La Cañada Flintridge Housing Policy and Legal Matters

La Cañada Flintridge and Housing History

Since 2021, the City of La Cañada Flintridge has actively defended itself and the community against three lawsuits related to housing policy and the property at 600 Foothill Blvd. The City did not initiate any of these lawsuits. The legal issues at play are complex, but at their root involve questions of land use control within City limits, the balance of authority between local jurisdictions and the State of California, and the quickly changing landscape of housing laws being implemented by the State of California.

We are committed to transparency and keeping our residents informed. To that end, the City has gathered the following information to provide residents with our housing progress over the last several years, the status of the current lawsuits, and changes to State housing laws taking effect in January 2025 that further restrict the City’s land use control.

Housing Progress in the City

The City is committed to supporting the statewide effort to address the housing crisis. Over several years, the City has taken numerous actions to promote more housing development, including:

• In September 2018, the City implemented a new technology, ConnectLCF, that streamlined the entitlement and permitting process by transitioning from paper to an online system.
• Since October 15, 2021, the City has permitted 111 new housing units inclusive of ADUs.
  • From 2018 to 2023, the City ranked 15th in ADU permits issued (per 1,000 housing units) among LA County’s 88 cities.
• In 2023, the City Council approved an annual $160,000 for a dedicated consultant/housing planner to support the implementation of the Housing Element.
• On September 19, 2023, new zoning codes were adopted to accommodate 684 or more housing units in compliance with State law.
  • The City’s adopted zoning codes increased density, implemented objective design standards, and updated development standards citywide to facilitate housing development.
  • The new code increased zoned units by 160% over the previous housing element.
• On November 17, 2023, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified the City’s Housing Element.
• On January 1, 2024, the City developed a centralized information hub to support more efficient permitting, education, and resources for housing development, which included:
  • A streamlined permitting process for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs),
  • A new ADU webpage, as a convenient resource for developers and residents,
  • Multi-language Fair Housing information, including how to report housing discrimination,
  • A step-by-step guide for permitting housing units.
• The City promoted the removal of antiquated, discriminatory, and unenforceable restrictions that may still appear in older property records, titles, and grant deeds.
• Under the new zoning code, the City entitled a seven-unit mixed-use development with permits to be issued in early 2025.

Status of the Current Lawsuits

1. Californians for Homeownership v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, et al.

On March 3, 2023, Californians for Homeownership (CFH), a nonprofit focused on housing litigation, sued the City to invalidate its Housing Element adopted in February 2023. CFH claimed:

(1) The Housing Element was not compliant with state law. CFH subsequently dismissed this cause of action in July 2023.
(2) The zoning regulations must be adopted concurrently with the Housing Element. On September 5, 2023, the Court ruled the City should have adopted zoning regulations concurrently with the Housing Element and required rezoning within 60 days of the court’s order. The City complied, adopting new zoning regulations on September 19, 2023.

On October 10, 2023, the City filed an appeal maintaining that re-zoning could be adopted sequentially within a reasonable time after adoption of the Housing Element. Oral arguments were held on December 17, 2024 in the Court of Appeal.

On December 27, 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed the City’s appeal as moot. The Court of Appeal concluded that, because the City complied with the trial court’s order to adopt the zoning regulations to implement the Housing Element (in order to also comply with state law), there was no effective relief the Court of Appeal can grant.

The case returned to the trial court in February 2025 for final proceedings. In June 2025, the City agreed to pay CFH $48,000.00 in full settlement of all claims against the City for CFH’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the litigation. On August 29, 2025, CFH filed a Notice of Satisfaction with the Court that the City had fully complied with the Court’s Judgment, thereby concluding the litigation.

Opening brief
Opposition brief
Reply brief
Ruling
2024-8-30 – B333151 – FILED – City’s Opening Brief
2024-10-21 – B333151 – Respondent’s Brief
2024-11-12 – B333151 – FILED – City’s Reply Brief
2025-2-27 – B333151 – Filed Remittitur
2025-8-26 – CFH Notice of Satisfaction

2. 600 Foothill Owner, LP v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, et al.

Litigation History

Developer 600 Foothill Owner, LP, managed by former Mayor and Councilmember Jon Curtis, owns the property at 600 Foothill Boulevard. In November 2022, it proposed a five-story mixed-use building with 80 residential units, 14 hotel units, and office space.

600 Foothill argued that the City’s Housing Element, adopted in October 2022, did not comply with state law when the project applications were submitted, and therefore, the project qualifies for the “Builder’s Remedy.” Builder’s Remedy, a mechanism in state housing law, prohibits a city from applying certain general plan and zoning standards for development projects, which include qualified, affordable housing if a city lacks a compliant Housing Element. The City disagrees, maintaining its Housing Element was substantially compliant and Builder’s Remedy does not apply.

On July 21, 2023, 600 Foothill sued the City alleging numerous causes of action, including violations of state housing and other laws, and seeking to mandate rezoning, reverse the City’s decision denying the Builder’s Remedy, and obtain other relief.

A major milestone in this ongoing litigation occurred on March 4, 2024, when the trial court:

• dismissed four causes of action against the City
• partially ruled in favor of 600 Foothill on six, finding the Builder’s Remedy applies
• rejected 600 Foothill’s claim that the City has acted in bad faith
• required CEQA compliance for the project

As part of the City’s initial response to the Complaint, the City filed an anti-SLAPP motion against 600 Foothill to challenge one of these causes of action. In that cause of action, 600 Foothill alleged that the City Council was biased in its May 1, 2023 determination (that the Builder’s Remedy was not available) because Council Members had made general statements in favor of local control and raised concerns about state housing laws. The City takes the position that these communications constitute a valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition in connection with public issues.

The trial court ruled against the City on its anti-SLAPP motion and the City subsequently appealed that ruling. The City subsequently dismissed the appeal in March 2025, when the City concurrently dismissed its appeal in the California Housing Defense Fund case (see below).

A final determination on the anti-SLAPP related cause of action remains pending in the trial court. Because that cause of action remains pending and undetermined, no judgment has yet been entered in this case. A hearing is scheduled for March 18, 2026, where the Court will discuss the status of the anti-SLAPP related cause of action and determine the next steps on this cause of action.

Opening brief
Opposition brief
Reply brief
Ruling
Anti-SLAPP Motion

Project Review and Approval

The City engaged a consultant to conduct environmental review of the 600 Foothill project in December , 2023, and June, 2025. On April 7, 2025, the City filed a statement in accordance with the Court’s order on March 4, 2024, identifying the need for environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the related processing time.

In response, 600 Foothill and California Housing Defense Fund (see next case) asserted the project is exempt from CEQA based on the Urban Infill Exemption (Class 32 Categorical Exemption) and based on the Court’s March 24, 2024 ruling. On May 27, 2025, after an initial review of the parties’ positions, the court issued a minute order clarifying the March 2024 ruling did not provide 600 Foothill with an exemption from CEQA. Accordingly, CEQA review remained necessary for the 600 Foothill development.

However, on June 30, 2025, the Governor signed AB 130 into law, which became effective immediately and made sweeping changes as to how CEQA will thereafter apply to certain housing development projects. The City reviewed AB 130 and determined it was applicable to the 600 Foothill project. As such, the review of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption that the applicant had previously submitted, along with any other environmental review, was deemed moot under the new state legislation. Staff appropriately contacted applicable California Native American Tribes regarding consultation in accordance with AB 130.

Following completion of the AB 130 consultation process, the project was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration on September 18, 2025. The project entitlements consisted of:

• A Vesting Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 1.29 acre site into 84 air space parcels for condominium purposes as part of the development of a five-story, mixed-use project, with 80 residential condominium units, 16 non-serviced “hotel” units, and 7,261 square feet of commercial office space, and two levels of subterranean parking containing 192 parking spaces.
• A Conditional Use Permit to develop the 16 non-serviced hotel rooms and the 7,300 square feet of office uses;
• A Tree Removal Permit to remove eleven (11) protected trees to facilitate development of the project.

The Planning Commission approved each of the entitlements on September 18, 2025. 600 Foothill appealed one condition in the conditions of approval for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map entitlement and that appeal was presented to the City Council on October 3, 2025. The City Council removed the condition in question and approved the Vesting Tentative Tract Map entitlement without the condition.

The 600 Foothill Project is now approved and must proceed to the Building and Safety review stage for further development. This will include ensuring plans comply with the adopted Building Code and review by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for compliance with the adopted Fire Code.

3. California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, et al.

The California Housing Defense Fund (CHDF), a nonprofit focused on housing litigation, filed suit against the City on July 25, 2023. CHDF argued that the City missed its October 2021 deadline to adopt a compliant Housing Element and that subsequent Housing Element versions in 2022 and 2023 also failed to comply. CHDF claimed the 600 Foothill project qualified for the Builder’s Remedy and requested the court compel the City to approve the project, declare its Housing Element noncompliant, and award fines and legal costs. In December 2023, the State of California, represented by Attorney General Rob Bonta and the Department of Housing and Community Development, intervened in the case.

On March 4, 2024, the court ruled partially in CHDF’s favor by finding the Builder’s Remedy applied to the 600 Foothill project. The City timely appealed the Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal. CHDF subsequently sought a $14 million appeal bond from the City, which the City opposed. On March 3, 2025, the Court ultimately ruled that the $14 million bond was required. The City elected to dismiss the appeal in lieu of paying the appeal bond. The case was remanded back to the trial court for further post-trial proceedings.

On August 28, 2025, 600 Foothill filed a motion to recover damages in the amount of $6.3 million from the City for the City’s alleged failure to comply with the Housing Accountability Act by not paying the $14 million bond requirement. The City opposed the motion arguing that the bond requirement only applied if the City proceeded with the appeal. Since the City dismissed the appeal, no bond was required to be paid. On October 17, 2025, the Court considered the motion, agreed with the City, and denied 600 Foothill’s motion.

2025-8-28 – 600 Foothill’s Motion to Recover Damages
2025-10-06 – Opposition t0 600 Foothill’s Motion to Recover Damages
Ruling

On October 27, 2025, 600 Foothill filed an appeal to this ruling. The appeal is now pending.

The City processed and ultimately approved the 600 Foothill development project on October 3, 2025, in accordance with the Court’s March 4, 2024 ruling. For more information, please see “Project Review and Approval” in the 600 Foothill section above.

In June 2025, the City agreed to pay CHDF $1,262,500, in full settlement of all claims against the City for attorneys’ fees and costs claimed by CHDF incurred in the litigation through June 2025. The Attorney General’s Office was an intervenor in the CHDF matter. Pursuant to the Parties’ negotiated settlement, the City agreed to pay the Attorney General’s Office costs in the amount of $3,558.00, in full settlement of all claims against the City for costs. No attorneys’ fees were paid to the Attorney General.

On January 20, 2025, the City agreed to pay CHDF an additional $32,500 for additional attorneys’ fees and costs incurred between June 2025 and December 2025. As part of this agreement, CHDF waives and releases all rights to further pursue any action involving the 600 Foothill Project and covenants not to sue to recover future fee claims relating to work performed in the lawsuit.

Opening brief
Opposition brief
Reply brief
Ruling
2024-6-17 – CHDF’s Motion for Appeal Bond
2024-6-18 – People’s Joinder to CHDF’s Motion for Appeal Bond
2024-10-28 – LCF’ss Opposition to Appeal Bond REDACTED FINAL
2024-11-01 – CHDFs Reply ISO Motion for Appeal Bond REDACTED2025-2-28 – Minute Order & Ruling RE CHDF’s Motion for Bond

Legal Status of CEQA

(CEQA) 2025-4-7 – LCF’s Statement in Conformance with Judgment
(CEQA) 2025-4-21 – 600 Foothill’s Objection to City Statement of Judgment
(CEQA) 2025-4-21 – CHDFs Objections + Request for OSC
(CEQA) 2025-4-25 – LCF’s Response to 600’s & CHDF’s Objections to 4.7.25 Statement
(CEQA) 2025-6-9 – CHDFs Response to May 27 Minute Order