVU","author":null,"date_published":"2025-12-02","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Lurie housing plan passes amid threats of lawsuits from different sides","url":"https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/urban-development/sf-family-zoning-plan-passes-upzoning-approved/article_3938b98d-df49-401f-b857-18e03c72c848.html","publication":"San Francisco Examiner","author":"Patrick Hoge","date_published":"2025-12-09","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Mayor Lurie Signs Historic Family Zoning Legislation to Make City Affordable for Generations of San Franciscans","url":"https://www.sf.gov/news-mayor-lurie-signs-historic-family-zoning-legislation-to-make-city-affordable-for-generations-of-san-franciscans","publication":"Office of the Mayor, City and County of San Francisco","author":null,"date_published":"2025-12-12","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Neighborhood, Small Business Groups File Lawsuit Over San Francisco Rezoning Plan","url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/12069226/neighborhood-small-business-groups-file-lawsuit-over-san-francisco-rezoning-plan","publication":"KQED","author":"Sydney Johnson","date_published":"2026-01-09","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Lawsuit Filed to Stop Mayor Lurie's Upzoning Plan, Because of Course","url":"https://sfist.com/2026/01/09/lawsuit-filed-to-stop-mayor-luries-upzoning-plan-because-of-course/","publication":"SFist","author":"Jay Barmann","date_published":"2026-01-09","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"San Francisco neighborhood groups sue to halt Family Zoning plan","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/san-francisco-neighborhood-groups-sue-to-halt-family-zoning-plan/","publication":"Courthouse News Service","author":"Edvard Pettersson","date_published":"2026-01-09","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Lawsuit over Rich Family Zoning Plan will test height limits, density, and CEQA","url":"https://48hills.org/2026/01/lawsuit-over-rich-family-zoning-plan-will-test-height-limits-density-and-ceqa/","publication":"48 Hills","author":"Tim Redmond","date_published":"2026-01-11","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Family Zoning Plan Becomes Law: Lawsuit Filed","url":"https://www.reubenlaw.com/tag/familyzoningplan/","publication":"Reuben, Junius & Rose","author":"Thomas Tunny","date_published":"2026-01-15","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Caught in a Pickle?: A CEQA Challenge to the SF Family Zoning Plan Creates Uncertainty for Developers and the City","url":"https://www.reedsmith.com/our-insights/blogs/viewpoints/102mekj/caught-in-a-pickle-a-ceqa-challenge-to-the-sf-family-zoning-plan-creates-uncer/","publication":"Reed Smith","author":null,"date_published":"2026-01-29","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"YIMBY Groups Sue San Francisco, Arguing Upzoning Doesn't Go Far Enough","url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/12073193/yimby-groups-sue-san-francisco-arguing-upzoning-doesnt-go-far-enough","publication":"KQED","author":"Adhiti Bandlamudi","date_published":"2026-02-12","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, and Californians for Homeownership Sue San Francisco for Violating State Housing Law with Family Zoning Plan","url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/press/yimby-law-california-housing-defense-fund-and-californians-for-homeownership-sue-san-francisco-for-violating-state-housing-law-with-family-zoning-plan","publication":"YIMBY Law","author":null,"date_published":"2026-02-12","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Two lawsuits challenge San Francisco's new housing plan from opposite poles","url":"https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/urban-development/sf-family-zoning-plan-dueling-housing-lawsuits/article_69f5f3b2-a077-4aa6-bc5b-02eaed7a2b37.html","publication":"San Francisco Examiner","author":"Patrick Hoge","date_published":"2026-02-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Housing advocates sue SF, saying it illegally carved SoMa out of state density law","url":"https://sfstandard.com/2026/08/13/lawsuit-san-francisco-yimby-nimby-housing/","publication":"The San Francisco Standard","author":"Max Harrison-Caldwell and Gabriel Lorenzo Greschler","date_published":"2026-08-13","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Family Zoning and SB 79 in Court: What's Next for San Francisco Housing?","url":"https://www.coblentzlaw.com/unfamiliar-terrain/family-zoning-and-sb-79-in-court-whats-next-for-san-francisco-housing/","publication":"Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass","author":"Daniel Gershwin, Megan A. Jennings and Alyssa Netto","date_published":"2026-09-02","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Dueling lawsuits contest new San Francisco Family Zoning rules","url":"https://www.housingwire.com/articles/sf-family-zoning-lawsuits/","publication":"HousingWire (The Builder's Daily)","author":"Richard Lawson","date_published":"2026-09-10","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"San Francisco Family Zoning Plan","url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/sf-family-zoning-plan","publication":"YIMBY Law","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"San Francisco Family Zoning Plan","url":"https://sfplanning.org/sf-family-zoning-plan","publication":"San Francisco Planning","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, San Francisco Family Zoning Plan, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/san-francisco-family-zoning-2025, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:20:33.835438+00:00"},{"id":57,"slug":"fairfax-school-street-plaza-2024","name":"School Street Plaza (95 Broadway)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/fairfax-school-street-plaza-2024","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/fairfax-school-street-plaza-2024/brief","address":"95 Broadway, Fairfax, CA 94930","latitude":37.9872,"longitude":-122.5903,"jurisdiction":{"id":56,"slug":"fairfax-marin","city":"Fairfax","county":"Marin","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/fairfax-marin"},"city":"Fairfax","county":"Marin","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Approved","units_proposed":243,"units_affordable":41,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":6,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2024-11-12","date_approved":"2025-11-22","date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":12,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"Mill Creek Residential proposed School Street Plaza at 95 Broadway in Fairfax, an existing commercial plaza of about two acres with two buildings and a parking lot, owned by School Street LLC. The plan is 243 apartments over 5,750 square feet of ground-floor commercial space in a six-story, 64-foot building that uses a density bonus height waiver. The town counts 41 apartments for low-income households at or below 80 percent of area median income; YIMBY Law and KQED report 49. Twelve existing rental units would be displaced. The site is Program 1-B in the housing element HCD certified on April 8, 2024, which plans for 175 units there by 2028. The developer filed an SB 330 preliminary application on November 12, 2024 and a full application on May 8, 2025. On June 5, 2025 the planning director ruled the project ineligible for ministerial review, citing the fire hazard zone and past tenants, and pointed it to design review. HCD warned on July 31, 2025 that skipping the ministerial process could lead to revocation of the town's housing element, and on September 8 the town reversed course. On October 16 it sent a letter citing 25 deficiencies and threatening denial; the developer's attorney replied that the project had already been approved by operation of law. A recall election over housing failed on November 4, 2025, with about 56 percent voting to keep Mayor Lisel Blash and Vice Mayor Stephanie Hellman, per KQED. On November 22, 2025 the town approved the project with conditions, deferring the remaining deficiencies to building permit review. The town says the project is eligible to apply for building permits.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"Town of Fairfax planning director","date_invoked":"2025-06-05","description":"Declared the project ineligible for ministerial review and pointed it to discretionary design review; reversed on Sept. 8, 2025 after HCD intervened.","added_delay_months":3,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/09/1-95-Broadway-Town-letter-re-ministerial-process-June-5-2025_signed.pdf"},{"short_name":"Height Limit","full_name":"Height and Density Limits","invoked_by":"Town of Fairfax","date_invoked":"2025-10-16","description":"The deficiency letter challenged the density bonus waivers, including height. The project was approved at 64 feet.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2025/11/25/fairfax-conditionally-approves-243-apartment-project/"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Town of Fairfax","date_invoked":"2025-11-22","description":"The approval attached CEQA mitigation measures; the developer argued the project is not subject to CEQA. The town's Jan. 8, 2026 clarifications resolved the dispute.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/01/18cb3ffc-8-95-broadway-response-to-hk-letter-regarding-conditions_jan.8.2026.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"Candace Neal-Ricker","organization":null,"actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Recall leader","stated_arguments":"\"So it's a complete sellout to the developers, 100%.\" Also: \"Council members are not gods.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/12064168/fairfax-votes-no-in-recall-election-about-housing"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Warned that the town's housing element was at risk","stated_arguments":"Stephanie Reyes: \"If the Town does not follow the steps in the memo, the Town will not be complying with its housing element\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/09/4-95-Broadway-City-letter_ministerial-process-clarification-with-exhibits_9-8-25.pdf"},{"name":"Frank Egger","organization":"Fairfax Town Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Council member","stated_arguments":"\"Obviously, it was a ploy to help stop the recall, by saying it was rejected.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2025/11/25/fairfax-conditionally-approves-243-apartment-project/"},{"name":"Stephanie Hellman","organization":"Fairfax Town Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"neutral","role":"Vice mayor; kept her seat in the Nov. 4, 2025 recall","stated_arguments":"\"The risk of the unthinkable Builder's Remedy is very high should we lose our housing element certification.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2025/11/25/fairfax-conditionally-approves-243-apartment-project/"},{"name":"YIMBY Law","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Sued Fairfax over its housing element (2023); backed the project","stated_arguments":"Sonja Trauss (Aug. 19, 2025): \"Should the Town fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure that the law is enforced.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/08/08.19.2025-YIMBY-Law-Letter-of-Support-95-Broadway.pdf"},{"name":"Jeffrey Beiswenger","organization":"Town of Fairfax","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"deciding","role":"Planning and building services director","stated_arguments":"Ruled the project ineligible for ministerial review (June 5, 2025), reversed after HCD's warning (Sept. 8) and approved it with conditions (Nov. 22). \"The November 14 submittal addressed some, but not all, project deficiencies.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2025/11/25/fairfax-conditionally-approves-243-apartment-project/"},{"name":"Mill Creek Residential","organization":"Mill Creek Residential (Mike Kim); owner School Street LLC","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer","stated_arguments":"Maintains that the project was approved by operation of law when the town missed its deadline to act.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2025/11/25/fairfax-conditionally-approves-243-apartment-project/"},{"name":"Lisel Blash","organization":"Town of Fairfax","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"neutral","role":"Mayor; kept her seat in the Nov. 4, 2025 recall","stated_arguments":"\"Because this is a ministerial process, the project is being reviewed by staff according to a checklist of objective standards.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2025/11/25/fairfax-conditionally-approves-243-apartment-project/"},{"name":"Riley Hurd","organization":"Ragghianti Freitas","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Attorney for the applicant","stated_arguments":"\"Nothing has changed: this project remains approved by operation of law.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2025/11/25/fairfax-conditionally-approves-243-apartment-project/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2023-02-01","event_type":"YIMBY Law Sues Fairfax Over Missed Housing Deadline","description":"The town had published no draft housing element. YIMBY Law filed a dismissal on Sept. 18, 2023.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/fairfax-housing-element","source_label":"YIMBY Law"},{"event_date":"2024-04-08","event_type":"State Certifies Fairfax Housing Element","description":"School Street Plaza is Program 1-B, planned for 175 units by 2028.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2024/04/HCD-Certifies-Fairfax-Housing-Element-Letter.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2024-11-12","event_type":"Developer Files SB 330 Preliminary Application","description":"The preliminary application is deemed complete Dec. 4, 2024; the full application follows on May 8, 2025.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://townoffairfaxca.gov/school-street-project-95-broadway/","source_label":"Town of Fairfax"},{"event_date":"2025-06-05","event_type":"Town Rules Project Ineligible for Ministerial Review","description":"The planning director cites the fire hazard zone and past tenants and points the project to design review.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/09/1-95-Broadway-Town-letter-re-ministerial-process-June-5-2025_signed.pdf","source_label":"Town of Fairfax"},{"event_date":"2025-07-31","event_type":"HCD Warns Town Over Its Housing Element","description":"HCD says skipping the ministerial process could lead to revocation of the town's housing element compliance.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/09/4-95-Broadway-City-letter_ministerial-process-clarification-with-exhibits_9-8-25.pdf","source_label":"Town of Fairfax"},{"event_date":"2025-09-08","event_type":"Town Reverses, Will Review Project Ministerially","description":"The town cites HCD's reading of the town code.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/09/4-95-Broadway-City-letter_ministerial-process-clarification-with-exhibits_9-8-25.pdf","source_label":"Town of Fairfax"},{"event_date":"2025-10-16","event_type":"Town Cites 25 Deficiencies, Threatens Denial","description":"The letter sets a Nov. 17 deadline. The developer's attorney replies on Oct. 20 that the project is already approved by operation of law.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2025/11/25/fairfax-conditionally-approves-243-apartment-project/","source_label":"Press Democrat"},{"event_date":"2025-11-04","event_type":"Recall of Mayor and Vice Mayor Fails","description":"About 56 percent vote to keep Lisel Blash and Stephanie Hellman.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/12064168/fairfax-votes-no-in-recall-election-about-housing","source_label":"KQED"},{"event_date":"2025-11-22","event_type":"Town Approves Project With Conditions","description":"Remaining deficiencies are deferred to building permit review.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/11/b7ef27e6-0-fairfax-95-broadway-approval-letter-with-conditions-and-mitigation-measures-11-22-25.pdf","source_label":"Town of Fairfax"},{"event_date":"2026-01-08","event_type":"Town Accepts Developer's Condition Clarifications","description":"This resolves the developer's conditional appeal of the conditions; close-out awaits a $30,000 reimbursement.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/01/18cb3ffc-8-95-broadway-response-to-hk-letter-regarding-conditions_jan.8.2026.pdf","source_label":"Town of Fairfax"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2025-11-22","body":"Staff","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"none","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/11/b7ef27e6-0-fairfax-95-broadway-approval-letter-with-conditions-and-mitigation-measures-11-22-25.pdf","source_label":"Town of Fairfax","notes":"Approved the project with conditions under the ministerial process; remaining deficiencies deferred to building permit review."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"HCD letter certifying the Fairfax housing element","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2024/04/HCD-Certifies-Fairfax-Housing-Element-Letter.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":"Melinda Coy","date_published":"2024-04-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Town letter regarding ministerial process, June 5, 2025","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/09/1-95-Broadway-Town-letter-re-ministerial-process-June-5-2025_signed.pdf","publication":"Town of Fairfax","author":null,"date_published":"2025-06-05","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"YIMBY Law letter of support, 95 Broadway","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/08/08.19.2025-YIMBY-Law-Letter-of-Support-95-Broadway.pdf","publication":"YIMBY Law","author":"Sonja Trauss","date_published":"2025-08-19","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Ministerial process clarification letter with HCD email exhibit","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/09/4-95-Broadway-City-letter_ministerial-process-clarification-with-exhibits_9-8-25.pdf","publication":"Town of Fairfax","author":"Jeffrey Beiswenger","date_published":"2025-09-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Fairfax Votes 'No' In Recall Election About Housing","url":"https://www.kqed.org/news/12064168/fairfax-votes-no-in-recall-election-about-housing","publication":"KQED","author":"Ericka Cruz Guevarra, Izzy Bloom, Jessica Kariisa and Alan Montecillo","date_published":"2025-11-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Approval with conditions letter, 95 Broadway","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/11/b7ef27e6-0-fairfax-95-broadway-approval-letter-with-conditions-and-mitigation-measures-11-22-25.pdf","publication":"Town of Fairfax","author":"Jeffrey Beiswenger","date_published":"2025-11-22","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Letter from applicant attorney regarding conditions of approval","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/11/03925eee-95-broadway-letter-from-applicant-attorney-regarding-project-coas.pdf","publication":"Town of Fairfax","author":null,"date_published":"2025-11-25","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Fairfax conditionally approves 243-apartment project","url":"https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2025/11/25/fairfax-conditionally-approves-243-apartment-project/","publication":"Press Democrat","author":"Richard Halstead","date_published":"2025-11-25","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Town response regarding conditions, Jan. 8, 2026","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/01/18cb3ffc-8-95-broadway-response-to-hk-letter-regarding-conditions_jan.8.2026.pdf","publication":"Town of Fairfax","author":null,"date_published":"2026-01-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"School Street Plaza, 95 Broadway project narrative","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2025/05/1-School-Street-Plaza-95-Broadway-Narrative.pdf","publication":"Town of Fairfax","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"School Street Project - 95 Broadway","url":"https://townoffairfaxca.gov/school-street-project-95-broadway/","publication":"Town of Fairfax","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Fairfax housing element lawsuit","url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/fairfax-housing-element","publication":"YIMBY Law","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, School Street Plaza (95 Broadway), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/fairfax-school-street-plaza-2024, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:23:28.647003+00:00"},{"id":84,"slug":"cupertino-scofield-vista-heights-2024","name":"Scofield Drive and Vista Heights Builder's Remedy Projects","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/cupertino-scofield-vista-heights-2024","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/cupertino-scofield-vista-heights-2024/brief","address":"20739 Scofield Drive and a hillside site near Linda Vista Park, Cupertino, CA 95014","latitude":37.3213,"longitude":-122.0367,"jurisdiction":{"id":12,"slug":"cupertino-santa-clara","city":"Cupertino","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/cupertino-santa-clara"},"city":"Cupertino","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","project_type":null,"status":"Litigated","units_proposed":50,"units_affordable":10,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2024-02-20","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":32,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"Two builder's remedy projects in Cupertino have been stalled since the city declared their applications expired in January 2025. In January 2024, in a suit by YIMBY Law and the California Housing Defense Fund, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Mary Arand ruled that developers who filed affordable housing projects after Cupertino missed its housing element deadline could use the builder's remedy until the state approved the city's housing element. Preliminary applications for the two projects followed on February 20 and 21, 2024: one at 20739 Scofield Drive, replacing a single-family home on a corner lot of about 0.32 acres, and one on a hillside near Linda Vista Park that YIMBY Law calls Vista Heights. San Jose Spotlight has described them as 20 condominiums and 33 homes; HCD's notice of violation describes them as a combined 50 units, 10 of them deed-restricted affordable, and the figures above use HCD's count. Residents protested the Scofield Drive proposal at a City Council meeting in July 2024, and neighbors raised fire risk at the hillside site. The applicants filed full applications on August 16 and 19, 2024, and HCD found the city's housing element in substantial compliance on September 4, 2024. The city found the applications incomplete on September 13 and 16, 2024, and on January 9 and 10, 2025 told the applicants that the Permit Streamlining Act allows only one 90-day period to complete an application, so the applications and their vested rights had expired. On April 8, 2025, YIMBY Law, the California Housing Defense Fund and the two applicants filed two petitions in Santa Clara County Superior Court asking that the city be ordered to process the projects. On July 16, 2025, HCD issued a notice of violation saying the 90-day period resets after each incompleteness determination and that the city must honor the projects' vested rights, including builder's remedy status. The city answered in August 2025, defending what it called the plain meaning of the statute. On January 29, 2026, in a separate case brought by the Town of Los Gatos, Judge Helen E. Williams of the same court rejected the single-window reading. No ruling in the Cupertino cases has been reported as of October 2026.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"City of Cupertino","date_invoked":"2024-09-13","description":"The city found both full applications incomplete on Sept. 13 and 16, 2024, then counted a single 90-day period to cure and declared the applications expired in January 2025. HCD says each incompleteness determination starts a new 90-day period.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/cupertino-hau-1585-psa-90-days-nov-071625.pdf"},{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"City of Cupertino","date_invoked":"2025-01-09","description":"With the applications declared expired, the city treats the projects as having lost the builder's remedy rights they vested in February 2024, before the housing element was certified. HCD told the city to honor those rights. Two petitions are pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/cupertino-hau-1585-psa-90-days-nov-071625.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"City of Cupertino","organization":"City of Cupertino","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Declared both applications and their vested rights expired (Jan. 9 and 10, 2025)","stated_arguments":"Reads the Permit Streamlining Act to allow a single 90-day period to complete an application after an incompleteness finding. In August 2025 it answered HCD's notice of violation by defending the \"plain meaning\" of the statute.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-spars-with-state-over-developments/"},{"name":"YIMBY Law","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Co-petitioner in both suits, filed April 8, 2025","stated_arguments":"Says Cupertino is trying to stop two builder's remedy projects by claiming an applicant gets only one 90-day window to respond to an incompleteness letter. Executive director Sonja Trauss: \"(Cupertino's interpretation) shows that they're desperate to prevent housing in their city.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/cupertino-ca-vesting"},{"name":"Kenneth Stahl","organization":null,"actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Attorney for the Linda Vista Park (Vista Heights) applicant","stated_arguments":"\"There's no reason to read the law that way, except that you want to defeat the builder's remedy.\" (April 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-sued-over-expired-housing-proposals-builders-remedy/"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Issued a notice of violation on July 16, 2025 (signed by David Zisser)","stated_arguments":"\"However, the 90-day deadline resets after each incompleteness determination made by the City.\" The notice told the city to honor the projects' vested rights, including builder's remedy status, and asked for a response by Aug. 15, 2025.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/cupertino-hau-1585-psa-90-days-nov-071625.pdf"},{"name":"California Housing Defense Fund","organization":"California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF)","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Co-petitioner in both suits","stated_arguments":"Executive director Dylan Casey: \"Making sure these builder's remedy projects actually become homes eventually is really important to ensure that state housing policy is functioning as it's intended.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-sued-over-expired-housing-proposals-builders-remedy/"},{"name":"Liang Chao","organization":"City of Cupertino","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"Mayor of Cupertino (2025)","stated_arguments":"\"We remain committed to holding everyone to the same objective standards so that more housing can be approved in accordance with our general plan, zoning ordinance and state laws.\" (April 2025.) After HCD's notice: \"Our goal is to ensure all applications meet clear and consistent standards and we treat everyone fairly.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-sued-over-expired-housing-proposals-builders-remedy/"},{"name":"Santa Clara County Superior Court","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Court hearing both petitions","stated_arguments":"No ruling in the Cupertino cases reported as of October 2026. In a separate Los Gatos case, Judge Helen E. Williams ruled on Jan. 29, 2026 that each incompleteness finding opens a new 90-day period.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-sued-over-expired-housing-proposals-builders-remedy/"},{"name":"Pandit Prasad","organization":null,"actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Scofield Drive resident","stated_arguments":"\"Once this gets approved, then there is no control.\" He said added traffic would endanger his children (July 2024).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/potential-cupertino-development-irks-residents/"},{"name":"Ryan Patterson","organization":"Patterson & O'Neill","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Attorney for the Scofield Drive developer","stated_arguments":"\"We've won this argument in court already, and we fully expect to win it again in Cupertino.\" Also: \"(The state's) notice of violation makes it crystal clear: Cupertino is breaking the law and will be held accountable.\" (August 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-spars-with-state-over-developments/"},{"name":"Louise Sadaati","organization":"Cupertino for All","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Cupertino resident and member of the pro-housing group Cupertino for All","stated_arguments":"\"We support housing, but not anything everywhere.\" Also: \"The problems with these two builders' remedies are, as the developers have designed them, they're just not a good fit as submitted.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-sued-over-expired-housing-proposals-builders-remedy/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2024-01-08","event_type":"Judge Opens Cupertino to Builder's Remedy Projects","description":"In a suit by YIMBY Law and the California Housing Defense Fund, Judge Mary Arand rules that developers who filed affordable housing projects after the city missed its housing element deadline may use the builder's remedy until the state approves the element.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/advocates-cheer-cupertino-judgement-on-affordable-housing-development-builders-remedy/","source_label":"San Jose Spotlight"},{"event_date":"2024-02-20","event_type":"Builder's Remedy Preliminary Applications Filed","description":"The two projects file preliminary applications on Feb. 20 and 21, invoking the builder's remedy because the city lacks a compliant housing element.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/cupertino-hau-1585-psa-90-days-nov-071625.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2024-07-30","event_type":"Residents Protest Scofield Drive Plan","description":"San Jose Spotlight reports that more than a dozen residents raised traffic and safety concerns near Faria Elementary School at a City Council meeting earlier in the month. The plan then called for 23 homes.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/potential-cupertino-development-irks-residents/","source_label":"San Jose Spotlight"},{"event_date":"2024-08-16","event_type":"Full Applications Filed","description":"Filed Aug. 16 and 19, within the six months that keep the preliminary applications' vested rights.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/cupertino-hau-1585-psa-90-days-nov-071625.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2024-09-13","event_type":"City Finds Both Applications Incomplete","description":"The incompleteness determinations are dated Sept. 13 and 16, 2024.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/cupertino-hau-1585-psa-90-days-nov-071625.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2025-01-09","event_type":"City Declares Applications Expired","description":"On Jan. 9 and 10, the city tells the applicants that the Permit Streamlining Act allows a single 90-day period to complete an application, so the applications and their vested rights have expired.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/cupertino-hau-1585-psa-90-days-nov-071625.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2025-04-08","event_type":"Housing Groups and Developers Sue Cupertino","description":"YIMBY Law, the California Housing Defense Fund and the two applicants file two petitions in Santa Clara County Superior Court.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-sued-over-expired-housing-proposals-builders-remedy/","source_label":"San Jose Spotlight"},{"event_date":"2025-07-16","event_type":"HCD Issues Notice of Violation","description":"HCD says the 90-day period resets after each incompleteness determination and tells the city to honor the projects' vested rights. The city defends its reading in an August response.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/cupertino-hau-1585-psa-90-days-nov-071625.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2026-01-29","event_type":"Judge Rejects Same Reading in Los Gatos Case","description":"In a suit the Town of Los Gatos brought over two other builder's remedy projects, Judge Helen E. Williams rules that each incompleteness finding opens a new 90-day period.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losgatan.com/judge-sides-with-developers-and-housing-activists-in-lawsuit-over-vesting-rights/","source_label":"Los Gatan"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2024-09-13","body":"Staff","action":"deemed_incomplete","action_label":"deemed application incomplete","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/cupertino-hau-1585-psa-90-days-nov-071625.pdf","source_label":"HCD","notes":"Both full applications were found incomplete, on Sept. 13 and 16, 2024."},{"decision_date":"2025-04-08","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-sued-over-expired-housing-proposals-builders-remedy/","source_label":"San Jose Spotlight","notes":"Two petitions by YIMBY Law, the California Housing Defense Fund and the applicants, Santa Clara County Superior Court."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Advocates cheer Cupertino judgment on affordable housing","url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/advocates-cheer-cupertino-judgement-on-affordable-housing-development-builders-remedy/","publication":"San Jose Spotlight","author":"Annalise Freimarck","date_published":"2024-01-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"SB330 Filed for a Multi-Family Residence At 20739 Scofield Drive, Cupertino","url":"https://sfyimby.com/2024/04/sb330-filed-for-a-multi-family-residence-at-20739-scofield-drive-cupertino.html","publication":"SF YIMBY","author":null,"date_published":"2024-04-03","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Potential Cupertino development irks residents","url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/potential-cupertino-development-irks-residents/","publication":"San Jose Spotlight","author":"Annalise Freimarck","date_published":"2024-07-30","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Cupertino sued over expired housing proposals","url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-sued-over-expired-housing-proposals-builders-remedy/","publication":"San Jose Spotlight","author":"Annalise Freimarck","date_published":"2025-04-15","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"City of Cupertino, Permit Streamlining Act 90-Day Review, Notice of Violation","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/cupertino-hau-1585-psa-90-days-nov-071625.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":"David Zisser","date_published":"2025-07-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California housing agency accuses Cupertino of breaking law, withholding permits","url":"https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2025/08/18/california-housing-department-says-cupertino-is-breaking-law/","publication":"The Real Deal","author":null,"date_published":"2025-08-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Cupertino spars with state over developments","url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-spars-with-state-over-developments/","publication":"San Jose Spotlight","author":"Annalise Freimarck","date_published":"2025-08-26","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge sides with developers and housing activists in lawsuit over vesting rights","url":"https://losgatan.com/judge-sides-with-developers-and-housing-activists-in-lawsuit-over-vesting-rights/","publication":"Los Gatan","author":"Drew Penner","date_published":"2026-01-30","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Cupertino, CA: SB 330 Vesting Rights","url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/cupertino-ca-vesting","publication":"YIMBY Law","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Scofield Drive and Vista Heights Builder's Remedy Projects, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/cupertino-scofield-vista-heights-2024, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:21:52.364441+00:00"},{"id":26,"slug":"del-mar-seaside-ridge-2022","name":"Seaside Ridge — Del Mar North Bluff","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/del-mar-seaside-ridge-2022","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/del-mar-seaside-ridge-2022/brief","address":"929 Border Avenue, Del Mar, CA 92014","latitude":32.9706,"longitude":-117.269,"jurisdiction":{"id":26,"slug":"del-mar-san-diego","city":"Del Mar","county":"San Diego","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/del-mar-san-diego"},"city":"Del Mar","county":"San Diego","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Stalled","units_proposed":259,"units_affordable":85,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2022-10-04","date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2026-05-19","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":43,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"A proposed 259-unit apartment development on a vacant 6.9-acre bluff site at 929 Border Avenue on the northern edge of Del Mar, overlooking the Pacific Ocean north of Dog Beach. Landowner and applicant: Carol Lazier, a San Diego philanthropist. Project representative: Darren Pudgil. The project includes 71 studios, 131 one-bedroom, 38 two-bedroom, and 19 three-bedroom units. Of 259 total units, 85 are deed-restricted affordable: 42 for households earning 30–50% AMI (in Del Mar, serving workers earning ~$30,000–$50,000 per year in a city where the median income exceeds $150,000), and 43 moderate-income units. The 42 low-income units would satisfy 37% of Del Mar's entire state-mandated low-income housing obligation. A preliminary application was filed October 4, 2022 under SB 330 and Builder's Remedy, based on Del Mar lacking an HCD-certified Housing Element — a status not resolved until May 31, 2023. Del Mar's planning department issued four \"incompleteness determinations\" (April 2023, June 2023, September/October 2023, December 2023), each citing missing materials related to CEQA, the Coastal Act, LCP amendment, and rezoning. The developer filed suit in February 2024; in June 2025 San Diego Superior Court Judge Wendy Behan granted the city's motion to dismiss, finding the petition premature because the developer had not exhausted administrative remedies. The developer appealed to the City Council in July 2025; in September 2025 the Council unanimously declined a de novo hearing. The developer refiled suit in San Diego County Superior Court in late October 2025. On Dec. 5, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office issued a formal warning letter stating Del Mar's conduct \"could be seen as a deliberate attempt to avoid an adjudication.\" Del Mar's City Council voted unanimously on May 19, 2026 to deny the application as incomplete — even as the developer's attorney argued it had been automatically deemed complete when the city missed its 60-day post-appeal deadline. The developer says the city faces $2.6M+ in fines and has pledged to continue litigation. At the same May 19 meeting the council started a rezoning of the North Bluff to a new RM-North zone with a base density of 20 units per acre, which the city presented as a backup for its next housing element. HCD had written to the city on Jan. 15, 2026 that the housing element's program to rezone the North Bluff and/or South Stratford properties is required if the city's agreement with the Del Mar Fairgrounds for affordable housing is suspended or terminated, and it set November 2026 as the milestone for a ground lease there. On Aug. 3, 2026 the council voted 3-0 to ask the San Diego County District Attorney and the U.S. Attorney to look into ties among a broker who advises Seaside Ridge, Fairgrounds board member Mark Arabo and Attorney General Rob Bonta; Arabo said he has no interest in the project, Seaside Ridge's attorney called the referral \"outrageous,\" and on Oct. 1 the District Attorney's office declined the request. On Aug. 18, 2026 the 22nd District Agricultural Association board voted 5-3 to end its negotiating agreement with Del Mar for 61 affordable units at the Fairgrounds. On Aug. 24 Lazier asked the council to rezone 929 Border Avenue under the housing element's backup program, and her attorneys asked it to pause the RM-North effort. The refiled suit is pending.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"City of Del Mar","date_invoked":"2023-04-27","description":"Del Mar cited CEQA compliance and California Coastal Act compliance requirements as the basis for all incompleteness determinations. The city argued the developer must submit materials for a Local Coastal Program amendment before the application can be processed. The Coastal Act layer adds a genuine complication: any LCP amendment requires California Coastal Commission approval — a separate state agency operating independently from HCD and the Attorney General.","added_delay_months":43,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2025/12/08/ag-bonta-warns-del-mar-could-face-penalties-over-stalled-affordable-housing-proposal"},{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"City of Del Mar (Planning Department)","date_invoked":"2023-04-27","description":"Del Mar's primary obstruction mechanism: four serial \"incompleteness determinations\" (April 2023, June 2023, September/October 2023, December 2023) declaring the project application lacks materials for CEQA compliance, Coastal Act compliance, LCP amendment, and rezoning. This is distinct from a formal denial — an incompleteness determination prevents the application from being formally processed and forces the developer into an administrative appeal loop before courts can intervene. The AG described this approach as a potential \"deliberate attempt to avoid an adjudication.\" The council formally denied the application as incomplete on May 19, 2026, and the developer's refiled suit is pending. NOTE: unlike most Builder's Remedy cases, Del Mar is a coastal city — Coastal Commission approval of any LCP amendment is a genuine additional requirement, adding a second state agency to the review chain.","added_delay_months":43,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/state-ag-issues-warning-letter-to-del-mar-regarding-seaside-ridge/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Carol Lazier","organization":"Seaside Ridge LLC","actor_type":"Landowner / Philanthropist","stance":"support","role":"Landowner / Applicant","stated_arguments":"Named plaintiff in both lawsuits against Del Mar. Has pursued the project through four incompleteness determinations, one dismissed lawsuit, a City Council appeal, and a second lawsuit. Attorney argues application was automatically deemed complete when the city missed its 60-day post-appeal determination deadline.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/seaside-ridge-developer-sues-del-mar-for-denying-application/"},{"name":"Rob Bonta","organization":"California Attorney General's Office","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"California Attorney General / State Enforcement","stated_arguments":"\"The City's conduct to date could be seen as a deliberate attempt to avoid an adjudication regarding the applicability of the Housing Accountability Act's Builder's Remedy provisions.\" (December 2025 warning letter). Threatened penalties under AB 712. Told Del Mar to either process the application without further delay, or deny it so the developer can seek court relief.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/state-ag-issues-warning-letter-to-del-mar-regarding-seaside-ridge/"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"neutral","role":"State Housing Regulator / Housing Element Certifier","stated_arguments":"Certified Del Mar's 6th Cycle Housing Element on May 31, 2023 — seven months after Lazier's preliminary application was filed. The belated certification is central to the Builder's Remedy eligibility dispute: Seaside Ridge argues Builder's Remedy vested at the time of filing and remains applicable; the city argues the certification ended Builder's Remedy eligibility.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.delmar.ca.us/861/Seaside-Ridge-Development-Applications"},{"name":"City of Del Mar","organization":"City of Del Mar","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Local Government / Serial Incompleteness Determinator","stated_arguments":"Four incompleteness determinations citing missing CEQA, Coastal Act, and Local Coastal Program materials. City Manager Ashley Jones: incomplete due to developer's \"steadfast refusal\" to submit LCP amendment materials. City Attorney Hicks: AG letter \"appears to echo misrepresentations\" from developer. May 19, 2026: unanimous Council denial. Simultaneously initiated North Bluff rezoning process, acknowledging some development is inevitable.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/del-mar-rejects-seaside-ridge-concedes-north-bluff-housing-likely/"},{"name":"Terry Gaasterland","organization":"City of Del Mar","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"oppose","role":"Mayor / Housing Liaison / City Spokesperson","stated_arguments":"\"Changing what can be built on a beautiful, fragile bluff like this one is an extreme one. This is a coastal bluff, and that means the Coastal Commission has to weigh in and the application lacked those materials.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2025/12/08/ag-bonta-warns-del-mar-could-face-penalties-over-stalled-affordable-housing-proposal"},{"name":"Tracy Martinez","organization":"City of Del Mar","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"oppose","role":"Mayor of Del Mar (2026)","stated_arguments":"On Seaside Ridge: \"They did not complete their application.\" and \"We do not believe that they're ready to build.\" Called the Fairgrounds board's Aug. 18, 2026 vote a \"waste of public resources.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/09/02/fairgrounds-ends-affordable-housing-negotiations-with-city-of-del-mar"},{"name":"22nd District Agricultural Association","organization":"Del Mar Fairgrounds","actor_type":"State Agency","stance":"neutral","role":"Fairgrounds board","stated_arguments":"Signed an exclusive negotiating agreement with Del Mar in 2024 to study affordable housing on Fairgrounds land and voted 5-3 on Aug. 18, 2026 to end it. Board members cited uncertainty about finishing the project before the agreement's April 2027 expiration.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofsandiego.org/2026/08/19/fairgrounds-board-kills-affordable-housing-deal-with-del-mar/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2020-11-03","event_type":"Luxury Hotel Defeated by Voters on Same Site","description":"Del Mar voters reject a ballot measure that would have allowed a 200-room luxury resort hotel on the same 6.9-acre bluff at 929 Border Avenue. The same site the city will later call too \"beautiful and fragile\" for housing was acceptable for a luxury hotel.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://new-origin.patch.com/california/san-diego/del-mar-housing-project-offers-key-test-untested-state-housing-law","source_label":"Patch San Diego"},{"event_date":"2022-10-04","event_type":"Preliminary Application Filed Under SB 330 / Builder's Remedy","description":"Carol Lazier submits a preliminary development application for the 259-unit Seaside Ridge project at 929 Border Avenue, filed pursuant to SB 330 and Builder's Remedy. At the time of filing, Del Mar does not have an HCD-certified 6th Cycle Housing Element. Case No. PDA22-001.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.delmar.ca.us/861/Seaside-Ridge-Development-Applications","source_label":"City of Del Mar official project page"},{"event_date":"2023-03-30","event_type":"Full Project Application Filed","description":"Within the required 180-day period, Lazier submits a full Coastal Development Permit application (CDP23-008) and associated materials for the 259-unit development.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.delmar.ca.us/861/Seaside-Ridge-Development-Applications","source_label":"City of Del Mar official project page"},{"event_date":"2023-04-27","event_type":"First Incompleteness Determination","description":"Del Mar Principal Planner Matt Bator issues the first incompleteness determination, stating the application is \"incomplete and not supported by law.\" The letter argues Del Mar's Housing Element is already \"in substantial compliance\" — a position that will prove untenable when HCD does not certify the Element until May 2023.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://new-origin.patch.com/california/san-diego/del-mar-housing-project-offers-key-test-untested-state-housing-law","source_label":"Patch San Diego"},{"event_date":"2023-05-31","event_type":"HCD Certifies Del Mar's Housing Element — Seven Months Late","description":"HCD formally certifies Del Mar's 6th Cycle Housing Element as in substantial compliance — seven months after Lazier's preliminary application was filed. Seaside Ridge argues Builder's Remedy vested at filing and remains applicable. The city argues certification ends Builder's Remedy eligibility.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.delmar.ca.us/861/Seaside-Ridge-Development-Applications","source_label":"City of Del Mar official project page"},{"event_date":"2023-06-30","event_type":"Second Incompleteness Determination","description":"After the developer resubmits on June 1, 2023, Del Mar issues its second incompleteness determination.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.delmar.ca.us/861/Seaside-Ridge-Development-Applications","source_label":"City of Del Mar official project page"},{"event_date":"2023-12-20","event_type":"Fourth Incompleteness Determination","description":"Del Mar issues its fourth incompleteness determination after two additional resubmissions. The city's position: the application cannot be complete without CEQA compliance materials, Coastal Act compliance materials, LCP amendment, and zoning change. The developer's position: Builder's Remedy requires ministerial processing without these materials.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.delmar.ca.us/861/Seaside-Ridge-Development-Applications","source_label":"City of Del Mar official project page"},{"event_date":"2024-02-29","event_type":"Developer Files Lawsuit — \"Enough Is Enough\"","description":"Carol Lazier files a lawsuit in San Diego County Superior Court alleging Del Mar violated multiple state housing laws. Pudgil: \"Enough is enough. Having exhausted all other options and after four project submittals and subsequent denial letters from Del Mar, we have no other option than to file suit.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/seaside-ridge-developer-sues-del-mar-for-denying-application/","source_label":"Coast News"},{"event_date":"2024-08-26","event_type":"Lawsuit Delayed Pending La Cañada Flintridge Decision","description":"Seaside Ridge voluntarily delays its lawsuit to await the La Cañada Flintridge Builder's Remedy case. Pudgil: \"We requested this continuance to give time for the La Cañada Flintridge case to play out and to give the city of Del Mar another chance to reconsider its position before the courts decide for them.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/seaside-ridge-delays-del-mar-lawsuit-pending-la-case-ruling/","source_label":"Coast News"},{"event_date":"2025-06-12","event_type":"Judge Dismisses Lawsuit as Premature","description":"San Diego Superior Court Judge Wendy Behan grants Del Mar's motion to dismiss. Her June 12, 2025 tentative ruling says \"the writ is premature based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies,\" because the developer had not first appealed to the City Council.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2025/12/08/ag-bonta-warns-del-mar-could-face-penalties-over-stalled-affordable-housing-proposal","source_label":"KPBS"},{"event_date":"2025-07-18","event_type":"Developer Demands City Act on Application","description":"Seaside Ridge presses Del Mar to either formally declare the application complete or place the matter on a City Council agenda. \"It's time for the city, and specifically the city council, to step up and make a formal decision on our project one way or the other.\" (Pudgil)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ncpipeline.substack.com/p/seaside-ridge-del-mar","source_label":"North County Pipeline"},{"event_date":"2025-09-22","event_type":"City Council Unanimously Declines De Novo Hearing","description":"The Del Mar City Council unanimously declines to order a de novo hearing on the developer's appeal, sending the developer back to court.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/state-ag-issues-warning-letter-to-del-mar-regarding-seaside-ridge/","source_label":"Coast News"},{"event_date":"2025-10-16","event_type":"Developer Refiles Lawsuit","description":"Following the City Council's September refusal, Seaside Ridge says it will refile, and in late October Lazier files a new lawsuit against Del Mar in San Diego County Superior Court, alleging bad faith and seeking a court order requiring the city to process and approve the application.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2025/10/16/developer-plans-to-sue-del-mar-again-over-seaside-ridge-housing-project","source_label":"KPBS"},{"event_date":"2025-12-05","event_type":"AG Bonta Issues Formal Warning Letter","description":"California Attorney General Rob Bonta issues a warning letter to Del Mar stating the city's conduct \"could be seen as a deliberate attempt to avoid an adjudication regarding the applicability of the Housing Accountability Act's Builder's Remedy provisions.\" Threatens penalties under AB 712 (effective January 1, 2026). Tells Del Mar to either process the application without further delay or deny it so the developer can seek court relief.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/state-ag-issues-warning-letter-to-del-mar-regarding-seaside-ridge/","source_label":"Coast News"},{"event_date":"2025-12-19","event_type":"Del Mar Responds to AG — Denies Bad Faith","description":"Del Mar's City Attorney Ralph Hicks sends a letter to the AG's office arguing the warning letter \"appears to echo misrepresentations\" from Seaside Ridge officials. Del Mar states it has offered to collaborate on joint planning but received \"outrageous, bad-faith demands\" in return.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/del-mar-requests-meeting-with-state-ag-after-seaside-ridge-letter/","source_label":"Coast News"},{"event_date":"2026-01-15","event_type":"HCD Asks Del Mar About Housing Element Programs","description":"A letter of inquiry from HCD's Housing Accountability Unit says the program to rezone the North Bluff and/or South Stratford properties \"is required should\" the Fairgrounds agreement be suspended or terminated, and lists November 2026 for a ground lease with the Fairgrounds.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/del-mar-hei-loi-011526.pdf","source_label":"HCD"},{"event_date":"2026-05-19","event_type":"City Council Unanimously Denies Application — Concedes North Bluff Development Inevitable","description":"The Del Mar City Council votes unanimously to deny the Seaside Ridge application as \"incomplete.\" The developer's attorney Brooke Miller (Sheppard Mullin) argued the application was automatically deemed complete when the city missed its 60-day post-appeal determination deadline. Pudgil: city faces $2.6M+ in fines and \"we are optimistic the court will rule favorably.\" Council simultaneously initiates a North Bluff rezoning process — conceding housing on the bluff is inevitable. Most recent action as of May 28, 2026.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/del-mar-rejects-seaside-ridge-concedes-north-bluff-housing-likely/","source_label":"Coast News"},{"event_date":"2026-08-03","event_type":"Council Seeks Investigation of Officials' Ties to Project","description":"At a special meeting the council votes 3-0 to ask the District Attorney and the U.S. Attorney to review ties among a Seaside Ridge broker, Fairgrounds board member Mark Arabo and Attorney General Rob Bonta. Arabo says he has no interest in the project; Seaside Ridge's attorney calls the referral \"outrageous.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/del-mar-requests-investigation-into-officials-seaside-ridge-connections/","source_label":"The Coast News"},{"event_date":"2026-08-18","event_type":"Fairgrounds Board Ends Housing Talks With Del Mar","description":"The 22nd District Agricultural Association board votes 5-3 to end its exclusive negotiating agreement with the city for 61 affordable units at the Fairgrounds, the alternative to rezoning the North Bluff.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/09/02/fairgrounds-ends-affordable-housing-negotiations-with-city-of-del-mar","source_label":"KPBS"},{"event_date":"2026-08-24","event_type":"Owner Demands North Bluff Rezoning","description":"Carol Lazier asks the council to \"take immediate steps to implement Program 1E and rezone 929 Border Avenue.\" Her attorneys at Sheppard Mullin ask the city to pause its RM-North zoning effort.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://voiceofsandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Seaside-Ridge-Attorney-to-DM.pdf","source_label":"Letter to the City Council"},{"event_date":"2026-10-01","event_type":"District Attorney Declines Del Mar's Request","description":"The San Diego County District Attorney's office rejects the city's referral, saying it could not confirm the complaining party's identity and calling the way the complaint was referred \"very irregular.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/das-office-rejects-del-mar-investigation-request/","source_label":"The Coast News"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2025-06-12","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/judge-grants-del-mars-motion-to-dismiss-seaside-ridge-petition/","source_label":"The Coast News","notes":"Tentative ruling by Judge Wendy Behan granting the city's motion to dismiss the first suit as premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies."},{"decision_date":"2026-05-19","body":"City Council","action":"denied","action_label":"denied","staff_recommendation":"deny","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://thecoastnews.com/del-mar-rejects-seaside-ridge-concedes-north-bluff-housing-likely/","source_label":"The Coast News","notes":"Unanimous vote to deny the application as incomplete; the developer says it was deemed complete when the city missed a 60-day deadline."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Del Mar Housing Project Offers Key Test of Untested State Housing Law","url":"https://new-origin.patch.com/california/san-diego/del-mar-housing-project-offers-key-test-untested-state-housing-law","publication":"Patch San Diego / Voice of San Diego","author":"Tigist Layne","date_published":"2023-05-10","notes":"Best early overview. Confirms unit breakdown: 42 low-income + 43 moderate + 174 market-rate = 259. Describes site history. Confirms 113 low-income RHNA obligation."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Seaside Ridge Developer Sues Del Mar for Denying Application","url":"https://thecoastnews.com/seaside-ridge-developer-sues-del-mar-for-denying-application/","publication":"Coast News","author":null,"date_published":"2024-02-29","notes":"Coverage of first lawsuit filing. Contains \"Enough is enough\" quote and Builder's Remedy legal theory."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Seaside Ridge Delays Del Mar Lawsuit Pending La Cañada Flintridge Case Ruling","url":"https://thecoastnews.com/seaside-ridge-delays-del-mar-lawsuit-pending-la-case-ruling/","publication":"Coast News","author":null,"date_published":"2024-08-26","notes":"Covers voluntary lawsuit delay and La Cañada legal strategy."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge grants Del Mar's motion to dismiss Seaside Ridge petition","url":"https://thecoastnews.com/judge-grants-del-mars-motion-to-dismiss-seaside-ridge-petition/","publication":"The Coast News","author":"Leo Place","date_published":"2025-06-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Seaside Ridge returning to courts after city appeal fails","url":"https://thecoastnews.com/seaside-ridge-returning-to-courts-after-city-appeal-fails/","publication":"The Coast News","author":"Leo Place","date_published":"2025-09-23","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developer plans to sue Del Mar again over Seaside Ridge housing project","url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2025/10/16/developer-plans-to-sue-del-mar-again-over-seaside-ridge-housing-project","publication":"KPBS","author":"Alexander Nguyen","date_published":"2025-10-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"AG Bonta Warns Del Mar Could Face Penalties Over Stalled Affordable Housing Proposal","url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2025/12/08/ag-bonta-warns-del-mar-could-face-penalties-over-stalled-affordable-housing-proposal","publication":"KPBS","author":null,"date_published":"2025-12-08","notes":"Best source for the December 2025 AG warning letter. Contains full Bonta quote, AB 712 context, Gaasterland's \"beautiful fragile bluff\" quote."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"State AG Issues Warning Letter to Del Mar Regarding Seaside Ridge","url":"https://thecoastnews.com/state-ag-issues-warning-letter-to-del-mar-regarding-seaside-ridge/","publication":"Coast News","author":null,"date_published":"2025-12-12","notes":"Best Coast News source for AG letter. Contains full Bonta \"deliberate attempt to avoid adjudication\" quote."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Del Mar requests meeting with state AG after Seaside Ridge letter","url":"https://thecoastnews.com/del-mar-requests-meeting-with-state-ag-after-seaside-ridge-letter/","publication":"The Coast News","author":"Leo Place","date_published":"2025-12-30","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Del Mar Pushes Back, Requests Meeting with Attorney General's Office","url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/01/06/del-mar-pushes-back-requests-meeting-with-ags-office-over-stalled-housing-development","publication":"KPBS","author":null,"date_published":"2026-01-06","notes":"Coverage of Del Mar's response to AG Bonta. Confirms one-unit-per-acre current zoning."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"City of Del Mar's 6th Cycle Housing Element Programs, letter of inquiry","url":"https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/del-mar-hei-loi-011526.pdf","publication":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","author":"Melinda Coy","date_published":"2026-01-15","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Del Mar City Council — May 19, 2026 Denial (Official News Flash)","url":"https://www.delmar.ca.us/m/newsflash","publication":"City of Del Mar","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-19","notes":"Official news flash confirming: \"The City Council voted unanimously May 19 to uphold a staff recommendation to deny an incomplete entitlement application for Seaside Ridge.\" Confirms 259 units, 6.2 acres, one dwelling unit per acre current zoning."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Del Mar Rejects Seaside Ridge, Concedes North Bluff Housing Likely","url":"https://thecoastnews.com/del-mar-rejects-seaside-ridge-concedes-north-bluff-housing-likely/","publication":"Coast News","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-23","notes":"Most recent coverage. Confirms May 19, 2026 unanimous denial. Contains attorney argument about automatic completeness. Confirms North Bluff rezoning initiative."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Del Mar requests investigation into officials' Seaside Ridge connections","url":"https://thecoastnews.com/del-mar-requests-investigation-into-officials-seaside-ridge-connections/","publication":"The Coast News","author":"Leo Place","date_published":"2026-08-04","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Fairgrounds Board Kills Affordable Housing Deal with Del Mar","url":"https://voiceofsandiego.org/2026/08/19/fairgrounds-board-kills-affordable-housing-deal-with-del-mar/","publication":"Voice of San Diego","author":"Tigist Layne","date_published":"2026-08-19","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Letter from Carol Lazier to the Del Mar City Council: Immediate Action Required to Implement Housing Element Program 1E","url":"https://voiceofsandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Seaside-Ridge-Attorney-to-DM.pdf","publication":"Voice of San Diego (document)","author":"Carol Lazier","date_published":"2026-08-24","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Letter from Sheppard Mullin to the Del Mar City Council on behalf of Carol Lazier","url":"https://voiceofsandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Lazier-to-DM.pdf","publication":"Voice of San Diego (document)","author":"Brooke Miller","date_published":"2026-08-24","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Del Mar Is Out of Options on Seaside Ridge","url":"https://voiceofsandiego.org/2026/08/26/del-mar-is-out-of-options-on-seaside-ridge/","publication":"Voice of San Diego","author":"Tigist Layne","date_published":"2026-08-26","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Fairgrounds ends affordable housing negotiations with city of Del Mar","url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/09/02/fairgrounds-ends-affordable-housing-negotiations-with-city-of-del-mar","publication":"KPBS","author":"Alexander Nguyen","date_published":"2026-09-02","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"DA's office rejects Del Mar investigation request","url":"https://thecoastnews.com/das-office-rejects-del-mar-investigation-request/","publication":"The Coast News","author":"Jim Trageser","date_published":"2026-10-12","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Seaside Ridge Development Applications — City of Del Mar Official Page","url":"https://www.delmar.ca.us/861/Seaside-Ridge-Development-Applications","publication":"City of Del Mar","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Official city project page. Contains all four incompleteness determination dates and letters, full application history, and official documents. Primary source for the chronological sequence."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Seaside Ridge — Del Mar North Bluff, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/del-mar-seaside-ridge-2022, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:34:12.460339+00:00"},{"id":53,"slug":"los-altos-hills-silver-oaks-2023","name":"Silver Oaks Senior Housing (10728 and 10758 Mora Drive)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-altos-hills-silver-oaks-2023","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-altos-hills-silver-oaks-2023/brief","address":"10728 and 10758 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA 94024","latitude":37.338,"longitude":-122.1009,"jurisdiction":{"id":51,"slug":"los-altos-hills-santa-clara","city":"Los Altos Hills","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/los-altos-hills-santa-clara"},"city":"Los Altos Hills","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","project_type":null,"status":"Litigated","units_proposed":62,"units_affordable":6,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":null,"date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2025-06-18","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"Developer Forrest Linebarger bought two adjoining parcels at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive in 2006 for $2.87 million and first pursued single-family homes; the town of Los Altos Hills annexed the property over his objection in 2012. In early 2023, before HCD certified the town's housing element on May 30, 2023, he proposed builder's remedy projects of a five-story, 44-unit condominium building on each 0.4-acre lot. The project later became Silver Oaks Senior Housing, revised in May 2025: 62 senior units (30 and 32 per site), six of them for extremely low-income households. Staff described five stories over a two-level podium, more than 80 feet tall; the General Plan allows one unit per acre on these sites. On June 18, 2025 the council voted 5-0 to deny both projects, adopting findings under the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code 65589.5(d)) that cited density and fire and evacuation dangers: the area was designated a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in May 2025, and Mora Drive is the only access and evacuation route. The California Housing Defense Fund and Linebarger sued in Santa Clara County Superior Court on September 15, 2025, alleging the town misused CEQA to delay the project and unlawfully denied it. No hearing or ruling has been reported. Whether the 2025 version kept builder's remedy status is unclear; the minutes say the applicant dropped its state density bonus claims. Tenure (rental or for-sale) is not stated in 2025 sources, so the project type is left blank. The lawsuit date comes from an undated Town Crier story whose context places it in 2025.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Town of Los Altos Hills","date_invoked":"2025-02-24","description":"The plaintiffs say the town used CEQA review as a delay tactic; the applicant's AB 1633 notice argued the project qualifies for a Class 32 infill exemption.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/housing-lawsuit-filed-against-los-altos-hills/article_b874b0d4-a2a1-4c6d-9a32-3c2c58d98c3c.html"},{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"Los Altos Hills City Council","date_invoked":"2025-06-18","description":"The council denied the conditional development permits after a hearing, adopting Housing Accountability Act findings on density and fire and evacuation safety. The denial is being challenged in court.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_06182025-2883"}],"actors":[{"name":"Peter Pirnejad","organization":"Town of Los Altos Hills","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"oppose","role":"City manager","stated_arguments":"\"The town believes those findings and the project denials are proper.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/housing-lawsuit-filed-against-los-altos-hills/article_b874b0d4-a2a1-4c6d-9a32-3c2c58d98c3c.html"},{"name":"Los Altos Hills City Council","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Denied both projects 5-0 on June 18, 2025","stated_arguments":"Mayor Kavita Tankha, Vice Mayor Rajiv Bhateja (who made the motion), Linda Swan (who seconded), Stanley Mok and George Tyson voted to deny, adopting Housing Accountability Act findings on density and fire and evacuation danger.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_06182025-2883"},{"name":"Santa Clara County Superior Court","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Court hearing the CalHDF and Linebarger petition","stated_arguments":"No hearing or ruling reported as of October 2026.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/housing-lawsuit-filed-against-los-altos-hills/article_b874b0d4-a2a1-4c6d-9a32-3c2c58d98c3c.html"},{"name":"Forrest Linebarger","organization":null,"actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Owner and applicant","stated_arguments":"\"It is a sad day when a city as rich and aging as Los Altos Hills goes out of its way to violate state laws\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/housing-lawsuit-filed-against-los-altos-hills/article_b874b0d4-a2a1-4c6d-9a32-3c2c58d98c3c.html"},{"name":"California Housing Defense Fund","organization":"California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF)","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Co-plaintiff (executive director Dylan Casey)","stated_arguments":"\"The reason we brought this lawsuit was that we believed the denial was unlawful.\" Sued with Linebarger on Sept. 15, 2025, alleging the town misused CEQA as a delay tactic, and sued the town again in April 2026 over Ordinance 621 and its housing element amendment.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/housing-lawsuit-filed-against-los-altos-hills/article_b874b0d4-a2a1-4c6d-9a32-3c2c58d98c3c.html"},{"name":"Jay Bradford","organization":"Town of Los Altos Hills","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"oppose","role":"Community development director","stated_arguments":"Recommended denial because the projects exceeded density, floor area, height and setback standards and the General Plan's limit of one unit per acre.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_06182025-2883"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2023-02-17","event_type":"Builder's Remedy Plans Reported for Mora Drive Lots","description":"The Los Altos Town Crier reports plans for a five-story, 44-unit condominium building on each 0.4-acre lot under the builder's remedy.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/two-los-altos-hills-property-owners-testing-state-s-builder-s-remedy/article_cf87064e-aee8-11ed-ac4d-2b380900f5ef.html","source_label":"Los Altos Town Crier"},{"event_date":"2023-05-30","event_type":"State Certifies Town Housing Element","description":"HCD finds the Los Altos Hills housing element in substantial compliance.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://engage.zencity.io/los-altos-hills-ca/en/projects/housing-element-update-2023-2031-f817","source_label":"Town of Los Altos Hills"},{"event_date":"2025-02-24","event_type":"Applicant Serves AB 1633 Notice","description":"The notice cites a memo arguing the project qualifies for a Class 32 CEQA exemption.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losaltoshills.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7276/Cover-Page-10728-Mora","source_label":"Town of Los Altos Hills"},{"event_date":"2025-05-01","event_type":"Revised 62-Unit Senior Plan Submitted","description":"The revision proposes 30 and 32 senior units on the two lots, six for extremely low-income households (month only).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/housing-lawsuit-filed-against-los-altos-hills/article_b874b0d4-a2a1-4c6d-9a32-3c2c58d98c3c.html","source_label":"Los Altos Town Crier"},{"event_date":"2025-06-18","event_type":"Council Denies Both Senior Projects 5-0","description":"Findings under Gov. Code 65589.5(d) cite density and fire and evacuation dangers: the area was designated a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in May 2025, and Mora Drive is the only access route.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_06182025-2883","source_label":"Town minutes"},{"event_date":"2025-09-15","event_type":"Housing Group and Developer Sue Town","description":"CalHDF and Linebarger allege the town misused CEQA to delay the project and unlawfully denied it.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/housing-lawsuit-filed-against-los-altos-hills/article_b874b0d4-a2a1-4c6d-9a32-3c2c58d98c3c.html","source_label":"Los Altos Town Crier"},{"event_date":"2026-04-09","event_type":"CalHDF Sues Over Town's Housing Plan","description":"A separate suit challenges Ordinance 621, adopted Dec. 9, 2025, and a housing element amendment adopted Feb. 2, 2026.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calhdf.org/calhdf-challenges-los-altos-hills-housing-plan/","source_label":"CalHDF"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2025-06-18","body":"City Council","action":"denied","action_label":"denied","staff_recommendation":"deny","vote_for":5,"vote_against":0,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_06182025-2883","source_label":"Town minutes","notes":"Denied both conditional development permits with findings under Gov. Code 65589.5(d)."},{"decision_date":"2025-09-15","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/housing-lawsuit-filed-against-los-altos-hills/article_b874b0d4-a2a1-4c6d-9a32-3c2c58d98c3c.html","source_label":"Los Altos Town Crier","notes":"California Housing Defense Fund and Forrest Linebarger v. Town of Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County Superior Court."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Two Los Altos Hills property owners testing state's 'builder's remedy'","url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/two-los-altos-hills-property-owners-testing-state-s-builder-s-remedy/article_cf87064e-aee8-11ed-ac4d-2b380900f5ef.html","publication":"Los Altos Town Crier","author":null,"date_published":"2023-02-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"AB 1633 notice cover page, 10728 Mora Drive","url":"https://losaltoshills.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7276/Cover-Page-10728-Mora","publication":"Town of Los Altos Hills","author":null,"date_published":"2025-02-24","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Los Altos Hills City Council special meeting minutes, June 18, 2025","url":"https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_06182025-2883","publication":"Town of Los Altos Hills","author":null,"date_published":"2025-06-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"CalHDF Challenges Los Altos Hills Housing Plan","url":"https://calhdf.org/calhdf-challenges-los-altos-hills-housing-plan/","publication":"California Housing Defense Fund","author":"Dylan Casey","date_published":"2026-04-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Housing lawsuit filed against Los Altos Hills","url":"https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/housing-lawsuit-filed-against-los-altos-hills/article_b874b0d4-a2a1-4c6d-9a32-3c2c58d98c3c.html","publication":"Los Altos Town Crier","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Housing Element Update 2023-2031","url":"https://engage.zencity.io/los-altos-hills-ca/en/projects/housing-element-update-2023-2031-f817","publication":"Town of Los Altos Hills","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Silver Oaks Senior Housing (10728 and 10758 Mora Drive), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-altos-hills-silver-oaks-2023, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:18:30.76303+00:00"},{"id":76,"slug":"redondo-beach-ten21-2022","name":"Ten21 Harbor (Former SEA Lab Site, 1021 N. Harbor Drive)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/redondo-beach-ten21-2022","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/redondo-beach-ten21-2022/brief","address":"1021 N. Harbor Drive, Redondo Beach, CA 90277","latitude":33.8517,"longitude":-118.3971,"jurisdiction":{"id":29,"slug":"redondo-beach-los-angeles","city":"Redondo Beach","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/redondo-beach-los-angeles"},"city":"Redondo Beach","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Denied","units_proposed":35,"units_affordable":7,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2022-07-21","date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2023-02-07","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"Ten21 Harbor was developer Leo Pustilnikov's builder's remedy proposal for 1021 N. Harbor Drive in Redondo Beach, the site of the SEA Lab educational facility, across the street from the AES power plant site. The applicant was New Commune DTLA LLC. The property is zoned Coastal Commercial (CC-4) under the city's certified local coastal program, which restricts the zone to public access uses, coastal-related commercial recreation and services for recreational boating and fishing; housing is neither permitted nor conditionally permitted. New Commune filed an SB 330 preliminary application on July 21, 2022 for 30 condominiums, six of them for lower-income households, and 7,124 square feet of commercial space. HCD found the city's housing element compliant on September 1, 2022. The formal application, filed November 10, 2022, described a 142,557-square-foot building with 35 units, seven of them for lower-income households, and 8,614 square feet of commercial space. On December 7, 2022 the community development director rejected it as incomplete, said the builder's remedy did not apply, and said housing on the site would require general plan, coastal program and zoning amendments. The City Council unanimously upheld the rejection on February 7, 2023 (Resolution CC-2302-023), and New Commune sued on February 14, 2023. On February 8, 2024, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant found that the city had no compliant housing element when the preliminary application was filed and that its refusal was a disapproval under the Housing Accountability Act, but denied the petition because the project did not conform to the coastal program. In April 2024 two suits over Pustilnikov's One Redondo power plant project were stayed pending the appeal. In a separate New Commune suit, the Court of Appeal ruled on October 10, 2025 that the city's housing element did not substantially comply with state law, and the California Supreme Court declined review. On July 30, 2026 another division of the Court of Appeal affirmed the Ten21 judgment in a published opinion. Citing the 2025 ruling, it said the city had no compliant housing element when the project was submitted, assumed without deciding that the builder's remedy applied, and held that the Coastal Act required the city to deny the project under Government Code section 65589.5(d)(3). The city still listed the case as existing litigation in its October 20, 2026 closed session; no further ruling has been reported.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"City of Redondo Beach","date_invoked":"2022-12-07","description":"The city refused to treat the application as a builder's remedy project, arguing that its housing element already complied. The trial court rejected that argument but upheld the refusal under the Coastal Act, and on July 30, 2026 the Court of Appeal affirmed, assuming the builder's remedy applied.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2026/b337897.html"},{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"City of Redondo Beach","date_invoked":"2022-12-07","description":"The community development director deemed the application incomplete for lacking general plan, coastal program and zoning amendment requests, and the council upheld that on Feb. 7, 2023. The trial court treated the refusal as a disapproval under the Housing Accountability Act and upheld it on coastal grounds.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"City of Redondo Beach","organization":"City of Redondo Beach","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Refused to process the application and defended the refusal in court","stated_arguments":"Its Dec. 7, 2022 notice said housing on the site would require general plan, coastal program and zoning amendments. In court it argued that it had not denied the project because the application was incomplete, and that the Housing Accountability Act does not relieve it of the Coastal Act.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf"},{"name":"Judge James C. Chalfant","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Los Angeles County Superior Court (case 23STCP00426)","stated_arguments":"\"Nothing in the Coastal Act authorizes the City to issue a CDP that is non-compliant with the LCP and Coastal Ordinance.\" Denied the petition on Feb. 8, 2024 while finding the builder's remedy available.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf"},{"name":"Ryan Patterson","organization":"Patterson & O'Neill","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Appellate counsel for New Commune DTLA LLC (with Brian O'Neill)","stated_arguments":"Argued on appeal that a builder's remedy project in the coastal zone should have to meet only the Coastal Act's core, specific and objective Chapter 3 policies. The court called that standard \"unworkable.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2026/b337897.html"},{"name":"Redondo Beach City Council","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Denied the appeal unanimously on Feb. 7, 2023 (Resolution CC-2302-023)","stated_arguments":"The resolution upheld the director's determination that the application was incomplete and could not be processed, because the proposed residential use does not comply with the certified local coastal program and the coastal zoning ordinance.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf"},{"name":"Mike Webb","organization":"City of Redondo Beach","actor_type":"Government Official","stance":"oppose","role":"City attorney (2024)","stated_arguments":"\"We are grateful that Judge Chalfant correctly ruled that the city is obligated to comply with the California Coastal Act.\" (statement, February 2024)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/judge-rules-against-pustilnikov-for-s-e-a-lab-project"},{"name":"Leo Pustilnikov","organization":"Next Century Power LLC / SLH Investments","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer; the applicant and petitioner was New Commune DTLA LLC","stated_arguments":"No public statement found. In court, New Commune argued that the builder's remedy entitled the project to approval because the city had no compliant housing element when the July 21, 2022 preliminary application was filed, and that the Housing Accountability Act and the Coastal Act must be harmonized.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf"},{"name":"California Second District Court of Appeal","organization":"California Courts of Appeal","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Division Four, case B337897 (Acting Presiding Justice Mori, with Justices Tamzarian and Cogliati)","stated_arguments":"\"We conclude the City's disapproval was required under Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(3).\" (published opinion, July 30, 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2026/b337897.html"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2022-07-21","event_type":"Preliminary Application Filed for SEA Lab Site","description":"New Commune DTLA LLC files an SB 330 preliminary application for 30 condominiums, six for lower-income households, on coastal commercial land where housing is not allowed.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf","source_label":"Superior Court ruling"},{"event_date":"2022-09-01","event_type":"State Finds Housing Element Compliant","description":"Six weeks after the preliminary application, HCD finds the housing element the council adopted on July 5, 2022 in full compliance.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf","source_label":"Superior Court ruling"},{"event_date":"2022-11-10","event_type":"Formal Application Seeks 35 Units","description":"The application describes a 142,557-square-foot building with 35 units, seven for lower-income households, and 8,614 square feet of commercial space.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf","source_label":"Superior Court ruling"},{"event_date":"2022-12-07","event_type":"City Refuses To Process Application","description":"The community development director rejects the application as incomplete. Housing on the site, she says, would need general plan, coastal program and zoning amendments.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf","source_label":"Superior Court ruling"},{"event_date":"2023-02-07","event_type":"Council Upholds Rejection Unanimously","description":"The council adopts Resolution CC-2302-023 denying the developer's appeal.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf","source_label":"Superior Court ruling"},{"event_date":"2023-02-14","event_type":"Developer Sues Redondo Beach","description":"New Commune petitions Los Angeles County Superior Court (case 23STCP00426) to compel the city to process and approve the project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf","source_label":"Superior Court ruling"},{"event_date":"2024-02-08","event_type":"Judge Rules Coastal Program Controls","description":"Judge James C. Chalfant finds the builder's remedy available but denies the petition because the project does not conform to the certified local coastal program.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/judge-rules-against-pustilnikov-for-s-e-a-lab-project","source_label":"Easy Reader"},{"event_date":"2025-10-10","event_type":"Appeals Court Finds Housing Element Noncompliant","description":"In a separate New Commune suit (B336042), the court holds that the city's overlay zoning did not meet state housing element law.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2025/b336042.html","source_label":"Court of Appeal"},{"event_date":"2026-07-30","event_type":"Appeals Court Upholds Denial in Published Opinion","description":"Assuming the builder's remedy applied, the court holds that the Coastal Act required denial under Gov. Code 65589.5(d)(3).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2026/b337897.html","source_label":"Court of Appeal"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2022-12-07","body":"Staff","action":"deemed_incomplete","action_label":"deemed application incomplete","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf","source_label":"Superior Court ruling","notes":"The community development director rejected the formal application as incomplete and declined to process it."},{"decision_date":"2023-02-07","body":"City Council","action":"appeal_rejected","action_label":"appeal rejected","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf","source_label":"Superior Court ruling","notes":"Unanimously adopted Resolution CC-2302-023 upholding the director's rejection; the tally was not reported."},{"decision_date":"2023-02-14","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf","source_label":"Superior Court ruling","notes":"New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, Los Angeles County Superior Court case 23STCP00426."},{"decision_date":"2024-02-08","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://easyreadernews.com/judge-rules-against-pustilnikov-for-s-e-a-lab-project","source_label":"Easy Reader","notes":"Judge James C. Chalfant denied the petition, holding that the project had to conform to the certified local coastal program."},{"decision_date":"2026-07-30","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2026/b337897.html","source_label":"Court of Appeal","notes":"The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four, affirmed the judgment in a published opinion (B337897)."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate, New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (23STCP00426)","url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/assets/htmldocuments/New%20Commune%20DTLA%20v.%20Redondo%20Beach%20CA_SUP_LAX_23STCP00426_Order%20002.pdf","publication":"Los Angeles County Superior Court","author":"James C. Chalfant","date_published":"2024-02-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge rules against Pustilnikov for S.E.A. Lab project","url":"https://easyreadernews.com/judge-rules-against-pustilnikov-for-s-e-a-lab-project","publication":"Easy Reader","author":"Garth Meyer","date_published":"2024-02-22","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Los Angeles County Superior Court Decisions Provide Needed Guidance on Builder's Remedy","url":"https://www.coxcastle.com/publication-los-angeles-county-superior-court-decisions-provide-needed-guidance-on-builders-remedy","publication":"Cox, Castle & Nicholson","author":null,"date_published":"2024-03-28","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Lawsuits over Redondo Beach development stayed pending appeal","url":"https://dailyjournal.com/article/378057-lawsuits-over-redondo-beach-development-stayed-pending-appeal","publication":"Daily Journal","author":null,"date_published":"2024-04-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (B336042)","url":"https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2025/b336042.html","publication":"California Court of Appeal","author":null,"date_published":"2025-10-10","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Hermosa's Housing Element Is Built On Ground Redondo Just Vacated","url":"https://www.hermosareview.com/hermosas-housing-element-is-built-on-ground-redondo-just-vacated/","publication":"Hermosa Review","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-10","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (B337897)","url":"https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2026/b337897.html","publication":"California Court of Appeal","author":null,"date_published":"2026-07-30","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Appeals Court Leaves the Door Open for the Builder's Remedy in the Coastal Zone","url":"https://natlawreview.com/article/appeals-court-leaves-door-open-builders-remedy-coastal-zone","publication":"National Law Review (Sheppard Mullin)","author":"Brooke Miller and Ali V. Tehrani","date_published":"2026-08-06","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Second District Holds Rejects Builder's Remedy for Affordable Housing in Coastal Zone on Site Designed for Non-Residential Uses","url":"https://www.rmmenvirolaw.com/second-district-holds-rejects-builders-remedy-for-affordable-housing-in-coastal-zone-on-site-designed-for-non-residential-uses/","publication":"Remy Moose Manley","author":"Christina Berglund","date_published":"2026-08-13","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Builder's remedy must yield to the Coastal Act when developer proposes project in area not zoned for housing","url":"https://www.ashurstperkinscoie.com/en/insights/builders-remedy-must-yield-to-the-coastal-act/","publication":"Ashurst Perkins Coie","author":"Josh Patashnik","date_published":"2026-08-28","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"City Council agenda, October 20, 2026","url":"https://redondo.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=1444795&GUID=8539CDB3-7873-47B7-9BBF-F89839A2BC4F","publication":"City of Redondo Beach","author":null,"date_published":"2026-10-20","notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Ten21 Harbor (Former SEA Lab Site, 1021 N. Harbor Drive), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/redondo-beach-ten21-2022, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:10:29.550153+00:00"},{"id":54,"slug":"los-gatos-arya-luxe-2023","name":"The Arya and The Luxe: Los Gatos Boulevard Builder's Remedy Projects","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-gatos-arya-luxe-2023","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-gatos-arya-luxe-2023/brief","address":"15300 and 15330 Los Gatos Boulevard (The Arya) and 14849 Los Gatos Boulevard (The Luxe), Los Gatos, CA 95032","latitude":37.2469,"longitude":-121.9565,"jurisdiction":{"id":58,"slug":"los-gatos-santa-clara","city":"Los Gatos","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/los-gatos-santa-clara"},"city":"Los Gatos","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Litigated","units_proposed":295,"units_affordable":59,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":9,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2023-08-30","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":37,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"Two builder's remedy applications on Los Gatos Boulevard have been in dispute since 2023. The Arya, from Arya Properties LLC, would put 175 units in a mixed-use project on the Ace Hardware site at 15300 and 15330 Los Gatos Boulevard. The Luxe, from Los Gatos Boulevard Properties LLC, would put 120 units over commercial space at 14849 Los Gatos Boulevard in the North 40 area. Together they total 295 units, 59 of them affordable (35 at the Arya and 24 at the Luxe, per the Los Gatan), at heights of more than 116 feet and about 146 feet. The applicants, owned by Ali Moayed, filed preliminary applications in the second half of 2023, when the town had no compliant housing element; HCD certified it on July 10, 2024. The town found each formal application incomplete three times in 2024, and staff then took the position that the projects' vested rights may have expired because an applicant gets only one 90-day period to cure. The developers appealed, and on March 28, 2025 the town sued them, asking a court to confirm its reading. Both applications were deemed complete on April 16, 2025, and the town says processing continued during the suit. On January 29, 2026, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Helen E. Williams rejected the town's single-window reading, finding that each incompleteness determination opens a new 90-day period. The order is not a final judgment. On April 21, 2026 the council granted both appeals, 3-2. Both projects are now in environmental review: an EIR for the Arya and an initial study for the Luxe. Filing dates differ between town staff and court records; this entry uses the staff dates.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"Town of Los Gatos","date_invoked":"2025-01-30","description":"After three incompleteness findings per application, staff took the position that the projects' builder's remedy vesting had lapsed, and the town sued the applicants for a declaration. The court rejected the town's reading on Jan. 29, 2026, and the council granted the appeals on April 21, 2026.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Packet-3423e578564544c4b346a056e5fd6d16.pdf"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Town of Los Gatos","date_invoked":"2025-12-01","description":"The town requires an EIR for the Arya (notice of preparation in December 2025) and an initial study for the Luxe, pending traffic data.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Packet-3423e578564544c4b346a056e5fd6d16.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"James Lyon","organization":null,"actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Resident","stated_arguments":"\"These scales were designed to exploit builder's remedy's unlimited height override.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losgatos-ca.municodemeetings.com/sites/losgatos-ca.municodemeetings.com/files/fileattachments/town_council/meeting/7858/item.9.addendum.pdf"},{"name":"Gabrielle Whelan","organization":"Town of Los Gatos","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"oppose","role":"Town attorney","stated_arguments":"\"allowing unlimited 90-day periods within which to complete the application will delay rather than speed up the production of housing in Los Gatos\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losgatan.com/developers-los-gatos-is-flouting-state-law/"},{"name":"Arya Properties LLC","organization":"Arya Properties LLC and Los Gatos Boulevard Properties LLC (owner Ali Moayed)","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Applicants for The Arya (175 units) and The Luxe (120 units)","stated_arguments":"Owner Ali Moayed declined to comment to San Jose Spotlight.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/los-gatos-asks-courts-for-legal-clarity-on-proposed-developments/"},{"name":"California Housing Defense Fund","organization":"California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF)","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Amicus","stated_arguments":"Joined the Sept. 5, 2025 amicus brief backing the applicants.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/amicus-briefs"},{"name":"Town of Los Gatos","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Plaintiff in a declaratory relief suit against the applicants","stated_arguments":"Sued the applicants on March 28, 2025 (case 25CV462276), seeking a ruling that only one 90-day cure period exists. Mayor Matthew Hudes: \"Without resolution of this issue, applications could remain incomplete indefinitely.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losgatan.com/los-gatos-sues-pair-of-developers-seeking-clarity-around-housing-rules/"},{"name":"Judge Helen Williams","organization":"Santa Clara County Superior Court","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Santa Clara County Superior Court","stated_arguments":"Ruled Jan. 29, 2026 that each incompleteness determination opens a new 90-day period and denied the town's motion: \"there is no evidence before the court on this motion of the parade of horribles offered by the Town\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Packet-3423e578564544c4b346a056e5fd6d16.pdf"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Guidance cited in the litigation","stated_arguments":"In a Beverly Hills letter cited in the Los Gatos case, HCD said \"the 90-day period to submit information to complete a full application reset after each incompleteness determination.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losgatan.com/developers-los-gatos-is-flouting-state-law/"},{"name":"Californians for Homeownership","organization":"Californians for Homeownership (CFH)","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Amicus","stated_arguments":"Joined the Sept. 5, 2025 amicus brief backing the applicants.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/amicus-briefs"},{"name":"YIMBY Law","organization":"YIMBY Law","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Amicus, with CalHDF and Californians for Homeownership","stated_arguments":"Amicus brief (Sept. 5, 2025): \"a story of state housing law working as intended to produce new housing while a resentful Town tries to gum up the process.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/amicus-briefs"},{"name":"Travis Brooks","organization":"Miller Starr Regalia","actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Counsel for the applicants","stated_arguments":"\"The court reached the right decision.\" (Jan. 30, 2026)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losgatan.com/judge-sides-with-developers-and-housing-activists-in-lawsuit-over-vesting-rights/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2023-08-30","event_type":"Luxe Files Builder's Remedy Preliminary Application","description":"Filed for 14849 Los Gatos Boulevard while the town lacked a compliant housing element. Court records give Sept. 12 or 13, 2023.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Packet-3423e578564544c4b346a056e5fd6d16.pdf","source_label":"Town of Los Gatos"},{"event_date":"2023-11-07","event_type":"Arya Files Builder's Remedy Preliminary Application","description":"Filed inside the town's compliance gap, which the court later put at Feb. 1, 2023 to July 10, 2024.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Packet-3423e578564544c4b346a056e5fd6d16.pdf","source_label":"Town of Los Gatos"},{"event_date":"2024-07-10","event_type":"State Certifies Los Gatos Housing Element","description":"HCD finds the housing element in substantial compliance.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losgatosca.gov/1735","source_label":"Town of Los Gatos"},{"event_date":"2024-12-23","event_type":"Town Finds Arya Incomplete a Third Time","description":"The Luxe's third incompleteness finding came Nov. 20, 2024. Staff then said the projects' vesting may have expired.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Packet-3423e578564544c4b346a056e5fd6d16.pdf","source_label":"Town of Los Gatos"},{"event_date":"2025-03-28","event_type":"Town Sues Applicants Over Cure Period","description":"Case 25CV462276 asks for a ruling that an applicant gets only one 90-day period to complete an application.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losgatan.com/los-gatos-sues-pair-of-developers-seeking-clarity-around-housing-rules/","source_label":"Los Gatan"},{"event_date":"2025-04-16","event_type":"Both Applications Deemed Complete","description":"The town says processing continues while the suit is pending.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Packet-3423e578564544c4b346a056e5fd6d16.pdf","source_label":"Town of Los Gatos"},{"event_date":"2025-09-05","event_type":"Housing Groups File Amicus Brief","description":"YIMBY Law, the California Housing Defense Fund and Californians for Homeownership back the developers.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/amicus-briefs","source_label":"YIMBY Law"},{"event_date":"2026-01-29","event_type":"Judge Rejects Town's Single-Window Reading","description":"Judge Helen E. Williams rules that each incompleteness finding opens a new 90-day period and denies the town's motion.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losgatan.com/judge-sides-with-developers-and-housing-activists-in-lawsuit-over-vesting-rights/","source_label":"Los Gatan"},{"event_date":"2026-04-21","event_type":"Council Grants Arya and Luxe Appeals, 3-2","description":"Council members Badame and Hudes dissent, and a Hudes motion to delay two weeks fails. The council ties further Arya talks to the end of the litigation.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Minutes-3423e578564544c4b346a056e5fd6d16.pdf","source_label":"Town minutes"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2024-12-23","body":"Staff","action":"deemed_incomplete","action_label":"deemed application incomplete","staff_recommendation":"none","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Packet-3423e578564544c4b346a056e5fd6d16.pdf","source_label":"Town of Los Gatos","notes":"Third incompleteness determination for The Arya; The Luxe's third came Nov. 20, 2024."},{"decision_date":"2026-01-29","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://losgatan.com/judge-sides-with-developers-and-housing-activists-in-lawsuit-over-vesting-rights/","source_label":"Los Gatan","notes":"Ruled that each incompleteness determination opens a new 90-day period; denied the town's motion. Not a final judgment."},{"decision_date":"2026-04-21","body":"City Council","action":"appeal_upheld","action_label":"appeal upheld","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":3,"vote_against":2,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Minutes-3423e578564544c4b346a056e5fd6d16.pdf","source_label":"Town minutes","notes":"Granted the applicants' appeals for The Arya and The Luxe (Resolutions 2026-020 and 2026-021)."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Los Gatos sues pair of developers, seeking clarity around housing rules","url":"https://losgatan.com/los-gatos-sues-pair-of-developers-seeking-clarity-around-housing-rules/","publication":"Los Gatan","author":"Drew Penner","date_published":"2025-04-02","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developers: Los Gatos is 'flouting' State law","url":"https://losgatan.com/developers-los-gatos-is-flouting-state-law/","publication":"Los Gatan","author":"Drew Penner","date_published":"2025-07-03","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge sides with developers and housing activists in lawsuit over vesting rights","url":"https://losgatan.com/judge-sides-with-developers-and-housing-activists-in-lawsuit-over-vesting-rights/","publication":"Los Gatan","author":"Drew Penner","date_published":"2026-01-30","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Agenda packet, Item 9 staff report with the Jan. 29, 2026 court order","url":"https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Packet-3423e578564544c4b346a056e5fd6d16.pdf","publication":"Town of Los Gatos","author":"Gabrielle Whelan","date_published":"2026-04-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Town Council minutes, April 21, 2026","url":"https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Minutes-3423e578564544c4b346a056e5fd6d16.pdf","publication":"Town of Los Gatos","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-05","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Los Gatos asks courts for legal clarity on proposed developments","url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/los-gatos-asks-courts-for-legal-clarity-on-proposed-developments/","publication":"San Jose Spotlight","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Amicus briefs","url":"https://www.yimbylaw.org/amicus-briefs","publication":"YIMBY Law","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Los Gatos Boulevard project page","url":"https://www.losgatosca.gov/2963/44067/Los-Gatos-Boulevard","publication":"Town of Los Gatos","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Housing element","url":"https://losgatosca.gov/1735","publication":"Town of Los Gatos","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Item 9 addendum (public comment)","url":"https://losgatos-ca.municodemeetings.com/sites/losgatos-ca.municodemeetings.com/files/fileattachments/town_council/meeting/7858/item.9.addendum.pdf","publication":"Town of Los Gatos","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, The Arya and The Luxe: Los Gatos Boulevard Builder's Remedy Projects, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-gatos-arya-luxe-2023, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:19:45.389007+00:00"},{"id":2,"slug":"glendale-sears-site-2025","name":"Trammell Crow Sears Site Redevelopment","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/glendale-sears-site-2025","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/glendale-sears-site-2025/brief","address":"236 N. Central Avenue, Glendale, CA (with park component at 201 California Avenue)","latitude":34.1481,"longitude":-118.2552,"jurisdiction":{"id":2,"slug":"glendale-los-angeles","city":"Glendale","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/glendale-los-angeles"},"city":"Glendale","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Approved","units_proposed":682,"units_affordable":72,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":8,"sq_ft":650000,"date_filed":null,"date_approved":"2026-01-27","date_denied":"2025-10-21","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":3,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"Eight-story, approximately 650,000 sq ft mixed-use complex on the former Sears site at 236 N. Central Avenue, containing 682 rental apartments including 72 very-low-income units, 1,515 sq ft of ground-floor commercial space, and a 930-car garage. Developer proposed setting aside a portion of the adjacent parcel at 201 California Avenue for a potential public park. Project qualified for AB 130 CEQA exemption. On Oct. 21, 2025 the City Council voted 4-1 to deny the project's Stage II Design Review application, with Mayor Ara Najarian dissenting, after city staff and the city's review bodies had recommended approval. On Dec. 30, 2025 HCD issued a notice of violation concluding that the denial violated the Housing Accountability Act and gave the city a deadline to reverse it; HousingWire reported that the city faced fines of up to $34 million if it did not. The council rescinded the denial and approved the project in late January 2026. No lawsuit was filed.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Trammell Crow Residential (claiming exemption under AB 130)","date_invoked":"2025-09-01","description":"Developer invoked AB 130 to exempt the project from further CEQA review. The city did not require CEQA review, so CEQA was not used against the project; the council denied it on design and historic grounds instead.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/glendale-city-council-rejects-sears-redevelopment-236-n-central-ave"},{"short_name":"Design Review","full_name":"Design Review","invoked_by":"Glendale City Council majority","date_invoked":"2025-10-21","description":"After AB 130 exempted the project from CEQA review, the City Council pivoted to design review concerns as the basis for denial. Council majority objected on grounds of scale and a perceived failure to honor the Art Deco character of the historic Sears building. The Design Review Board itself had recommended approval.","added_delay_months":3,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.housingwire.com/articles/california-ceqa-exemptions-housing/"},{"short_name":"Hist Pres","full_name":"Historic Preservation Designation","invoked_by":"Glendale City Council majority","date_invoked":"2025-10-21","description":"Council majority invoked the historic Art Deco character of the original Sears building as a basis for denial. The site is the former Sears department store; the new project would replace it.","added_delay_months":3,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.housingwire.com/articles/california-ceqa-exemptions-housing/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Trammell Crow Residential","organization":"Trammell Crow Residential","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Project applicant","stated_arguments":"Project complies with all objective standards, qualifies for AB 130 CEQA exemption, and meets State Density Bonus Law requirements. Following denial, the developer's attorney described a potential Housing Accountability Act case as a \"slam dunk.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.housingwire.com/articles/california-ceqa-exemptions-housing/"},{"name":"Ara Najarian","organization":"City of Glendale","actor_type":"Mayor","stance":"support","role":"Dissenting vote on October 21, 2025 denial","stated_arguments":"Warned colleagues they were inviting legal and financial consequences by denying the project. Cast the lone dissenting vote (1 of 5) on the original denial.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.housingwire.com/articles/california-ceqa-exemptions-housing/"},{"name":"Glendale City Council (October 2025 majority)","organization":"City of Glendale","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"4-1 vote to deny on October 21, 2025; subsequently voted to rescind","stated_arguments":"Objected on grounds of scale, design, and what members described as a failure to honor the Art Deco character of the historic Sears building.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/glendale-city-council-rejects-sears-redevelopment-236-n-central-ave"},{"name":"Glendale City Planning Staff","organization":"City of Glendale","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"support","role":"Recommended approval; later recommended rescission","stated_arguments":"Concluded that the project met all applicable objective standards and recommended approval. After the HCD Notice of Violation, staff recommended the council rescind the October denial and approve the project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/01/glendale-scrambles-to-undo-block-on-sears-mega-housing-plan/"},{"name":"Glendale Design Review Board","organization":"City of Glendale","actor_type":"Design Review Board","stance":"support","role":"Recommended approval","stated_arguments":"Recommended approval of the project's design.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.housingwire.com/articles/california-ceqa-exemptions-housing/"},{"name":"Glendale Planning Commission","organization":"City of Glendale","actor_type":"Planning Commission","stance":"support","role":"Recommended approval","stated_arguments":"Recommended approval of the project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.housingwire.com/articles/california-ceqa-exemptions-housing/"},{"name":"Glendale Planning Hearing Officer","organization":"City of Glendale","actor_type":"Planning Hearing Officer","stance":"support","role":"Recommended approval","stated_arguments":"Recommended approval of the project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.housingwire.com/articles/california-ceqa-exemptions-housing/"},{"name":"California Department of Housing and Community Development","organization":"State of California","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"State enforcement; issued formal Notice of Violation","stated_arguments":"On December 30, 2025, issued a formal Notice of Violation concluding that the city's denial violated the Housing Accountability Act. Stated the project qualified for heightened protections under state law and complied with all applicable objective standards, including those modified through the State Density Bonus Law. Advised that failure to correct the violation could subject the city to enforcement actions including referral to the California Attorney General.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/office-of-the-city-manager/fact-page/236-n-central-sears-site-redevelopment"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2025-10-21","event_type":"City Council Vote — Denied","description":"Glendale City Council voted 4-1 to deny the project. Mayor Ara Najarian cast the lone dissenting vote. Council majority cited scale, design, and the project's alleged failure to honor the Art Deco character of the historic Sears building. The vote came despite city staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission, and the Planning Hearing Officer all recommending approval, and despite the project qualifying for AB 130 CEQA exemption.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/glendale-city-council-rejects-sears-redevelopment-236-n-central-ave","source_label":"Urbanize LA, October 23, 2025"},{"event_date":"2025-12-30","event_type":"State Notice of Violation","description":"California Department of Housing and Community Development issued a formal Notice of Violation, concluding that the city's denial violated the Housing Accountability Act and that the city was legally required to approve the project. HCD stated the project complied with all applicable objective standards and warned of escalation to the California Attorney General if not corrected.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/office-of-the-city-manager/fact-page/236-n-central-sears-site-redevelopment","source_label":"City of Glendale official fact page"},{"event_date":"2026-01-27","event_type":"Reconsideration Hearing","description":"Glendale City Council reconsidered the prior denial in response to HCD's Notice of Violation. City staff recommended the council rescind the October denial and approve the project. The council subsequently voted to reverse its denial and approve the project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/glendale-reconsiders-plan-sears-redevelopment-236-n-central-ave","source_label":"Urbanize LA, January 27, 2026"},{"event_date":"2026-02-05","event_type":"Project Approved on Reversal","description":"Glendale formally reversed course on its denied 682-unit housing project following state HCD intervention.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://theregistrysocal.com/glendale-forced-to-reverse-course-on-denied-682-unit-housing-project-by-trammell-crow-residential-after-state-intervention/","source_label":"The Registry SoCal, February 5, 2026"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2025-10-21","body":"City Council","action":"denied","action_label":"denied","staff_recommendation":"approve","vote_for":4,"vote_against":1,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":true,"source_url":"https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/office-of-the-city-manager/fact-page/236-n-central-sears-site-redevelopment","source_label":"City of Glendale","notes":"Denied the Stage II Design Review application; Mayor Ara Najarian cast the dissenting vote. The council rescinded the denial in late January 2026 after HCD's notice of violation."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Glendale City Council rejects Sears redevelopment at 236 N. Central Ave.","url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/glendale-city-council-rejects-sears-redevelopment-236-n-central-ave","publication":"Urbanize LA","author":null,"date_published":"2025-10-23","notes":"Primary documentation of the October 21, 2025 denial vote and the project specifications."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Glendale Reconsiders Sears Redevelopment After State Warning","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/01/glendale-scrambles-to-undo-block-on-sears-mega-housing-plan/","publication":"Hoodline","author":null,"date_published":"2026-01-15","notes":"Reporting on city staff's recommendation to rescind the October denial under HCD pressure."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Glendale reconsiders plan for Sears redevelopment at 236 N. Central Ave.","url":"https://la.urbanize.city/post/glendale-reconsiders-plan-sears-redevelopment-236-n-central-ave","publication":"Urbanize LA","author":"Steven Sharp","date_published":"2026-01-27","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Glendale Forced to Reverse Course on Denied 682-Unit Housing Project","url":"https://theregistrysocal.com/glendale-forced-to-reverse-course-on-denied-682-unit-housing-project-by-trammell-crow-residential-after-state-intervention/","publication":"The Registry SoCal","author":null,"date_published":"2026-02-05","notes":"Documents the final approval following state intervention."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Fault lines surface as projects tap California's CEQA exemption law","url":"https://www.housingwire.com/articles/california-ceqa-exemptions-housing/","publication":"HousingWire","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-19","notes":"Retrospective analysis placing the Glendale case in the broader context of AB 130 implementation across California."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Sears Site - 236 N. Central Ave Development | Official City Fact Page","url":"https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/office-of-the-city-manager/fact-page/236-n-central-sears-site-redevelopment","publication":"City of Glendale","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Official city fact page documenting the HCD Notice of Violation and the reconsideration process. Includes link to the HCD letter itself."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Trammell Crow Sears Site Redevelopment, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/glendale-sears-site-2025, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:31:54.687607+00:00"},{"id":12,"slug":"cupertino-vallco-2015","name":"Vallco Town Center / The Rise","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/cupertino-vallco-2015","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/cupertino-vallco-2015/brief","address":"Wolfe Road & Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014","latitude":37.3541,"longitude":-122.0058,"jurisdiction":{"id":12,"slug":"cupertino-santa-clara","city":"Cupertino","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/cupertino-santa-clara"},"city":"Cupertino","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Mixed-Use","status":"Approved","units_proposed":2669,"units_affordable":356,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":6500000,"date_filed":"2015-08-01","date_approved":"2024-02-16","date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":126,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"A 50-acre mixed-use redevelopment of the former Vallco Fashion Park in Cupertino, directly adjacent to Apple Park. Sand Hill Property Company purchased the failing mall in 2014 for $116 million and has proposed five successive plans spanning nearly a decade. The current approved plan, \"The Rise,\" includes 2,669 apartment and condo units, 356 of them deed-restricted affordable (232 in a first building with Eden Housing), about 1.475 million square feet of office space, about 226,600 square feet of retail, and 7+ acres of public park space. The project has navigated two failed ballot measures (Measure C and Measure D, 2016), a successful referendum petition that forced the city to repeal its 2018 Specific Plan, two lawsuits, and multiple rounds of modification. The mall was fully demolished by 2019. The original 2018 SB 35 approval required 1,201 affordable units (50 percent of 2,402), and the 2024 plan had 890. A November 2025 modification cut the number to 356 under new provisions of state law that let SB 35 projects of more than 500 units submitted before January 1, 2019 provide 20 percent affordable units instead of 50 percent. The city approved that modification on February 27, 2026, and on August 24, 2026 approved changes to Blocks 1 and 2 requested by Black Pine, LLC c/o Hines Construction. SV@Home reported in February 2026 that a construction permit application had been submitted for the 232-unit affordable building, which it said could begin construction before the end of 2026.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Measure J","full_name":"Voter Approval Requirements (Measure J/R and similar)","invoked_by":"Better Cupertino / Friends of Better Cupertino","date_invoked":"2016-11-08","description":"Better Cupertino placed Measure C on the November 2016 ballot to limit Vallco strictly to retail, ban housing, and require voter approval for future changes. Measure C was defeated. Sand Hill's counter-initiative, Measure D, also failed. Both measures failing left the site without an approved path and reset the planning process, adding approximately 12 months of delay.","added_delay_months":12,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://ballotpedia.org/Cupertino,_California,_Development_and_Building_Height_Limits,_Measure_C_(November_2016)"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Friends of Better Cupertino","date_invoked":"2018-06-01","description":"Friends of Better Cupertino filed two lawsuits challenging the Vallco project. Judge Helen Williams ruled against them in May 2020, clearing the SB 35 project to proceed. Despite losing in court, the multi-year litigation contributed to overall project delays and plan modifications.","added_delay_months":24,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.ivycommercial.com/7878/"},{"short_name":"Measure J","full_name":"Voter Approval Requirements (Measure J/R and similar)","invoked_by":"Friends of Better Cupertino","date_invoked":"2018-10-30","description":"After the City Council approved the Specific Plan in September 2018, Friends of Better Cupertino organized a referendum petition collecting 4,300+ signatures. The referendum succeeded in forcing the City Council to repeal the Specific Plan in May 2019. Sand Hill responded by abandoning the Community Plan and proceeding exclusively under SB 35, which is not subject to referendum. The referendum killed the community plan but could not stop the SB 35 project.","added_delay_months":24,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://medium.com/@revitalizvallco/here-we-go-again-obstructionists-submit-referendum-signatures-b266f009306a"},{"short_name":"Height Limit","full_name":"Height and Density Limits","invoked_by":"City of Cupertino","date_invoked":"2019-09-01","description":"Cupertino tried to limit the SB 35 project to only 13.1 acres of the 51-acre site and to restrict additional office space that Sand Hill needed to cross-subsidize housing construction. Sand Hill filed a second lawsuit in October 2019 challenging these restrictions. This attempt to use density restrictions within the SB 35 framework contributed to further delays and the eventual plan modifications.","added_delay_months":12,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.ivycommercial.com/7878/"}],"actors":[{"name":"Sand Hill Property Company","organization":"Sand Hill Property Company","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer / Project Applicant","stated_arguments":"The Vallco site is one of Silicon Valley's most obvious housing opportunities — a failed mall on 50 acres adjacent to the freeway in the heart of the jobs-housing imbalance. Sand Hill engaged in good faith with the community plan process. The referendum and lawsuit campaigns represent obstruction of desperately needed housing.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://medium.com/@revitalizvallco/here-we-go-again-obstructionists-submit-referendum-signatures-b266f009306a"},{"name":"Reed Moulds","organization":"Sand Hill Property Company","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Managing Director, Sand Hill Property Company","stated_arguments":"\"This latest obstruction, and the 2-year delay it causes, gives the Community Plan no chance to catch up to the already approved and underway Vallco Town Center project. We consider ourselves patient people, but our patience has finally run out.\" (Oct 31, 2018)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://medium.com/@revitalizvallco/here-we-go-again-obstructionists-submit-referendum-signatures-b266f009306a"},{"name":"Friends of Better Cupertino","organization":"Friends of Better Cupertino (PAC)","actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Opposition PAC / Plaintiff","stated_arguments":"The city's plan was too aggressive and did not reflect the community's vision for the Vallco site. Preferred retail only, no offices, and fewer than 400 housing units consistent with the general plan. Used the referendum process — a legitimate democratic tool — to let voters decide.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/vallco-cupertino-redevelopment-opponents-referendum-enough-signatures"},{"name":"Liang Chao","organization":"City of Cupertino","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"oppose","role":"City Councilmember / Co-Founder, Better Cupertino","stated_arguments":"Opposed the scale of the project throughout. In December 2025 as mayor, criticized Sand Hill for submitting revised plans the day before Thanksgiving to trigger a review process during the holiday. Argued the project's scale would overwhelm city services.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-vallco-development-reduces-its-affordable-housing/"},{"name":"Scott Wiener","organization":"California State Senate (District 11)","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"State Senator / SB 35 Author","stated_arguments":"\"This effort to obstruct desperately needed housing — driven by people who want to freeze Cupertino in amber and who are unconcerned about whether anyone can actually afford to live in Cupertino — is exhibit one for why we need state-level standards to ensure cities are doing their part to address California's 3.5 million home deficit.\" (Oct 2018)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/node/605"},{"name":"Cupertino for All","organization":"Cupertino for All","actor_type":"Trade Association","stance":"support","role":"Pro-Housing Advocacy Organization","stated_arguments":"\"After nearly a decade of debate, 5 plans, 2 ballot initiatives, and 2 lawsuits later, the site of Vallco still remains unconstructed, empty... The fight over Vallco's development is emblematic of the nationwide struggle to create new homes in the places that need them most.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cupertinoforall.org/whats-going-on-with-vallco"},{"name":"Judge Helen Williams","organization":"Santa Clara County Superior Court","actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge","stated_arguments":"Ruled against Friends of Better Cupertino in May 2020, upholding the SB 35 approval of the Vallco Town Center project and clearing a major legal obstacle.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.ivycommercial.com/7878/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2014-11-01","event_type":"Sand Hill Purchases Vallco Mall","description":"Sand Hill Property Company purchases the remaining 600,000 sq ft of interior retail space at Vallco Fashion Park for $116 million. The mall has been declining for years as anchor tenants depart. Sand Hill begins planning for comprehensive redevelopment.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.ivycommercial.com/7878/","source_label":"The Ivy Group"},{"event_date":"2015-01-01","event_type":"Macy's Announces Closure at Vallco","description":"Macy's announces it will close 14 stores including its Vallco location, accelerating the mall's decline and increasing pressure to redevelop the site.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.ivycommercial.com/7878/","source_label":"The Ivy Group"},{"event_date":"2015-08-01","event_type":"\"The Hills at Vallco\" Announced","description":"Sand Hill Property announces \"The Hills at Vallco,\" a $3 billion redevelopment designed by architect Rafael Viñoly featuring the world's largest green roof — a 30-acre elevated park rolling over retail, office, residential, and hotel uses.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.ivycommercial.com/7878/","source_label":"The Ivy Group"},{"event_date":"2016-11-08","event_type":"Both Measure C and Measure D Fail at the Ballot","description":"Cupertino voters reject two opposing ballot measures on Vallco. Measure C (backed by Better Cupertino, proponent Steven Scharf) would have limited Vallco strictly to retail and required voter approval for major changes. Measure D (Sand Hill's initiative) would have authorized The Hills at Vallco plan. Both fail, leaving the site in regulatory limbo with no approved path forward.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ballotpedia.org/Cupertino,_California,_Vallco_Town_Center_Development,_Measure_D_(November_2016)","source_label":"Ballotpedia"},{"event_date":"2018-06-01","event_type":"Friends of Better Cupertino Files First Lawsuit","description":"Friends of Better Cupertino files the first lawsuit against the Vallco project, challenging the legal basis for the development.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.ivycommercial.com/7878/","source_label":"The Ivy Group"},{"event_date":"2018-09-01","event_type":"City Council Approves Specific Plan After 14-Hour Hearing","description":"After two days of hearings totaling 14 hours, the Cupertino City Council approves a Specific Plan for the Vallco Town Center site, allowing for approximately 2,900 housing units with offices and retail. Better Cupertino immediately signals plans for a referendum.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/vallco-cupertino-redevelopment-opponents-referendum-enough-signatures","source_label":"CBS Bay Area"},{"event_date":"2018-10-01","event_type":"Demolition Begins; Sand Hill Invokes SB 35","description":"Sand Hill begins demolition of the Vallco mall. State Senator Scott Wiener speaks at a demolition event. Sand Hill simultaneously announces it will also pursue approval under SB 35 as a parallel track that cannot be blocked by referendum.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/cupertinos-plan-for-vallco-mall-tossed-after-residents-rally-opposition/64096/","source_label":"NBC Bay Area"},{"event_date":"2018-10-30","event_type":"Referendum Signatures Submitted (4,300+)","description":"Friends of Better Cupertino submits 4,300+ signatures to challenge the Specific Plan approval by referendum. Sand Hill announces it will abandon the Community Plan entirely and proceed only with its SB 35 project: \"Our patience has finally run out.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://medium.com/@revitalizvallco/here-we-go-again-obstructionists-submit-referendum-signatures-b266f009306a","source_label":"Sand Hill blog"},{"event_date":"2018-11-01","event_type":"Sand Hill Abandons Community Plan, Commits to SB 35 Path","description":"Sand Hill publicly announces it is abandoning the Specific Plan and will proceed exclusively with its SB 35 project (2,402 units, 50% affordable — 1,201 units). The SB 35 project is not subject to referendum under California law and has already been approved ministerially.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/cupertinos-plan-for-vallco-mall-tossed-after-residents-rally-opposition/64096/","source_label":"NBC Bay Area"},{"event_date":"2019-05-07","event_type":"City Council Repeals Specific Plan","description":"The Cupertino City Council adopts resolutions to repeal its former actions approving the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan — a concession to the referendum petition. The SB 35 project continues on its separate track.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/vallco/-selectview-1","source_label":"City of Cupertino"},{"event_date":"2019-10-01","event_type":"Sand Hill Files Second Lawsuit Against Cupertino","description":"Sand Hill files a second lawsuit challenging the city's decision to allow housing on only 13.1 acres of the 51-acre Vallco site and to restrict additional office space that Sand Hill needed to offset housing construction costs.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.ivycommercial.com/7878/","source_label":"The Ivy Group"},{"event_date":"2019-12-01","event_type":"Vallco Mall Fully Demolished","description":"Demolition of the Vallco mall is completed. The 50-acre site is now an empty lot. Contaminated soil remediation begins in subsequent years.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sfyimby.com/2024/02/city-approves-the-rise-in-cupertino.html","source_label":"SF YIMBY"},{"event_date":"2020-05-01","event_type":"Court Rules Against Friends of Better Cupertino","description":"Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Helen Williams rules against Friends of Better Cupertino, upholding the SB 35 approval and clearing the way for the Vallco Town Center project to proceed.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.ivycommercial.com/7878/","source_label":"The Ivy Group"},{"event_date":"2022-03-01","event_type":"\"The Rise\" Rebrand Revealed","description":"Sand Hill reveals \"The Rise,\" a redesigned and rebranded version of the Vallco project by architect Kohn Pedersen Fox. The new design abandons earlier tower concepts in favor of a lower-scale urban village format with housing, offices, retail, and 7+ acres of public park space.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.ivycommercial.com/7878/","source_label":"The Ivy Group"},{"event_date":"2023-01-01","event_type":"Civil Grand Jury Report Criticizes Better Cupertino Faction","description":"A Santa Clara County civil grand jury report finds that the Better Cupertino faction caused \"constant turnover at the highest levels of city staff, violation of city codes, failure to manage financial and fiscal risks, creation of a deep culture of distrust and fear.\" Four city manager turnovers in four years are attributed partly to councilmanic behavior by Darcy Paul and Kitty Moore.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-mercury-news-weekend/20230106/281711208741354","source_label":"Mercury News"},{"event_date":"2023-12-01","event_type":"Sand Hill Submits Major Downsizing","description":"Sand Hill submits a major modification to The Rise due to high interest rates and rising construction costs. Office space is cut significantly. The project is resubmitted under SB 35, leaving the city with limited ability to object.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/vallco-mall-developer-proposing-major-downsizing-of-cupertino-project/","source_label":"San Jose Spotlight"},{"event_date":"2024-02-16","event_type":"City Approves The Rise (2,669 Units)","description":"The City of Cupertino approves The Rise — the largest single housing project in Cupertino's history — 2,669 apartments and homes with 890 affordable units, 1.95M sq ft of office/lab, 226K sq ft of retail, and 7+ acres of public park. Equity partner: Abu Dhabi Investment Authority.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://localnewsmatters.org/2024/02/20/cupertino-approves-housing-devt-at-former-vallco-mall-after-facing-cutbacks-and-delays/","source_label":"Local News Matters"},{"event_date":"2025-11-26","event_type":"Sand Hill Submits Revised Plan: Affordable Units Cut to 356","description":"Sand Hill submits revised plans the day before Thanksgiving (Mayor Liang Chao criticized the timing). The revised plan cuts affordable units from 890 to 356 — a 60% reduction — to maintain financial feasibility. Total unit count remains 2,669. Original SB 35 plan required 1,201 affordable units; the decade of delay has cost 845 affordable homes.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-vallco-development-reduces-its-affordable-housing/","source_label":"San Jose Spotlight"},{"event_date":"2025-11-26","event_type":"Developer Expects Vertical Construction in 2026","description":"Sand Hill tells the city it expects vertical construction to begin in 2026, starting with Town Square West, about 1,369 homes. Crews have already done demolition, grading and other horizontal work, and first residents could move in as early as 2028.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://hoodline.com/2025/11/after-years-of-vallco-fights-cupertino-s-giant-rise-project-finally-heads-vertical-in-2026/","source_label":"Hoodline"},{"event_date":"2026-02-01","event_type":"Construction Permit Submitted for First Affordable Building","description":"A construction permit application is submitted for the first residential building at The Rise — a 100% deed-restricted affordable housing project of 232 units developed with Eden Housing. The initial phase will include 1,369 total homes along Stevens Creek Boulevard.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://siliconvalleyathome.org/affordable-housing-moves-forward-in-cupertino-at-the-rise/","source_label":"SV@Home"},{"event_date":"2026-02-27","event_type":"City Approves Third Modification","description":"The city approves the modification Sand Hill filed in November 2025: 2,669 homes, 356 of them affordable, about 1.475 million square feet of office space and about 226,600 square feet of retail.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/Major-Projects/The-Rise-Vallco-SB35-Application","source_label":"City of Cupertino"},{"event_date":"2026-08-24","event_type":"City Approves Changes to First Two Blocks","description":"The city approves a partial plan modification for Blocks 1 and 2 requested by Black Pine, LLC c/o Hines Construction, covering exterior architecture, building form, loading areas and residential parking.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/Major-Projects/The-Rise-Vallco-SB35-Application","source_label":"City of Cupertino"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2018-09-21","body":"Staff","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"none","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/Major-Projects/The-Rise-Vallco-SB35-Application","source_label":"City of Cupertino","notes":"Original SB 35 approval of the Vallco Town Center application (2,402 units)."},{"decision_date":"2024-02-16","body":"Staff","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"none","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/Major-Projects/The-Rise-Vallco-SB35-Application","source_label":"City of Cupertino","notes":"Approved the second modification: 2,669 units, 890 affordable."},{"decision_date":"2026-02-27","body":"Staff","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"none","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/Major-Projects/The-Rise-Vallco-SB35-Application","source_label":"City of Cupertino","notes":"Approved the third modification: 2,669 units, 356 affordable."},{"decision_date":"2026-08-24","body":"Staff","action":"approved","action_label":"approved","staff_recommendation":"none","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/Major-Projects/The-Rise-Vallco-SB35-Application","source_label":"City of Cupertino","notes":"Approved a partial plan modification for Blocks 1 and 2 (DIR-2026-003)."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Senator Wiener Statement on Referendum Signatures","url":"https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/node/605","publication":"California State Senate District 11 (Scott Wiener)","author":"Senator Scott Wiener","date_published":"2018-10-30","notes":"Primary source for Wiener's \"freeze Cupertino in amber\" quote."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Here We Go Again: Obstructionists Submit Referendum Signatures","url":"https://medium.com/@revitalizvallco/here-we-go-again-obstructionists-submit-referendum-signatures-b266f009306a","publication":"Revitalize Vallco (Sand Hill blog)","author":"Reed Moulds","date_published":"2018-10-31","notes":"Developer's own public statement at time of referendum submission. Contains the \"patience has run out\" quote."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Cupertino's Plan for Vallco Mall Tossed After Residents Rally Opposition","url":"https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/cupertinos-plan-for-vallco-mall-tossed-after-residents-rally-opposition/64096/","publication":"NBC Bay Area","author":null,"date_published":"2018-11-01","notes":"Best day-of coverage of the referendum submission and Sand Hill's decision to abandon Community Plan for SB 35. Contains Reed Moulds quote."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"How Did Cupertino's Vallco Mall Become \"The Rise\"?","url":"https://www.ivycommercial.com/7878/","publication":"The Ivy Group","author":null,"date_published":"2022-04-20","notes":"Chronological history from 2014 through 2022. Best single source for complete pre-2022 timeline."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Better Cupertino Councilmembers Nailed in Grand Jury Report","url":"https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-mercury-news-weekend/20230106/281711208741354","publication":"Mercury News","author":null,"date_published":"2023-01-06","notes":"Coverage of Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report. Confirms four city managers in four years; culture of distrust. Documents institutional damage caused by Better Cupertino faction."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Cupertino Approves Housing Dev't at Former Vallco Mall After Facing Cutbacks and Delays","url":"https://localnewsmatters.org/2024/02/20/cupertino-approves-housing-devt-at-former-vallco-mall-after-facing-cutbacks-and-delays/","publication":"Local News Matters","author":null,"date_published":"2024-02-20","notes":"Coverage of February 19, 2024 city approval. Confirms 2,669 units, 7+ acres of park, 230K sq ft retail."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"After Years of Vallco Fights, Cupertino's Giant Rise Project Finally Heads Vertical in 2026","url":"https://hoodline.com/2025/11/after-years-of-vallco-fights-cupertino-s-giant-rise-project-finally-heads-vertical-in-2026/","publication":"Hoodline","author":null,"date_published":"2025-11-28","notes":"Construction schedule confirmation. Contains full current project specs: 2,669 homes, 1.95M sq ft office, 226K sq ft retail, 9,570 parking spaces."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Cupertino Vallco Development Reduces Its Affordable Housing","url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-vallco-development-reduces-its-affordable-housing/","publication":"San Jose Spotlight","author":null,"date_published":"2025-12-10","notes":"Most recent (Dec 2025) detailed coverage. Confirms Sand Hill cut affordable units from 890 to 356; confirms 2026 construction start plan; contains Mayor Liang Chao's Thanksgiving criticism."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Affordable Housing Moves Forward in Cupertino at \"The Rise\"","url":"https://siliconvalleyathome.org/affordable-housing-moves-forward-in-cupertino-at-the-rise/","publication":"SV@Home","author":null,"date_published":"2026-02-26","notes":"February 2026 update. Confirms construction permit submitted for first building (232 affordable units with Eden Housing)."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"The Rise (Formerly Vallco) — City of Cupertino Project Page","url":"https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/vallco/-selectview-1","publication":"City of Cupertino","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Official city project page. Lists all related projects since 2015 with links to SB 35, Specific Plan, referendum, and all modifications."},{"source_type":"Other","title":"History of Vallco — Cupertino for All","url":"https://www.cupertinoforall.org/whats-going-on-with-vallco","publication":"Cupertino for All","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":"Most complete single public narrative of the Vallco history through 2022. Pro-housing perspective but factually detailed. Best source for 2014-2020 timeline and ballot measure context."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"The Rise (Vallco) SB 35 Application","url":"https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/Major-Projects/The-Rise-Vallco-SB35-Application","publication":"City of Cupertino","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Vallco Town Center / The Rise, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/cupertino-vallco-2015, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:50:10.167267+00:00"},{"id":3,"slug":"davis-village-farms-2026","name":"Village Farms Davis (Measure V)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/davis-village-farms-2026","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/davis-village-farms-2026/brief","address":"Approximately 498 acres on the northern edge of Davis, off Covell Boulevard","latitude":38.5685,"longitude":-121.7405,"jurisdiction":{"id":3,"slug":"davis-yolo","city":"Davis","county":"Yolo","region":"Sacramento","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/davis-yolo"},"city":"Davis","county":"Yolo","region":"Sacramento","project_type":"Master-Planned Community","status":"Denied","units_proposed":1800,"units_affordable":360,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":null,"date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2026-06-02","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"Proposed 1,800-unit master-planned community on approximately 498 acres on the northern edge of Davis off Covell Boulevard. 15-year buildout. Would be surrounded on three sides by existing neighborhoods. Requires rezoning from Agriculture to Urban Agriculture Transition Area and Residential Low, Medium, and High Density. Davis's Measure J-R-D (first adopted 2000) requires citywide voter approval for any such rezoning. The Davis City Council unanimously placed the project on the June 2, 2026 ballot as Measure V. The project Environmental Impact Report is over 5,000 pages and was unanimously certified by the city. Davis voters rejected Measure V on June 2, 2026, 11,690 to 11,414, a margin of 276 votes. The project's housing plan designated 20 percent of the homes, 360 units, as affordable, and the developer pledged 16 acres of land and $6 million toward affordable housing; opponents disputed whether those commitments were binding.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Measure J","full_name":"Voter Approval Requirements (Measure J/R and similar)","invoked_by":"City of Davis (by ordinance) / Davis Voters (by direct democracy)","date_invoked":"2026-02-11","description":"Davis's Measure J-R-D, first adopted in 2000, requires citywide voter approval for any rezoning of agricultural land for urban use. Even with full city council and staff approval, no major housing project on Davis's edge can proceed without a majority of voters approving it at the ballot. Village Farms underwent years of planning, environmental review, and council deliberation before being placed on the June 2, 2026 ballot as Measure V. Voters rejected it, 11,690 to 11,414.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/03/village-farms-davis-housing-crisis/"}],"actors":[{"name":"North Davis Land Company, LLC","organization":"North Davis Land Company, LLC","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Project applicant","stated_arguments":"Project complies with city's planning framework and has a 5,000+ page environmental impact report unanimously certified by the city. Engineered to 200-year flood protection standards. No contamination risk per regulators.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/03/village-farms-davis-housing-crisis/"},{"name":"Yes on Measure V Davis","organization":"Yes on Measure V Davis (campaign committee)","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Ballot measure campaign committee","stated_arguments":"Has raised and spent over $302,000 in support of Measure V per campaign finance disclosures. Argues Village Farms is a logical and necessary expansion of Davis's urban footprint to address housing affordability and UC Davis growth pressure.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.abridged.org/news/davis-is-voting-on-village-farms-housing-development-here-are-the-basics/"},{"name":"Davis City Council","organization":"City of Davis","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"support","role":"Certified EIR and placed measure on ballot — unanimously","stated_arguments":"Unanimously certified the 5,000+ page environmental impact report and unanimously voted to place Village Farms on the June 2, 2026 ballot. The council itself supports the project; the obstruction is the Measure J-R-D voter approval requirement, not the council.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/davis/davis-voters-face-two-major-housing-decisions-2026/103-41be7a7b-a09d-47f6-ae16-fad494cf8ec5"},{"name":"Sacramento Bee Editorial Board","organization":"The Sacramento Bee","actor_type":"Editorial Board","stance":"support","role":"Editorial endorsement","stated_arguments":"Endorsed Yes on Measure V. Argued: \"Measure V represents a logical expansion of the city's urban footprint. Where else should Davis possibly expand? If passed, it would signal that Davis's intense system of democracy can function in a modern California desperate for more housing.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/05/village-farms-davis-expansion/"},{"name":"California Association of Realtors","organization":"California Association of Realtors","actor_type":"Trade Association","stance":"support","role":"Trade association campaign contribution","stated_arguments":"Has spent just over $13,000 supporting Measure V per public campaign finance disclosures.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.abridged.org/news/davis-is-voting-on-village-farms-housing-development-here-are-the-basics/"},{"name":"Matt Williams","organization":null,"actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Public opposition spokesperson","stated_arguments":"\"I definitely believe that we definitely need housing, but we need housing for our workforce, housing that is affordable, housing that cost between $500,000-$600,000 and in this town the only way you get that is building smaller houses.\" Argues the project will primarily attract Bay Area transplants rather than addressing local workforce needs.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/davis/davis-voters-face-two-major-housing-decisions-2026/103-41be7a7b-a09d-47f6-ae16-fad494cf8ec5"},{"name":"Eileen Samitz","organization":"No on Measure V","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"No on Measure V campaign coordinator; former Davis planning commissioner","stated_arguments":"\"Our group is not against growth. It's not against having more housing. We're against bad planning.\" (June 1, 2026.) Called the affordable housing plan \"more of a scam than a plan\" and said of PFAS near the site: \"Those toxics are leaking onto the site.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/debate-davis-measure-v-residential-neighborhood-project/"},{"name":"Sandy Whitcombe","organization":"North Davis Land Company","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Village Farms Davis project manager","stated_arguments":"\"Our market rate housing is attainable by design. That's the crux of our whole concept.\" (June 1, 2026.) On contamination: \"The state regulatory authority formally stated that the groundwater at the site poses no risk to future residents.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.capradio.org/articles/2026/06/01/will-measure-v-solve-davis-housing-shortage-or-be-a-major-mistake-voters-to-decide/"},{"name":"Doug Buzbee","organization":"North Davis Land Company","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Village Farms Davis project manager","stated_arguments":"\"It's an infill project in Davis, California near shopping, existing infrastructure, urban uses.\" (June 1, 2026.) On the landfill: \"We are not developing a site that was a former dump site.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/debate-davis-measure-v-residential-neighborhood-project/"},{"name":"Lois Wolk","organization":null,"actor_type":"Government Official","stance":"support","role":"Former Davis mayor and state senator","stated_arguments":"Told the city council in January 2026 the project was \"long overdue.\" \"Our schools' problems reflect that very missing generation.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.capradio.org/articles/2026/06/01/will-measure-v-solve-davis-housing-shortage-or-be-a-major-mistake-voters-to-decide/"},{"name":"Davis Voters","organization":"City of Davis registered voters","actor_type":"Electorate","stance":"deciding","role":"Final approval authority under Measure J-R-D","stated_arguments":"Rejected Measure V on June 2, 2026, 11,690 to 11,414 in the certified count. A simple majority was required to approve it.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/07/davis-measure-v-results-analysis/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2026-02-11","event_type":"Placed on Ballot","description":"Davis City Council certified the 5,000+ page EIR and unanimously voted to place Village Farms on the June 2, 2026 ballot as Measure V (Resolution No. 26-006).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ace.yolocounty.gov/407/Local-Measures","source_label":"Yolo County ACE Department — Local Measures"},{"event_date":"2026-03-11","event_type":"Ballot Arguments Filed","description":"Official ballot arguments and rebuttals released, formally documenting the divide. Opponents emphasized scale of earthwork (one million cubic yards of soil) and impacts on environment and infrastructure. Supporters emphasized 5,000+ page EIR, flood engineering to 200-year standards, and findings of no contamination risk.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/03/village-farms-davis-housing-crisis/","source_label":"Davis Vanguard, March 11, 2026"},{"event_date":"2026-05-05","event_type":"Sacramento Bee Endorsement","description":"Sacramento Bee Editorial Board formally endorses Yes on Measure V.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/05/village-farms-davis-expansion/","source_label":"Davis Vanguard reporting on Sacramento Bee endorsement"},{"event_date":"2026-06-02","event_type":"Measure V Fails: Voters Reject Village Farms by 276 Votes","description":"Davis voters rejected Measure V, 11,690 to 11,414 (50.6 to 49.4 percent), a margin of 276 votes. Yolo County certified the results in June.","outcome":"Denied","source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/07/davis-measure-v-results-analysis/","source_label":"Davis Vanguard"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2026-06-02","body":"Voters","action":"referendum_failed","action_label":"referendum failed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":11414,"vote_against":11690,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/07/davis-measure-v-results-analysis/","source_label":"Davis Vanguard","notes":"Measure V. Certified result."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Local Measures — Yolo County (June 2, 2026 ballot)","url":"https://ace.yolocounty.gov/407/Local-Measures","publication":"Yolo County ACE Department","author":null,"date_published":"2026-02-11","notes":"Official county ballot information including the exact text of Measure V (Resolution No. 26-006)."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Ballot Arguments over Village Farms Reveal Deep Divide in Davis","url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/03/village-farms-davis-housing-crisis/","publication":"Davis Vanguard","author":null,"date_published":"2026-03-11","notes":"Detailed coverage of the official ballot arguments and rebuttals, with quoted statements from both sides."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Sacramento Bee Endorses Village Farms Project as Test of Davis Housing Future","url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/05/village-farms-davis-expansion/","publication":"Davis Vanguard","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-05","notes":"Davis Vanguard reporting on Sacramento Bee endorsement of Measure V."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Davis is voting on Village Farms housing development. Here are the basics","url":"https://www.abridged.org/news/davis-is-voting-on-village-farms-housing-development-here-are-the-basics/","publication":"Abridged","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-05","notes":"Includes campaign finance disclosures for the Yes on Measure V campaign and Realtor association spending."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Davis voters face two major housing decisions in 2026","url":"https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/davis/davis-voters-face-two-major-housing-decisions-2026/103-41be7a7b-a09d-47f6-ae16-fad494cf8ec5","publication":"ABC10","author":null,"date_published":"2026-05-06","notes":"General overview of both Measure V (Village Farms, June) and the WillowGrove project (November ballot). Includes Matt Williams quotes."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Will Measure V solve Davis' housing shortage or be a major mistake? Voters to decide","url":"https://www.capradio.org/articles/2026/06/01/will-measure-v-solve-davis-housing-shortage-or-be-a-major-mistake-voters-to-decide/","publication":"CapRadio","author":"Chris Felts","date_published":"2026-06-01","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Davis voters weigh Measure V housing project amid traffic and growth debate","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/debate-davis-measure-v-residential-neighborhood-project/","publication":"CBS Sacramento","author":"Kayla Moeller","date_published":"2026-06-01","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Primary election results one week later: Majority oppose Village Farms","url":"https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/primary-election-results-one-week-later-majority-oppose-village-farms-judicial-race-still-close/article_01028644-a283-4f8d-b10e-88a5c498e732.html","publication":"Davis Enterprise","author":null,"date_published":"2026-06-09","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Analysis: Precinct Data Suggest Measure V Was Defeated by Neighborhood Opposition Closest to Village Farms","url":"https://davisvanguard.org/2026/07/davis-measure-v-results-analysis/","publication":"Davis Vanguard","author":null,"date_published":"2026-07-08","notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Village Farms Davis (Measure V), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/davis-village-farms-2026, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:39:54.961145+00:00"},{"id":77,"slug":"los-gatos-vista-capri-2024","name":"Vista Capri (14288 Capri Drive)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-gatos-vista-capri-2024","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-gatos-vista-capri-2024/brief","address":"14288 Capri Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032","latitude":37.2608,"longitude":-121.9633,"jurisdiction":{"id":58,"slug":"los-gatos-santa-clara","city":"Los Gatos","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/los-gatos-santa-clara"},"city":"Los Gatos","county":"Santa Clara","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Litigated","units_proposed":119,"units_affordable":24,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":13,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2024-03-05","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":31,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"Vista Capri is a proposed 13-story, 171-foot building with 119 apartments, 24 of them for low-income households, on a 0.53-acre lot at 14288 Capri Drive in Los Gatos, a wedge of land zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) that backs onto Winchester Boulevard near Highway 85. The owner, Los Gatos LLC, is a Fullerton company formed by developer Ben Eilenberg, who bought the site for $1.7 million in late 2023. The preliminary application was filed March 5, 2024, before HCD certified the town's housing element on July 10, 2024, and the project claims the protections of the builder's remedy. The formal application followed on August 23, 2024. Staff reviewed it four times before deeming it complete effective September 17, 2025, and the same letter said that under the town's reading of Government Code Section 65941.1(e), a question the town had asked a court to decide, the preliminary application's vesting had expired; the town offered to keep processing the application at the applicant's own risk. Staff also required a conditional use permit for multifamily housing in the C-1 zone, deposits of $2,750 and $8,250 for peer review by the town's consulting arborist and architect, details on below-market-price units, and CEQA review; the applicant says the AB 130 infill exemption applies. Los Gatos LLC sued the town in July 2025 and on December 5, 2025 filed a second amended petition in Santa Clara County Superior Court that also argues the town's housing element is likely invalid. The applicant filed a challenged conduct notice under the Housing Accountability Act on October 2, 2025, and on December 16, 2025 the council unanimously adopted findings rejecting it. The findings say the project is a builder's remedy project only under the 2024 version of the law, because its 119 units exceed the 77 the 2025 version would allow, and that the town may apply objective standards in effect when the preliminary application was filed. No hearing on the project and no court ruling had been reported as of October 2026.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"DR","full_name":"Discretionary Review","invoked_by":"Town of Los Gatos","date_invoked":"2024-09-18","description":"Four rounds of staff review, from September 2024 to August 2025, before the application was deemed complete, then requirements for a conditional use permit and arborist and architect peer-review deposits that the developer says cannot be applied to a builder's remedy project. The council found them to be objective standards.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-meet-88d6357a03194ca9bfb4dacf516e8760/ITEM-Attachment-001-378ac4f8a22247cea82eab750bb21a5e.pdf"},{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"Town of Los Gatos","date_invoked":"2025-09-17","description":"The completeness letter says the preliminary application's vesting expired under the town's reading of Gov. Code 65941.1(e), pending a court ruling. The council's Dec. 16, 2025 findings say the project exceeds the 2025 law's density limit (77 units here) and qualifies only under the 2024 version, which lets the town apply objective standards in effect at filing. The developer's suit is pending.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-meet-88d6357a03194ca9bfb4dacf516e8760/ITEM-Attachment-002-94ff388d391b4283af69f60e46a2ad73.pdf"},{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"Town of Los Gatos","date_invoked":"2025-09-17","description":"Staff lists CEQA review as pending and says environmental analysis will be required at the applicant's cost. The applicant claims the AB 130 infill exemption; the Dec. 16, 2025 findings say the town will respond to that request within 30 days.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-meet-88d6357a03194ca9bfb4dacf516e8760/ITEM-Attachment-001-378ac4f8a22247cea82eab750bb21a5e.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"Santa Clara County Superior Court","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Court hearing Los Gatos LLC's suit against the town","stated_arguments":"Los Gatos LLC filed a second amended petition on Dec. 5, 2025. No ruling has been reported.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losgatan.com/did-los-gatos-housing-element-suddenly-fall-out-of-compliance/"},{"name":"Maria Ristow","organization":"Los Gatos Town Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"deciding","role":"Vice mayor","stated_arguments":"\"As I look at this, we are processing this application.\" Also: \"I'm not seeing any evidence that we're blocking it.\" (Dec. 16, 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/developer-for-los-gatos-project-warns-of-legal-costs/"},{"name":"No To Vista Capri","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Neighbors' website opposing the project","stated_arguments":"\"But 13 stories is simply too much for this site.\" The site cites height, traffic, emergency access and fire evacuation on a street with \"only two ways in and out.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.notovistacapri.com/"},{"name":"Gabrielle Whelan","organization":"Town of Los Gatos","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"oppose","role":"Town attorney; wrote the Dec. 12, 2025 staff report on the developer's challenged conduct notice","stated_arguments":"\"Of importance here, the Project does not qualify as a Builder's Remedy project under the 2025 statute because it is too dense.\" The report says the 2025 law would allow 77 units with a density bonus.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-meet-88d6357a03194ca9bfb4dacf516e8760/ITEM-Attachment-007-aef25be860ad4d4fabab7d763c506779.pdf"},{"name":"Richard Jacobs","organization":null,"actor_type":"Developer Attorney","stance":"support","role":"Counsel for Los Gatos LLC","stated_arguments":"In the Dec. 5, 2025 second amended petition: \"This is another case in the continuing battle between the Town of Los Gatos, the State of California, and low income housing groups acting under State law, where the Town of Los Gatos is attempting to block affordable housing projects in violation of State law.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losgatan.com/did-los-gatos-housing-element-suddenly-fall-out-of-compliance/"},{"name":"Town of Los Gatos","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Reviewing agency; defendant in the Los Gatos LLC suit","stated_arguments":"Council findings, Dec. 16, 2025: \"None of the requirements that the Applicant objects to would necessarily require changes in the Project, nor would they cause an unnecessary delay or increase in cost.\" The town says the project qualifies only under the 2024 builder's remedy law and must meet objective standards in effect when it filed.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-meet-88d6357a03194ca9bfb4dacf516e8760/ITEM-Attachment-001-378ac4f8a22247cea82eab750bb21a5e.pdf"},{"name":"Ben Eilenberg","organization":"Woodside Community Housing","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer; formed Los Gatos LLC, the property owner, and represents the applicant","stated_arguments":"\"I respectfully want to tell you the town's multiple lawsuits (related to housing construction), including attempting to block this development, will cost the town dearly\" (Dec. 16, 2025 council meeting). He declined to comment to San Jose Spotlight, citing pending litigation.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/developer-for-los-gatos-project-warns-of-legal-costs/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2024-03-05","event_type":"Builder's Remedy Preliminary Application Filed","description":"The applicant files a preliminary application for 14288 Capri Drive before HCD certifies the town's housing element.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-meet-88d6357a03194ca9bfb4dacf516e8760/ITEM-Attachment-001-378ac4f8a22247cea82eab750bb21a5e.pdf","source_label":"Town of Los Gatos"},{"event_date":"2024-08-23","event_type":"Formal Application Filed for 119 Apartments","description":"Architecture and Site Application S-24-044 seeks to replace a commercial building with a 119-unit residential building.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-meet-88d6357a03194ca9bfb4dacf516e8760/ITEM-Attachment-001-378ac4f8a22247cea82eab750bb21a5e.pdf","source_label":"Town of Los Gatos"},{"event_date":"2025-07-17","event_type":"Developer Sues Los Gatos","description":"The Real Deal, citing the East Bay Times, reports that Los Gatos LLC has sued the town over its application requirements.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2025/07/17/developer-files-lawsuit-against-los-gatos/","source_label":"The Real Deal"},{"event_date":"2025-09-17","event_type":"Town Deems Application Complete, Says Vesting Expired","description":"The fifth staff review finds the application complete and lists inconsistencies. It says that under the town's reading of Gov. Code 65941.1(e) the preliminary application's vesting has expired, pending a court ruling.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-meet-88d6357a03194ca9bfb4dacf516e8760/ITEM-Attachment-002-94ff388d391b4283af69f60e46a2ad73.pdf","source_label":"Town of Los Gatos"},{"event_date":"2025-10-02","event_type":"Developer Files Challenged Conduct Notice","description":"Eilenberg invokes the Housing Accountability Act process against the town's requirements for a conditional use permit, peer-review deposits, affordable-unit details and environmental studies.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-meet-88d6357a03194ca9bfb4dacf516e8760/ITEM-Attachment-001-378ac4f8a22247cea82eab750bb21a5e.pdf","source_label":"Town of Los Gatos"},{"event_date":"2025-12-05","event_type":"Amended Petition Attacks Housing Element","description":"Los Gatos LLC's second amended petition in Santa Clara County Superior Court also argues that the town's housing element is likely invalid.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://losgatan.com/did-los-gatos-housing-element-suddenly-fall-out-of-compliance/","source_label":"Los Gatan"},{"event_date":"2025-12-16","event_type":"Council Rejects Developer's Obstruction Claim","description":"The council unanimously approves a resolution rejecting the developer's claim that town planners are obstructing the project.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/developer-for-los-gatos-project-warns-of-legal-costs/","source_label":"San Jose Spotlight"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2025-12-05","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://losgatan.com/did-los-gatos-housing-element-suddenly-fall-out-of-compliance/","source_label":"Los Gatan","notes":"Second amended petition in Los Gatos LLC's suit against the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County Superior Court. The suit was first filed in July 2025."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developer sues Los Gatos over builder's remedy dispute","url":"https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2025/07/17/developer-files-lawsuit-against-los-gatos/","publication":"The Real Deal","author":"Chris Malone Méndez","date_published":"2025-07-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Fifth Staff Technical Review Comments, 14288 Capri Drive (S-24-044)","url":"https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-meet-88d6357a03194ca9bfb4dacf516e8760/ITEM-Attachment-002-94ff388d391b4283af69f60e46a2ad73.pdf","publication":"Town of Los Gatos","author":"Ryan Safty","date_published":"2025-09-17","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Council agenda report, Item 18: Statement and Findings in response to a Challenged Conduct Notice, 14288 Capri Drive","url":"https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-meet-88d6357a03194ca9bfb4dacf516e8760/ITEM-Attachment-007-aef25be860ad4d4fabab7d763c506779.pdf","publication":"Town of Los Gatos","author":"Gabrielle Whelan","date_published":"2025-12-12","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Draft resolution and Exhibit A findings in response to the Oct. 2, 2025 Challenged Conduct Notice, 14288 Capri Drive","url":"https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-meet-88d6357a03194ca9bfb4dacf516e8760/ITEM-Attachment-001-378ac4f8a22247cea82eab750bb21a5e.pdf","publication":"Town of Los Gatos","author":null,"date_published":"2025-12-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Town Council agenda, Dec. 16, 2025","url":"https://meetings.municode.com/adaHtmlDocument/index?cc=LOSGATOS&me=88d6357a03194ca9bfb4dacf516e8760&ip=True","publication":"Town of Los Gatos","author":null,"date_published":"2025-12-16","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Did Los Gatos' Housing Element suddenly fall out of compliance?","url":"https://losgatan.com/did-los-gatos-housing-element-suddenly-fall-out-of-compliance/","publication":"Los Gatan","author":"Drew Penner","date_published":"2025-12-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Developer for Los Gatos project warns of legal costs","url":"https://sanjosespotlight.com/developer-for-los-gatos-project-warns-of-legal-costs/","publication":"San Jose Spotlight","author":"Mike Langberg","date_published":"2025-12-23","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"'Will cost the town dearly': Los Gatos warned against fighting builder's remedy project","url":"https://piedmontexedra.com/2025/12/will-cost-the-town-dearly-los-gatos-warned-against-fighting-builders-remedy-project","publication":"Piedmont Exedra (from San Jose Spotlight)","author":"Mike Langberg","date_published":"2025-12-26","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"No To Vista Capri","url":"https://www.notovistacapri.com/","publication":"No To Vista Capri (neighbors' website)","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Vista Capri (14288 Capri Drive), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/los-gatos-vista-capri-2024, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:11:50.815075+00:00"},{"id":81,"slug":"solvang-wildwood-2023","name":"Wildwood (Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/solvang-wildwood-2023","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/solvang-wildwood-2023/brief","address":"Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive, Solvang, CA","latitude":34.5999,"longitude":-120.1285,"jurisdiction":{"id":71,"slug":"solvang-santa-barbara","city":"Solvang","county":"Santa Barbara","region":"Central Coast","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/solvang-santa-barbara"},"city":"Solvang","county":"Santa Barbara","region":"Central Coast","project_type":null,"status":"Stalled","units_proposed":100,"units_affordable":20,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":null,"date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"Josh Richman, who grew up in Solvang, and Lots on Alamo Pintado LLC proposed Wildwood, a builder's remedy housing development on 5.48 acres at Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive, the eastern entrance to Solvang (city file LUP-23-242). The preliminary application was submitted in October 2023, after the city missed its housing element deadline and before HCD found Solvang's adopted element in substantial compliance on February 12, 2024; KSBY reported 109 units in February 2024. Richman later cut the plan to 100 units, saying he lowered the buildings and reduced the density after meeting with the neighboring Mission Oaks homeowners. On December 23, 2024 Planning Manager Rafael Castillo deemed the application complete, describing 100 residential condominium units. He accepted it on the basis of 20 percent lower-income units because AB 1893, under which the developer had asked to cut that share to 13 percent, was not yet in effect, and he said staff expected an environmental impact report to be required. According to its later petition, the S.Y. Valley Residents Association of California tried to appeal that determination on January 2, 2025 and the city would not accept the appeal. On February 10, 2025 the City Council voted 4-1 to hire Rincon Consultants for up to $252,272 to prepare an initial study and begin work toward the EIR. The association sued the city and the developer on March 7, 2025, asking the court to declare the preliminary and full applications void because they lacked signatures from the owners of land under a roughly 1.3-acre easement the project relies on, and because of changes to the affordable share. On August 5, 2025 Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge James F. Rigali sustained the city's demurrer without leave to amend, ruling the challenge premature and leaving the group free to sue after a final decision. The city's February 2026 project list said the applicant had asked for the project to be put on hold, and its September 2026 list says \"Project on hold via agreement.\" No environmental document or hearing has been reported. News reports describe the units as apartments, while the city's completeness letter calls them condominium units, so the project type is left blank.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"CEQA","full_name":"California Environmental Quality Act","invoked_by":"City of Solvang","date_invoked":"2024-12-23","description":"Staff found the project subject to CEQA and said it expected an EIR to be required. The council approved a contract of up to $252,272 with Rincon Consultants on Feb. 10, 2025. No environmental document has been reported, and the city lists the project as on hold.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://syvt.com/DocumentCenter/View/5533/Notice-of-Complete---Wildwood-122324"},{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"S.Y. Valley Residents Association of California","date_invoked":"2025-03-07","description":"The group sued to have the preliminary and full applications declared void, arguing that missing easement-owner signatures and changes to the affordable share ended the project's builder's remedy eligibility. Judge James F. Rigali ruled the challenge premature on Aug. 5, 2025; the group may sue after a final decision.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/tentative-rulings/demurrers-2-25cv01519-nf.pdf"}],"actors":[{"name":"Judge James F. Rigali","organization":null,"actor_type":"Court","stance":"deciding","role":"Santa Barbara County Superior Court","stated_arguments":"Sustained the city's demurrer without leave to amend on Aug. 5, 2025: \"Balkanization of the process does not further Legislature's desire for a speedy application processing.\" He wrote that the group may raise \"any future challenge if there is a final approval decision.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/tentative-rulings/demurrers-2-25cv01519-nf.pdf"},{"name":"S.Y. Valley Residents Association of California","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Plaintiff; nonprofit formed in 2024, represented by Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm and Marc Chytilo","stated_arguments":"Sued March 7, 2025 to void the completeness determination and the applications. Attorney Marc Chytilo: \"In our view that preliminary application was never completed.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santamariatimes.com/news/local/judge-tosses-suit-challenging-solvang-development/article_21e8c536-ae7e-437a-a7fe-2dbf19db5ea2.html"},{"name":"Josh Richman","organization":"Lots on Alamo Pintado LLC","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Developer and applicant; grew up in Solvang","stated_arguments":"\"The decision implicitly acknowledges the legislature's goal of getting housing projects in the pipeline and to a vote.\" (August 2025, after the lawsuit was ruled premature)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.independent.com/2025/08/21/builders-remedy-project-moves-ahead-in-solvang/"},{"name":"Chelsea O'Sullivan","organization":"City of Solvang","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"neutral","role":"City attorney","stated_arguments":"\"The city is pleased that the court agreed with the city's position that the lawsuit was premature.\" (August 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santamariatimes.com/news/local/judge-tosses-suit-challenging-solvang-development/article_21e8c536-ae7e-437a-a7fe-2dbf19db5ea2.html"},{"name":"Mission Oaks Owners Association","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Homeowners association for the neighboring gated community; owns the land under the easement","stated_arguments":"Its members raised traffic safety, zoning and density concerns. Richman says the association believes he needs its permission to use the easement, which he disputes.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.santamariasun.com/news-2/solvangs-wildwood-housing-proposal-creates-tension-among-neighbors-16053249/"},{"name":"Rafael Castillo","organization":"City of Solvang","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"neutral","role":"Planning manager (later community development director); deemed the application complete","stated_arguments":"\"The EIR is that avenue. We need to move the project along.\" (February 2025)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santaynezvalleystar.com/solvang-city-council-moves-forward-on-study-for-controversial-development"},{"name":"Michelle Neels","organization":"Santa Ynez Valley Citizens Council","actor_type":"Resident Opposition Spokesperson","stance":"oppose","role":"Treasurer of the Santa Ynez Valley Citizens Council","stated_arguments":"\"There are residents who have an easement with Lot C [Wildwood], and the applicant did not get the signatures of the shared easement when he provided his pre-application.\" (October 2024)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.santamariasun.com/news-2/solvangs-wildwood-housing-proposal-creates-tension-among-neighbors-16053249/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2024-02-15","event_type":"109-Unit Builder's Remedy Proposal Reported","description":"KSBY reports the 109-unit proposal. Planning and Building Manager Rafael Castillo says it was first submitted in October 2023, after the city missed its housing element deadline.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.ksby.com/santa-ynez-valley/100-unit-apartment-building-could-soon-be-going-up-in-solvang","source_label":"KSBY"},{"event_date":"2024-10-24","event_type":"Developer Cuts Plan to 100 Units After Neighbor Meetings","description":"Richman says he lowered the buildings and reduced the density from 109 to 100 units. Neighbors say he lacked signatures from owners of the land under his easement.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.santamariasun.com/news-2/solvangs-wildwood-housing-proposal-creates-tension-among-neighbors-16053249/","source_label":"Santa Maria Sun"},{"event_date":"2024-12-23","event_type":"City Deems Application Complete, Expects an EIR","description":"The planning manager accepts the application at 20 percent lower-income units and asks for a $66,746.80 deposit to begin an initial study.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://syvt.com/DocumentCenter/View/5533/Notice-of-Complete---Wildwood-122324","source_label":"City of Solvang"},{"event_date":"2025-01-02","event_type":"Residents' Appeal Turned Away","description":"According to the residents' later petition, the city would not accept their appeal of the completeness determination.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/tentative-rulings/demurrers-2-25cv01519-nf.pdf","source_label":"Santa Barbara County Superior Court"},{"event_date":"2025-02-10","event_type":"Council Hires Consultant for Environmental Review, 4-1","description":"The contract with Rincon Consultants, up to $252,272, covers an initial study and work toward an EIR. Councilmember Louise Smith dissents.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santaynezvalleystar.com/solvang-city-council-moves-forward-on-study-for-controversial-development","source_label":"Santa Ynez Valley Star"},{"event_date":"2025-03-07","event_type":"Residents' Group Sues City and Developer","description":"The S.Y. Valley Residents Association of California asks the court to vacate the completeness determination and declare the applications void.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/tentative-rulings/demurrers-2-25cv01519-nf.pdf","source_label":"Santa Barbara County Superior Court"},{"event_date":"2025-08-05","event_type":"Judge Rules Residents' Suit Premature","description":"Judge James F. Rigali sustains the city's demurrer without leave to amend. The group may sue again after a final decision.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santamariatimes.com/news/local/judge-tosses-suit-challenging-solvang-development/article_21e8c536-ae7e-437a-a7fe-2dbf19db5ea2.html","source_label":"Santa Maria Times"},{"event_date":"2026-09-30","event_type":"City Lists Project on Hold","description":"The city's major projects list, dated Sept. 30, 2026, says \"Project on hold via agreement.\" Its February 2026 version said the applicant had asked for the hold.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://syvt.com/567/Major-Projects-List","source_label":"City of Solvang"}],"decisions":[{"decision_date":"2025-03-07","body":"Court","action":"lawsuit_filed","action_label":"lawsuit filed","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/tentative-ruling/25cv01519","source_label":"Santa Barbara County Superior Court","notes":"S.Y. Valley Residents Association v. City of Solvang (25CV01519), Santa Barbara County Superior Court; Joshua Richman and Lots on Alamo Pintado LLC are real parties in interest."},{"decision_date":"2025-08-05","body":"Court","action":"ruling_issued","action_label":"ruling issued","staff_recommendation":"unknown","vote_for":null,"vote_against":null,"vote_abstain":null,"overrode_staff":false,"source_url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/tentative-rulings/demurrers-2-25cv01519-nf.pdf","source_label":"Santa Barbara County Superior Court","notes":"Sustained the city's demurrer without leave to amend, finding the claims premature. The posted tentative ruling also sustained the developer's demurrer; the Santa Maria Times reported that the judge ruled only on the city's."}],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"100+ unit apartment building could soon be going up in Solvang","url":"https://www.ksby.com/santa-ynez-valley/100-unit-apartment-building-could-soon-be-going-up-in-solvang","publication":"KSBY","author":"Jacob Dizon","date_published":"2024-02-15","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Solvang's Wildwood housing proposal creates tension among neighbors","url":"https://www.santamariasun.com/news-2/solvangs-wildwood-housing-proposal-creates-tension-among-neighbors-16053249/","publication":"Santa Maria Sun","author":"Taylor O'Connor","date_published":"2024-10-24","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Notice of Application Deemed Complete (LUP-23-242), Wildwood","url":"https://syvt.com/DocumentCenter/View/5533/Notice-of-Complete---Wildwood-122324","publication":"City of Solvang","author":"Rafael Castillo","date_published":"2024-12-23","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Solvang City Council moves forward on study for controversial development","url":"https://santaynezvalleystar.com/solvang-city-council-moves-forward-on-study-for-controversial-development","publication":"Santa Ynez Valley Star","author":"Michael Chaldu","date_published":"2025-02-20","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Residents Group Sues Solvang Over Builder's Remedy Housing Project","url":"https://www.noozhawk.com/residents-group-sues-solvang-over-builders-remedy-housing-project/","publication":"Noozhawk","author":"Janene Scully","date_published":"2025-03-20","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Santa Ynez residents sue Solvang over Wildwood development","url":"https://www.santamariasun.com/news-2/santa-ynez-residents-sue-solvang-over-wildwood-development-16374499/","publication":"Santa Maria Sun","author":"Camillia Lanham","date_published":"2025-03-20","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Builder's Remedy Project Sees Legal Action in Solvang","url":"https://www.independent.com/2025/03/28/builders-remedy-project-sees-legal-action-in-solvang/","publication":"Santa Barbara Independent","author":"Christina McDermott","date_published":"2025-03-28","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Tentative ruling on demurrers, S.Y. Valley Residents Association v. City of Solvang (25CV01519)","url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/tentative-rulings/demurrers-2-25cv01519-nf.pdf","publication":"Santa Barbara County Superior Court","author":null,"date_published":"2025-08-05","notes":null},{"source_type":"Court Filing","title":"Tentative ruling listing, 25CV01519","url":"https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/tentative-ruling/25cv01519","publication":"Santa Barbara County Superior Court","author":null,"date_published":"2025-08-05","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge Calls Residents' Lawsuit Over Solvang Wildwood Project Premature","url":"https://www.noozhawk.com/judge-calls-residents-lawsuit-over-solvang-wildwood-project-premature/","publication":"Noozhawk","author":"Janene Scully","date_published":"2025-08-11","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Judge tosses suit challenging Solvang development","url":"https://santamariatimes.com/news/local/judge-tosses-suit-challenging-solvang-development/article_21e8c536-ae7e-437a-a7fe-2dbf19db5ea2.html","publication":"Santa Maria Times","author":"Dave Minsky","date_published":"2025-08-13","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Builder's Remedy Project Moves Ahead in Solvang","url":"https://www.independent.com/2025/08/21/builders-remedy-project-moves-ahead-in-solvang/","publication":"Santa Barbara Independent","author":"Christina McDermott","date_published":"2025-08-21","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Major Projects List (February and September 2026 versions)","url":"https://syvt.com/567/Major-Projects-List","publication":"City of Solvang","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Wildwood (Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/solvang-wildwood-2023, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-21T20:16:48.995088+00:00"},{"id":36,"slug":"woodside-sb9-2022","name":"Woodside SB 9 Housing Program — The Mountain Lion Moratorium","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/woodside-sb9-2022","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/woodside-sb9-2022/brief","address":"Town Hall, 2955 Woodside Road, Woodside, CA 94062","latitude":37.4291,"longitude":-122.2547,"jurisdiction":{"id":35,"slug":"woodside-san-mateo","city":"Woodside","county":"San Mateo","region":"Bay Area","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/woodside-san-mateo"},"city":"Woodside","county":"San Mateo","region":"Bay Area","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Withdrawn","units_proposed":328,"units_affordable":null,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":null,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2022-01-27","date_approved":null,"date_denied":"2022-01-27","date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":0,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":4,"description":"On January 27, 2022, Town of Woodside Planning Director Jackie Young issued a memo declaring the entire incorporated town of Woodside a mountain lion habitat, freezing all housing applications under California's SB 9 (effective January 1, 2022). The memo invoked a real SB 9 exemption for areas designated as habitat for protected species. Mountain lions are listed as a candidate for the California Endangered Species Act, making them a covered species. The town's position: because Woodside \"in its entirety\" lies within mountain lion habitat, no parcel in the entire town is eligible for SB 9 development. National coverage followed within days — New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, BBC, The Guardian, The Atlantic. California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a letter on February 6, 2022: \"An entire town cannot be declared habitat for a protected species, and the exemption of a specific lot would have to be based on substantial evidence. Land that is already developed is not, by definition, habitat.\" That evening, the Woodside Town Council held a closed emergency session under threat of a lawsuit from Californians for Homeownership. On February 7, 2022 — 13 days after the mountain lion memo — the town reversed course. No developer had applied during the 13-day moratorium. The town's separately adopted 800-square-foot unit cap on SB 9 development (January 11, 2022) remains in effect and has also produced zero applications, potentially making SB 9 development economically infeasible in a market where construction costs are $500-$700 per square foot. Woodside's RHNA 6th Cycle obligation is 328 units. In the prior cycle it built 62 units.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Height Limit","full_name":"Height and Density Limits","invoked_by":"Town of Woodside Town Council","date_invoked":"2022-01-11","description":"On January 11, 2022, the Woodside Town Council passed a local SB 9 ordinance capping all SB 9 units at 800 square feet, banning basements, and excluding wildfire-risk areas. In a market where construction costs are $500-$700+ per square foot, an 800 sq ft unit would cost $400,000-$560,000 to build before land acquisition — making it economically infeasible for most homeowners. The 800 sq ft cap may achieve what the mountain lion failed to: making SB 9 development in Woodside effectively impossible regardless of legal eligibility. As of February 2022 and through the research date, zero SB 9 applications had been filed.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/02/07/woodside-reverses-course-on-controversial-mountain-lion-moratorium-on-housing-projects/"},{"short_name":"Moratorium","full_name":"Development Moratoriums","invoked_by":"Town of Woodside (Planning Director Jackie Young)","date_invoked":"2022-01-27","description":"Planning Director Jackie Young issued a memo on January 27, 2022 declaring the entire Town of Woodside a mountain lion habitat under the species protection exemption in SB 9, freezing all housing applications. AG Bonta issued a rebuttal on February 6, 2022: \"An entire town cannot be declared habitat for a protected species.\" The town reversed course February 7, 2022 — 13 days after the memo. This mechanism is notable not for its duration (13 days) or measurable impact (zero applications demonstrably delayed) but for what it reveals about the intent behind housing obstruction: the willingness of a wealthy suburb to invoke any available legal mechanism — however implausible — to avoid housing law compliance. Every other case in this database uses procedural cover. Woodside used a mountain lion.","added_delay_months":0,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":false,"source_url":"https://www.oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-memorandum-declaring-woodside-mountain-lion-sanctuary"}],"actors":[{"name":"Town of Woodside Town Council","organization":"Town of Woodside","actor_type":"City Government","stance":"oppose","role":"Obstructing Local Government","stated_arguments":"Allowed the mountain lion freeze at the January 25, 2022 council meeting without a formal vote. Passed a restrictive 800 sq ft cap on SB 9 units (January 11, 2022). Reversed under combined pressure of the AG memo and threatened lawsuit from Californians for Homeownership. The combination of the 800 sq ft cap and the mountain lion gambit represents the broadest possible effort to neutralize a state housing law short of outright non-compliance.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/02/02/woodside-freezes-sb-9-projects-with-town-citing-excemption-for-mountain-lion-habitats"},{"name":"Rob Bonta","organization":"California Attorney General's Office","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"California Attorney General / Enforcer","stated_arguments":"\"Woodside declared its entire suburban town a mountain lion sanctuary in a deliberate and transparent attempt to avoid complying with SB 9.\" \"An entire town cannot be declared habitat for a protected species.\" \"Land that is already developed — with, for example, a single-family home — is not, by definition, habitat; and any exemption under SB 9 requires the town to examine the attributes of an individual parcel of land.\" (AG letter, February 6, 2022)","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-memorandum-declaring-woodside-mountain-lion-sanctuary"},{"name":"Californians for Homeownership","organization":"Californians for Homeownership (CFH)","actor_type":"State Enforcement Agency","stance":"support","role":"Threatened Plaintiff / Housing Advocate","stated_arguments":"Was preparing a lawsuit against Woodside when the town reversed course. Their threatened litigation was the immediate proximate cause of the emergency council session and reversal. Had previously won a Housing Accountability Act lawsuit against Huntington Beach over a denied condominium project (2021).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2022/02/07/woodside-decides-its-not-a-mountain-lion-habitat-allows-developers-to-propose-housing-under-sb-9/"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2022-01-01","event_type":"SB 9 Takes Effect — Woodside Immediately Restricts It","description":"California's SB 9 takes effect on January 1, 2022, allowing homeowners in single-family zones to split lots and build up to four residential units. Woodside immediately begins the process of minimizing its impact.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/02/02/woodside-freezes-sb-9-projects-with-town-citing-excemption-for-mountain-lion-habitats","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2022-01-11","event_type":"Woodside Passes SB 9 Ordinance Capping Units at 800 Square Feet","description":"The Woodside Town Council passes an ordinance implementing SB 9 with the most restrictive possible conditions: all SB 9 units are capped at 800 square feet (vs. the state default of up to 1,200 sq ft); basements are banned; areas at high wildfire risk are excluded. In a market where construction costs are $500-$700 per square foot, an 800 sq ft unit may be financially infeasible for most homeowners. The ordinance achieves de facto blockage of most SB 9 development without invoking the mountain lion.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/02/07/woodside-reverses-course-on-controversial-mountain-lion-moratorium-on-housing-projects/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2022-01-25","event_type":"Town Council Meeting — Mountain Lion Exemption Discussed, Moratorium Implicitly Approved","description":"At the January 25, 2022 Town Council meeting, the mountain lion habitat exemption is raised as a potential way to block SB 9 entirely. The council does not formally vote but allows Planning Director Jackie Young to proceed with studying and implementing the exemption. All SB 9 applications are placed on indefinite hold.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/02/02/woodside-freezes-sb-9-projects-with-town-citing-excemption-for-mountain-lion-habitats","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2022-01-27","event_type":"Planning Director Issues Mountain Lion Habitat Memo — All SB 9 Applications Frozen","description":"Town Planning Director Jackie Young issues an official memo declaring the entire incorporated Town of Woodside a mountain lion habitat, citing the SB 9 species protection exemption. The memo states: \"Mountain lions are a protected species because they are a candidate for the California Endangered Species Act and Woodside, in its entirety, is a mountain lion habitat.\" All SB 9 applications are frozen indefinitely. Town Manager Kevin Bryant confirms the hold.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/02/02/woodside-freezes-sb-9-projects-with-town-citing-excemption-for-mountain-lion-habitats","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2022-02-02","event_type":"The Almanac Reports — National Coverage Begins","description":"The Almanac publishes the first news article about the Woodside mountain lion freeze. Within days the story is covered by the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC News, BBC, NPR, The Guardian, and The Atlantic. Woodside becomes a global symbol of housing obstruction. A BBC anchor says the story \"really doesn't sound like it's real.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/02/02/woodside-freezes-sb-9-projects-with-town-citing-excemption-for-mountain-lion-habitats","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2022-02-06","event_type":"AG Bonta Issues Memo — \"An Entire Town Cannot Be Declared Habitat\"","description":"California Attorney General Rob Bonta issues a letter to Woodside on a Sunday. Key findings: (1) an entire town cannot be declared habitat for a protected species; (2) land that is already developed is not, by definition, habitat; (3) the species protection exemption requires parcel-by-parcel analysis with substantial evidence. AG Bonta: \"Woodside declared its entire suburban town a mountain lion sanctuary in a deliberate and transparent attempt to avoid complying with SB 9.\" Californians for Homeownership is simultaneously preparing a lawsuit.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-memorandum-declaring-woodside-mountain-lion-sanctuary","source_label":"CA OAG"},{"event_date":"2022-02-06","event_type":"Emergency Closed Session — Town Council Decides to Reverse","description":"Hours after AG Bonta's Sunday memo, the Woodside Town Council holds a closed session emergency meeting. The council discusses both the AG's letter and the imminent Californians for Homeownership lawsuit. The council directs staff to reverse the moratorium effective the following morning.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/making-it-in-the-bay/woodside-reverses-housing-decision-after-ag-denies-mountain-lion-sanctuary-status/2803141/","source_label":"NBC Bay Area"},{"event_date":"2022-02-07","event_type":"Moratorium Reversed — 13 Days After Memo, Zero Applications Received","description":"Deputy Town Attorney Kai Ruess announces that beginning February 7, all SB 9 applications will be accepted. \"The Department of Fish and Wildlife advised that the entire Town of Woodside cannot be considered habitat. As such, the Town Council has directed staff to immediately begin accepting SB 9 applications.\" Duration of the mountain lion moratorium: 13 days. Applications received during the moratorium: zero. The 800 sq ft unit cap remains in effect.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/02/07/woodside-reverses-course-on-controversial-mountain-lion-moratorium-on-housing-projects/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2022-02-15","event_type":"Aftermath: Residents Call for Investigation, Town Has Received Zero SB 9 Applications","description":"No SB 9 applications have been received even after the reversal. Resident Bob Wilson calls for investigations into Planning Director Young and Town Manager Bryant for mishandling SB 9 and subjecting the town to \"embarrassment and humiliation.\" A Planning Commission member raises declining Woodside Elementary School enrollment as a sign of the town's housing problem: \"We've seen declining enrollment; there's empty classrooms at this point.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/02/15/in-aftermath-of-mountain-lion-exemption-woodside-residents-question-council-and-staffs-judgment/","source_label":"The Almanac"},{"event_date":"2024-07-23","event_type":"Woodside Adopts 2023-2031 Housing Element — HCD Certifies Conditionally","description":"The Woodside Town Council adopts its 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element, planning for 328 units. Two days later, HCD writes confirming the element meets the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law but cannot be found in substantial compliance until required rezonings are completed. Until then, Woodside faces potential fines of $10,000/month and possible loss of local land use control.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.woodsideca.gov/m/faq","source_label":"Town of Woodside FAQ"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Woodside Freezes SB 9 Projects, Citing an Exemption for Mountain Lion Habitats","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/02/02/woodside-freezes-sb-9-projects-with-town-citing-excemption-for-mountain-lion-habitats","publication":"The Almanac","author":"Angela Swartz","date_published":"2022-02-02","notes":"First report breaking the mountain lion story. Confirms January 27 memo from Jackie Young, January 25 council meeting, and January 11 ordinance (800 sq ft cap). Best primary source for the initial freeze and its basis."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Attorney General Bonta: Memorandum Declaring Woodside a Mountain Lion Sanctuary Does Not Exempt Town From State Housing Laws","url":"https://www.oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-memorandum-declaring-woodside-mountain-lion-sanctuary","publication":"California Attorney General","author":null,"date_published":"2022-02-06","notes":"AG Bonta's Sunday letter. Contains all three key legal arguments: entire town cannot be declared habitat; developed land is not habitat; exemption requires parcel-by-parcel analysis. Contains the \"deliberate and transparent attempt\" characterization. Primary government source."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Woodside Reverses Course on Controversial Mountain Lion Moratorium on Housing Projects","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/02/07/woodside-reverses-course-on-controversial-mountain-lion-moratorium-on-housing-projects/","publication":"The Almanac","author":"Angela Swartz","date_published":"2022-02-07","notes":"Best source for the reversal announcement. Contains Kai Ruess full statement. Confirms Fish and Wildlife guidance received and immediate acceptance of SB 9 applications. Also notes 800 sq ft cap still in effect."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Woodside Reverses Housing Decision After AG Denies Mountain Lion Sanctuary Status","url":"https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/making-it-in-the-bay/woodside-reverses-housing-decision-after-ag-denies-mountain-lion-sanctuary-status/2803141/","publication":"NBC Bay Area","author":null,"date_published":"2022-02-07","notes":"Confirms the cause-and-effect chain: AG memo Sunday → emergency closed session Sunday evening → reversal announcement Monday morning. Best source for the emergency meeting sequence."},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"In Aftermath of Mountain Lion Exemption, Woodside Residents Question Council and Staff's Judgment","url":"https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/02/15/in-aftermath-of-mountain-lion-exemption-woodside-residents-question-council-and-staffs-judgment/","publication":"The Almanac","author":null,"date_published":"2022-02-15","notes":"Post-mortem. Contains Bob Wilson's embarrassment and humiliation letter. Confirms zero SB 9 applications received after reversal. Contains declining Woodside Elementary enrollment data."},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Town of Woodside: Housing Element FAQ","url":"https://www.woodsideca.gov/m/faq","publication":"Town of Woodside","author":null,"date_published":"2024-01-01","notes":"Official town FAQ confirming RHNA 6th Cycle = 328 units; Housing Element adopted July 23, 2024; HCD confirmed it meets statutory requirements but awaits rezoning for full compliance. Confirms prior cycle (62 units) vs. current obligation (328 units)."}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, Woodside SB 9 Housing Program — The Mountain Lion Moratorium, https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/woodside-sb9-2022, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-06-03T21:26:26.990599+00:00"},{"id":61,"slug":"santa-monica-ws-builders-remedy-2022","name":"WS Communities Builder's Remedy Filings (Santa Monica)","url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-monica-ws-builders-remedy-2022","brief_url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-monica-ws-builders-remedy-2022/brief","address":"14 sites in Santa Monica, CA, including 3030 Nebraska Avenue and 1433 Euclid Street","latitude":34.0108,"longitude":-118.4912,"jurisdiction":{"id":50,"slug":"santa-monica-los-angeles","city":"Santa Monica","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","hcd_compliant":true,"url":"https://whokilledthebuilding.com/cities/santa-monica-los-angeles"},"city":"Santa Monica","county":"Los Angeles","region":"SoCal","project_type":"Multifamily Rental","status":"Withdrawn","units_proposed":4176,"units_affordable":836,"units_built":null,"floors_proposed":18,"sq_ft":null,"date_filed":"2022-09-30","date_approved":null,"date_denied":null,"date_construction":null,"date_completed":null,"delay_months":null,"cost_of_delay_usd":null,"data_quality":3,"description":"Between September 30 and October 13, 2022, in the two weeks before HCD certified Santa Monica's housing element on October 14, affiliates of WS Communities filed builder's remedy preliminary applications for 14 sites. Together they proposed 4,176 units, 836 of them affordable, in buildings of 10 to 18 stories; the largest, at 3030 Nebraska Avenue, proposed 1,601 units. The 16 builder's remedy filings made by all applicants in the city totaled 4,260 units. On May 9, 2023 the City Council voted 7-0 to approve a settlement. WS suspended 13 of the 14 applications and permanently withdrew three sites in residential zones. It agreed to refile the other ten as zoning-compliant density bonus projects, with 15 percent of base units affordable and allowed off-site. In return the city raised the downtown parking maximum from 0.5 to 1.0 space per unit and committed to decide completeness within 30 days and approval within 60, and Ellis Act and other suits between the city and WS's parent, NMS Properties, were settled or dismissed. Three tenants at 1242 10th Street received a right of return. The settlement excluded 1433 Euclid Street, whose outcome is not documented in the sources reviewed. In January 2024 The Registry reported that WS had handed 28 Los Angeles-area buildings and sites worth $1.1 billion to lenders through deeds in lieu of foreclosure. Successor owners have since filed density bonus projects under the settlement terms, including a proposed 34-story tower at 3030 Nebraska Avenue (2024) and 23-story and nine-story buildings that received CEQA exemptions in 2026.","mechanisms":[{"short_name":"Builder Remedy","full_name":"Builder's Remedy","invoked_by":"City of Santa Monica","date_invoked":"2023-05-09","description":"The city disputed the applications' validity and then negotiated a settlement that suspended 13 of the 14 builder's remedy applications in exchange for expedited review of ten zoning-compliant density bonus projects.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":true,"source_url":"https://santamonicalookout.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/May_2023/05_10_2023_Council_Approves_Agreement_That_Removes_Builders_Remedy_Projects.html"},{"short_name":"Height Limit","full_name":"Height and Density Limits","invoked_by":"City of Santa Monica","date_invoked":"2023-05-09","description":"The settlement required refiled projects to meet zoning height and floor area limits; the Lookout reported a downtown cap of 84 feet. Successor filings under state density bonus law propose 18 to 34 stories.","added_delay_months":null,"added_cost_usd":null,"was_successful":null,"source_url":"https://surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/May_2023/05_05_2023_WS_Could_Pull_13_Builders_Remedy_Projects.html"}],"actors":[{"name":"Phil Brock","organization":"Santa Monica City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"deciding","role":"Council member; voted for the settlement","stated_arguments":"\"I don't believe for a minute that they ever planned to build all those projects.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/06/california-builders-remedy/"},{"name":"Madison Realty Capital","organization":null,"actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Successor owner and applicant at former WS sites","stated_arguments":"Proposed an 18-story, 172-unit tower at 1437 Sixth Street (2024) and a 34-story tower at 3030 Nebraska Avenue (2024).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://smdp.com/2024/09/12/34-story-development-proposed-to-become-citys-tallest-building/"},{"name":"WS Communities","organization":"WS Communities LLC (parent NMS Properties)","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Applicant, through 18 affiliated entities","stated_arguments":"Filed 14 builder's remedy applications in 2022 and settled with the city in May 2023. President Scott Walter declined an interview with CalMatters.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.santamonica.gov/media/Attorney/Settlement%20Agreement%20WS-City.pdf"},{"name":"Susan Cola","organization":"City of Santa Monica","actor_type":"City Staff","stance":"neutral","role":"Assistant city attorney","stated_arguments":"On the city's odds in litigation: \"The chances of prevailing are nebulous.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santamonicalookout.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/May_2023/05_10_2023_Council_Approves_Agreement_That_Removes_Builders_Remedy_Projects.html"},{"name":"Dave Rand","organization":"Rand Paster Nelson","actor_type":"Developer","stance":"support","role":"Attorney for WS Communities","stated_arguments":"\"We go from the Wild West into not only a safe harbor, but an expedited safe harbor\" (May 2023). Also: \"The builder's remedy can be a strategic ploy in order to potentially leverage a third way.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/May_2023/05_05_2023_WS_Could_Pull_13_Builders_Remedy_Projects.html"},{"name":"Santa Monica City Council","organization":null,"actor_type":"City Government","stance":"deciding","role":"Approved the settlement 7-0 (May 9, 2023)","stated_arguments":"Approved a settlement under which WS suspended 13 of 14 builder's remedy applications in exchange for expedited review of zoning-compliant projects.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santamonicalookout.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/May_2023/05_10_2023_Council_Approves_Agreement_That_Removes_Builders_Remedy_Projects.html"},{"name":"Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City","organization":null,"actor_type":"Neighborhood Association","stance":"oppose","role":"Opposed the settlement","stated_arguments":"Diana Gorden: \"This proposed settlement is essentially a mega development agreement - the biggest one in the city's history.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://smdp.com/2023/05/08/city-hall-proposes-a-deal-to-regain-control-of-builders-remedy-projects/"},{"name":"Caroline Torosis","organization":"Santa Monica City Council","actor_type":"City Council Member","stance":"deciding","role":"Council member; voted for the settlement","stated_arguments":"\"We are doing this to get rid of the builder's remedy projects.\"","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santamonicalookout.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/May_2023/05_10_2023_Council_Approves_Agreement_That_Removes_Builders_Remedy_Projects.html"}],"timeline":[{"event_date":"2022-09-30","event_type":"WS Files First Builder's Remedy Applications","description":"Filings for 14 sites continue through Oct. 13, 2022.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santamonica.gov/builders-remedy","source_label":"City of Santa Monica"},{"event_date":"2022-10-14","event_type":"State Certifies Santa Monica Housing Element","description":"Certification closes the window for new builder's remedy applications.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santamonica.gov/builders-remedy","source_label":"City of Santa Monica"},{"event_date":"2023-05-09","event_type":"Council Approves WS Settlement 7-0","description":"WS suspends 13 of 14 applications and will refile ten as zoning-compliant density bonus projects.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://santamonicalookout.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/May_2023/05_10_2023_Council_Approves_Agreement_That_Removes_Builders_Remedy_Projects.html","source_label":"Santa Monica Lookout"},{"event_date":"2024-01-19","event_type":"WS Hands $1.1 Billion in Properties to Lenders","description":"The Registry reports deeds in lieu of foreclosure on 28 buildings and sites (date of report).","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://theregistrysocal.com/ws-communities-grapples-with-portfolio-setback-as-firm-concedes-los-angeles-properties-worth-1-1b-to-lenders/","source_label":"The Registry"},{"event_date":"2024-08-23","event_type":"Madison Realty Plans 18-Story Tower at 1437 Sixth Street","description":"The proposal has 172 units.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://theregistrysocal.com/madison-realty-capital-to-build-184-foot-high-rise-apartments-in-santa-monica/","source_label":"The Registry"},{"event_date":"2024-09-12","event_type":"34-Story Tower Proposed at 3030 Nebraska","description":"Madison Realty Capital, which took over much of the NMS portfolio, proposes 497 units, 74 of them affordable, plus 298 more.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://smdp.com/2024/09/12/34-story-development-proposed-to-become-citys-tallest-building/","source_label":"Santa Monica Daily Press"},{"event_date":"2025-09-18","event_type":"Owner Files Off-Site Affordable Building Under Settlement","description":"SMHC 23 LLC proposes a four-story building with 23 deed-restricted units at 1238 Seventh Street to meet another project's off-site requirement.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://www.santamonica.gov/media/Document%20Library/Topic%20Explainers/Santa%20Monica's%20Housing%20Progress/25ENT-0188%20(1238%207th%20St)%20AA%20Application.pdf","source_label":"City of Santa Monica"},{"event_date":"2026-06-03","event_type":"City Files CEQA Exemption for 23-Story Seventh Street Tower","description":"Project 25ENT-0189: 124 units plus 15 off-site affordable units under the settlement.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2026060122","source_label":"CEQAnet"},{"event_date":"2026-08-19","event_type":"City Files CEQA Exemption for 2901 Santa Monica Boulevard","description":"Nine stories and 129 units, with four affordable on site and nine off site at 1238 Seventh Street.","outcome":null,"source_url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2026080647","source_label":"CEQAnet"}],"decisions":[],"sources":[{"source_type":"News Article","title":"WS Could Pull 13 Builder's Remedy Projects","url":"https://surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/May_2023/05_05_2023_WS_Could_Pull_13_Builders_Remedy_Projects.html","publication":"Santa Monica Lookout","author":null,"date_published":"2023-05-05","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"City Hall proposes a deal to regain control of builder's remedy projects","url":"https://smdp.com/2023/05/08/city-hall-proposes-a-deal-to-regain-control-of-builders-remedy-projects/","publication":"Santa Monica Daily Press","author":null,"date_published":"2023-05-08","notes":null},{"source_type":"Other","title":"Settlement Agreement, City of Santa Monica and WS entities","url":"https://www.santamonica.gov/media/Attorney/Settlement%20Agreement%20WS-City.pdf","publication":"City of Santa Monica","author":null,"date_published":"2023-05-09","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Council Approves Agreement That Removes Builder's Remedy Projects","url":"https://santamonicalookout.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/May_2023/05_10_2023_Council_Approves_Agreement_That_Removes_Builders_Remedy_Projects.html","publication":"Santa Monica Lookout","author":"Jorge Casuso","date_published":"2023-05-10","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"California builder's remedy","url":"https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/06/california-builders-remedy/","publication":"CalMatters","author":"Ben Christopher","date_published":"2023-06-05","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"WS Communities grapples with portfolio setback as firm concedes Los Angeles properties worth $1.1B to lenders","url":"https://theregistrysocal.com/ws-communities-grapples-with-portfolio-setback-as-firm-concedes-los-angeles-properties-worth-1-1b-to-lenders/","publication":"The Registry","author":null,"date_published":"2024-01-19","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"Madison Realty Capital to build 184-foot high-rise apartments in Santa Monica","url":"https://theregistrysocal.com/madison-realty-capital-to-build-184-foot-high-rise-apartments-in-santa-monica/","publication":"The Registry","author":null,"date_published":"2024-08-23","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"34-story development proposed to become city's tallest building","url":"https://smdp.com/2024/09/12/34-story-development-proposed-to-become-citys-tallest-building/","publication":"Santa Monica Daily Press","author":"Thomas Leffler","date_published":"2024-09-12","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"25ENT-0188 (1238 7th St) application","url":"https://www.santamonica.gov/media/Document%20Library/Topic%20Explainers/Santa%20Monica's%20Housing%20Progress/25ENT-0188%20(1238%207th%20St)%20AA%20Application.pdf","publication":"City of Santa Monica","author":null,"date_published":"2025-09-18","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Notice of exemption, 25ENT-0189","url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2026060122","publication":"CEQAnet","author":null,"date_published":"2026-06-03","notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Notice of exemption, 25ENT-0036 (2901 Santa Monica Boulevard)","url":"https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2026080647","publication":"CEQAnet","author":null,"date_published":"2026-08-19","notes":null},{"source_type":"News Article","title":"City Council approves settlement with WS; majority of builder's remedy projects are pulled from the pipeline","url":"https://santamonicanext.org/2023/05/city-council-approves-settlement-with-ws-majority-of-builders-remedy-projects-are-pulled-from-the-pipeline","publication":"Santa Monica Next","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null},{"source_type":"Planning Document","title":"Builder's Remedy","url":"https://santamonica.gov/builders-remedy","publication":"City of Santa Monica","author":null,"date_published":null,"notes":null}],"citation":"Who Killed the Building?, WS Communities Builder's Remedy Filings (Santa Monica), https://whokilledthebuilding.com/projects/santa-monica-ws-builders-remedy-2022, accessed 2026-10-22","updated_at":"2026-10-20T17:28:36.677482+00:00"}]}