The court of appeal held that the City’s determination that a mixed-use development project was consistent with applicable general plans policies and standards was supported by substantial evidence. Old East Davis Neighborhood Association v. City of Davis, 43 Cal. App. 5th 895 (2022).
The Trackside Project is a planned four-story, 48,000-square-foot mixed-use building located
The court of appeal held that the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) does not apply to a one-unit single-family home project. Reznitskiy v. County of Marin, 79 Cal.App.5th 1016 (2022).
Plaintiff applied to the Marin County Planning Commission to build a 4,000-square-foot single-family home on a plot of land in San Anselmo. The Commission denied the
The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that California courts do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving objections to regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) allocations. City of Coronado v. San Diego Association of Governments, 80 Cal. App. 5th 21 (2022).
The City of Coronado along with three other cities sued San Diego Association of
The Second District Court of Appeal held that a Board of Supervisors decision on the appeal of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission was untimely under the County Code and hence that the Planning Commission’s decision was deemed affirmed. Tran v. County of Los Angeles, No. B309226 (2nd Dist., Jan. 21, 2022).
A Court of Appeal held that the state’s density bonus law (Gov’t Code § 65915) does not require applicants to submit financial information to support requests for incentives or waivers and preempted a city ordinance that required such financial documentation to show that a project would not be “economically feasible” without the requested incentives. Schreiber
In a major decision, the California Court of Appeal rejected a city’s interpretation of what constitutes an “objective” standard under the Housing Accountability Act and upheld the constitutionality of the law and amendments that strengthened it. The decision represents the second time this year that the Court of Appeal has both rejected a charter city’s
A California Court of Appeal held that the Coastal Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development have concurrent jurisdiction over mobilehomes located in the coastal zone and that proper notice of a public hearing is sufficient to meet notice requirements for approval due to agency inaction under the Permit Streamlining Act. Linovitz Capo
California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed legislation, Senate Bill No. 7, that reenacts a streamlined litigation process for certain “environmental leadership development projects” and extends eligibility to additional housing projects. Previous legislation offering similar benefits to a narrower range of developments expired on January 1.
To qualify for judicial streamlining under SB 7, a project
Senate Bill 35 (Government Code section 65913.4) was enacted in 2017 as part of an effort by the State Legislature to increase housing production. The law compels local agencies, including charter cities, to issue streamlined approvals for qualifying multifamily residential projects, even, at times, where a project conflicts with a local ordinance. In Ruegg &
Petitioner could not avoid the deferential standard of review under the Planning and Zoning Law regarding an agency’s interpretation of its own general plan by framing the challenge as an “inconsistency” between the project and the general plan that required further analysis in the EIR pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. Stop Syar Expansion v County