600 Foothill Boulevard Mixed-Use

Ask a question to begin.

Oakmont Senior Living identifies the former Church of Christ Scientists property as a potential site for new senior housing.

Oakmont's Planning Commission hearing for a 77,000 sq ft, 72-unit senior living facility. Planning Commission defers consideration.

Together La Cañada is formed as a nonprofit by Michael Gross specifically to oppose development at 600 Foothill.

Oakmont Senior Living withdraws without building, having faced years of community opposition.

Cedar Street Partners purchases 600 Foothill Blvd from the Church for $4.2 million. Initial plan: 47-unit mixed-use senior housing project.

Cedar Street Partners applies for entitlements for a 47-unit senior housing project. TLC opposition campaign intensifies.

Planning Commission recommends the City Council grant an exemption from the city's downtown zoning code.

State deadline for Southern California cities to submit updated 6th Cycle Housing Elements. LCF submits its draft to HCD.

City Council rejects Planning Commission recommendation and denies Cedar Street's entitlement application.

HCD notifies the City that its Housing Element update requires significant revisions to comply with State law.

City Council moves to create a new downtown zoning split. Developer alleges this was a pretext to preempt housing.

City Council adopts a Housing Element that remains noncompliant per HCD.

Cedar Street Partners files SB 330 Preliminary Application under Builder's Remedy for an 80-unit mixed-use project. Holland & Knight retained as counsel.

Cedar Street Partners files the full Builder's Remedy application.

City adopts revised Housing Element; HCD finds it also noncompliant.

Planning staff issues incompleteness determination, denying the Builder's Remedy application.

Californians for Homeownership files suit alleging the city's Housing Element is noncompliant.

CalHDF submits warning letter to City Planning Director.

HCD sends Letter of Technical Assistance explaining why Builder's Remedy applies.

CalHDF sends second warning letter directly to City Council before May 1 hearing.

City Council unanimously adopts Resolution 23-14 denying developer's appeal.

HCD issues formal Notice of Violation to City Manager Mark R. Alexander.

600 Foothill Owner LP files writ petition (Case No. 23STPC02575).

CalHDF files separate petition (Case No. 23STCP02614).

Court rules in CFH case that the city should have adopted zoning regulations concurrently with its Housing Element. Orders rezoning within 60 days.

City Council adopts new zoning codes increasing density by 160% and zoning 684+ housing units.

HCD certifies the Housing Element. Does not retroactively eliminate 600 Foothill's Builder's Remedy rights.

Newsom, Bonta, and HCD formally intervene in CHDF lawsuit.

Judge Beckloff holds four-hour combined hearing.

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.

CalHDF files motion seeking $14M appeal bond.

Court rules the $14M appeal bond is required.

City Council votes to dismiss its appeal rather than post the $14M bond.

Settlement agreements approved: $48k to CFH; $1.26M to CalHDF; $3,558 to AG.

Newsom signs AB 130, providing CEQA exemption for qualifying infill projects.

Planning Commission approves Tentative Tract Map, CUP, and Tree Removal Permit.

City Council approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map. First Builder's Remedy project fully entitled in Southern California.

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.

"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."

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.

"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."

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.

"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)

Identified community need for senior housing. Proposed 72-unit senior living facility on site in 2018. Withdrew without building following community opposition.

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.

"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."

"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."

"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."

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.

"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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Official CalHDF case page with full timeline and case status.

Official city page with full litigation history and case documents.

Post-approval coverage. First Builder's Remedy project approved by a Southern California city.

Developer law firm analysis of the March 4, 2024 ruling.

Primary court document. First Builder's Remedy ruling in California history.

Primary government document. HCD's formal notice that city violated state law.

Coverage of May 1, 2023 unanimous council vote.

Deep-dive profile of the 600 Foothill conflict history from 2015-2023.

Opposition group's own documentation. Primary source for opposition arguments.