Orange County judge sides with city in homebuilder's attempt to develop golf course property. City says Lennar's builder's remedy application is incomplete

CP&DR Vol. 38 No. 8 August 2023

Over the past five years, a company called Flannery Associates has been acquiring over $800 million of open and agricultural land near Fairfield in Solano County, with apparent ambitions to build a new city.

Three recent cases show how far the law can be stretched -- and how project opponents often sue for reasons that have nothing to do with that they're really upset about.

<p>Developer claims that under the Density Bonus Law, density and height can be calculated based on the entire site, not just an individual building.</p>

A dispute from the Livermore area suggests that general plan designations and zoning ordinances have not kept pace with renewable energy advances -- leading to interpretation disputes. In Livermore, the courts have sided with public agency interpretations and against environme

In the wake of the pandemic, some California downtowns are stronger than ever. Others resemble the walking dead. Both scenarios have inspired planners to get creative.

As in other cities, Redondo claims it "self-certified" its housing element, thus protecting it from a builder's remedy claim. The developer of the city's former beachfront power plant claims HCD approval was required.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development released its 2023-2024 Notice of Funding Availability calendar -- for $2.8 billion

When a court told the City of San Diego to engage in more CEQA review, the city abandoned the project. Then the plaintiff tried to get the city to conduct the review anyway -- but an appellate court overruled her.

Montecito homeowners said Santa Barbara County couldn't enforce its encroachment law because the county had to go through a CEQA process. An appellate court said the homeowners who blocked parking spaces on their road were the lawbreakers, not the county

In an unpublished ruling, appellate court uses "noisy Berkeley students" precedent to rule that human noise could be a significant impact under CEQA, thus killing infill exemption for project near USC.