After 12 arduous years, the 315-unit Terraces of Lafayette apartment project is finally clear to be constructed now that the California Supreme Court rejected Save Lafayette’s request for review.  The Court also rejected Save Lafayette’s request that the California Supreme Court depublish the Court of Appeal’s unanimous opinion affirming the Contra Costa Superior Court’s ruling that the City of Lafayette validly complied with both the Housing Accountability Act and the California Environmental Quality Act in finally approving the project. The 20% affordable project was the centerpiece of ..read more

On January 26, 2023, in Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore, __Cal.App.5th __ (2021) (Case No. A164987), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court decision rejecting a local NIMBY group’s challenge to an affordable housing project in downtown Livermore on the grounds that the project is inconsistent with state and local planning and zoning laws and that the project was not exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.  The Court also affirmed the trial court’s decision to require the NIMBY group to post a bond as security for costs and damages ..read more

The Terraces of Lafayette is a 315-unit housing development project in Lafayette, California that is perhaps the poster child project under the state’s most important housing production law, known as the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code 65589.5’ “HAA”).  The project gave rise to the YIMBY movement and the notion of “suing the suburbs.”  Intensely opposed for years by an uncompromising local NIMBY group known as Save Lafayette, as well as by a longtime member of Save Lafayette who ran for office to oppose the project and became a councilmember in 2018, the project has been referr ..read more

On January 1, 2023 Assembly Bill 2234, an important new post-entitlement accountability and streamlining law that amends the Housing Accountability Act and adds new sections to the Planning and Zoning Laws, takes effect in California. Unlike other recent legislation specifically addressing the entitlement process so as to significantly curtail local authority over housing development projects, AB 2234 focuses only on the post-entitlement permitting process, which is frequently plagued by local agency delays once a new housing project has been approved. The categories of post-entitlement permit ..read more

California is in the midst of the 6th Regional Housing Needs Allocation cycle known as RHNA, a state-mandated process that requires all cities and counties to timely update the housing elements of their general plans to plan for their fair share of California’s housing needs to people of all income levels.  Many cities have failed to timely adopt an updated housing elements in substantial compliance with state housing element law and more are expected to follow, giving rise to the viable use of the colloquially-named “Builder’s Remedy” in the Housing Accountability Act. Often referred to ..read more

NIMBY project opponents rely on an ever-shifting array of flimsy arguments to challenge new housing developments, especially those with affordable housing components.  Among the most frequently stated concerns is the notion that building new affordable housing will reduce local property values and/or increase crime.  Many studies have been conducted that show the fallacy of these assertions.  The latest comes from the Livable Cities Lab at UC Irvine, which studied the effect on local housing values and local levels of crime following the construction of affordable housing in the ..read more

In late 2020, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the creation of a “Housing Strike Force” within the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce state housing laws by beginning to put teeth into often-ignored laws that restrict local authority over new housing development. The City of Encinitas is the latest city to be on the receiving end of a letter from the Attorney General.  In particular, on March 24, 2022, the Attorney General wrote a letter to Encinitas concluding that the City’s November 2021 disapproval of a 277-unit apartment project violated state law, encour ..read more

On February 2, 2022, in Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego, __ Cal.App.5th __ (Case No. D077963), the Fourth District Court of Appeal relied on fundamental provisions of California’s Density Bonus Law in rejecting a challenge by local NIMBY’s to a 20-story mixed-use project in San Diego on the grounds that the project is inconsistent with the neighborhood because it is too dense, too tall, and too close to the street.  The Court recognized that the NIMBY group sidestepped the implications of the Density Bonus Law, which shapes and limits a city’s discretion in reviewing a project. The ..read more

On January 12, 2022, in Old East Davis Neighborhood Association v. City of Davis, __ Cal.App.5th __ (Case No. C090117), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court decision that granted a writ petition in favor of project opponents on the basis that the record did not support the City’s decision.  In so doing, the Court applied a deferential standard of review and affirmed the City’s general plan consistency determination, holding that the decision was not unreasonable and that substantial evidence supported approval of a mixed-use project. The project is four stories, with ..read more

For decades developers and landowners have considered San Francisco as a City that is unfriendly to property rights.  From the City’s Hotel Conversion Ordinance, which severely restricts the conversion of hotels from residential to tourist use, to the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, which gives non-profit organizations the right of first offer and the right of first refusal to purchase certain multi-family properties offered for sale in the City, San Francisco has a longstanding reputation as being hostile to constitutionally-protected property rights. It comes as no surprise, then ..read more