January 9 court filing by Oak Rose plaintiff says Elk Grove Mayor, City Council violated SB35’s hearing procedures
Even though Elk Grove Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen declared a “settlement in principle” on January 9 with the plaintiff suing the city, documents filed that same day painted an unflattering picture of the city.
The document filed on behalf of the Oak Rose housing project developer claimed that several hearings held by the city did not comply with SB 35 requirements.
On page 26, the plaintiff argued:
“The City’s Hearings And Improper Bases For Denial Violated SB 35.
SB 35 Authorizes only a limited “public review” of ministerial applications, which must “be objective and strictly focused on assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects,” and “shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the ministerial approval provided by this section or its effect.” (§ 65913.4(d) [emphasis added].) The City violated these requirements here. Not counting continuances where the matter was not heard in full, the City held a total of three separate full public hearings on the Project, before the Planning Commission on June 2, 2022, and before the City Council on July 27, 2022 and September 27, 2023. The City failed to take any steps to ensure the various hearings complied with SB 35 requirements. (§ 65913.4(d).) Instead, unrestricted discussion by both members of the public and City decisionmakers on a variety of irrelevant and improper topics were held on the record as part of the City’s formal public review proceedings for the Project. (See, supra, Sections II.g., f., and i.)
City decisionmakers also stated numerous legally irrelevant and improper “discretionary” Grounds for denying the Project on the record during their formal deliberations in open hearing, including, among other things:”
In their filing, the plaintiff’s attorneys requested the following:
“Oak Rose respectfully requests that the Court issue a writ of mandate ordering the City to approve the Project’s SB 35 ministerial application and Density Bonus requests. Oak Rose further requests that the Court find that the City violated SB 35, the Density Bonus Law and the HAA in denying the Project, and find that the City acted in bad faith under the HAA. Oak Rose also requests that the Court maintain jurisdiction over the matter to ensure compliance with the Court’s order under the HAA to ensure appropriate judicial oversight of the City, which is well warranted in light of the City’s pattern of hostility to the Project, its proposed future residents, and the requirements of state law.”
This document was recorded sometime on Tuesday, January 9. The city council went into closed session at 5 p.m. that day and, when they returned, announced the tentative settlement.
Pages 30 and 31 of the January 9 document can be viewed below.
