Judge hears Millbrae’s La Quinta Inn lawsuit

The one-day trial saw Millbrae residents and supporters of the city’s lawsuit gather inside the courtroom, alongside housing advocates who say the litigation is little more than an anti-affordable housing effort.

Fineman set the June 26 proposed statement of decision deadline with the expectation it would be completed earlier, she said, noting that both parties would have two weeks after the proposed statement to submit objections, at which point a final decision would be made.

Millbrae’s legal team is arguing the purchase violates Article 34 of the California state Constitution, which makes it so any public agency looking to develop or acquire low-income housing must gain the approval of a majority of voters to do so.

“On Sept. 12, the county adopted a resolution. That resolution was an approval for land acquisition, and approval for expressly for the development of a low income housing project,” Jennifer Lynch of the City Attorney’s Office, said. “Because the county did not put that approval to a vote of the Millbrae electorate … the city argues that that resolution must be found invalid.”

Although Project Homekey developments are exempted from Article 34, Lynch argued that because the county has not yet guaranteed the funds, the exemption is invalid.

The city would also suffer financial harm if they’re forced to give up the currently operational hotel, Lynch said. Millbrae would lose $772,000 a year in transient occupancy taxes if the hotel was converted into county-owned housing, according to a brief filed by the plaintiffs.

But the county’s legal team pushed back on Millbrae’s argument, first claiming that the lawsuit shouldn’t even reach issues of state constitutionality on the grounds that Article 34 applies to individual voters, and the lawsuit itself is being brought by a municipality, making it invalid.

San Mateo Deputy County Attorney Lauren Carroll also noted that although the lawsuit was being presented as a voters’ rights issue, Millbrae had emphasized its potential for economic harm throughout the case — which could theoretically occur no matter what the county chose to do with the property, including potential situations that would not trigger Article 34.

“They say that they brought this lawsuit to ensure that the residents of their city can exercise their right to vote,” Carroll said. “But most of what we’ve been talking about today is the alleged economic harm, which, as the court noted, the city could experience no matter what the county chooses to do with this project. To put it another way, that economic harm does not turn on the outcome of this lawsuit.”

YIMBY Law, the county and the city of Millbrae also clashed throughout the trial on the issue of ‘ripeness’ — whether or not now would be the appropriate time for the city to sue over the issue, since Project Homekey funds are not yet fleshed out.

“This is a simple land acquisition so far,” Keith Diggs, representing YIMBY Law, said. “While we all recognize the county intends to use Homekey projects, there are still a variety of ways that the project could be put together and those facts are not yet sufficiently developed.”

Lynch maintained that either an acquisition or development of a project or land for low-income housing should trigger Article 34.

The legal battle around the project is being closely watched by pro-housing advocate groups, including the Housing Action Coalition. A win would maintain a clear message of continued support for affordable housing Ali Sapirman, Housing Action Coalition organizer, said.

“We at Housing Action Coalition are deeply concerned about usage of Article 34 to block Project Homekey and other affordable housing projects,” she said. “If this case does not have a good result, it could block a lot of affordable housing in the future.”

Sapirman, who attended the trial hearing, said that tensions between pro-housing advocates and those who supported the lawsuit ran high during the day.

At one point, leaving a bathroom stall, a woman — who Sapirman said had been speaking derogatorily about pro-housing advocates — blocked the space by the bathroom exit and verbally confronted Sapirman, who managed to leave the bathroom and inform security of the incident, they said.

Millbrae City Councilmember Ann Schneider maintained that the lawsuit was in the best interest of the city and protecting residents.

“I have confidence in the city’s position,” she said. “And I think we’re doing the right thing. We’re doing the thing we have to do, because clearly this is hugely economically harmful for us.”

Both parties will be required to send draft proposals on their position by April 17 and have until May 1 to file rebuttals.