Search Results

A Jurupa Valley landowner seeking to build a 10-unit-per-acre mobile home park in a 2-unit-per-acre residential zone doesn’t need a general plan amendment to move the application forward, an appellate court has ruled. The court seemed to place the zoning code above the general plan, but it also found provisions in the general plan that seemed to support the project.

A suburban-style Roseville shopping center properly qualifies for an Article 32 infill exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act, an appellate court has ruled in an unpublished decision. The shopping center’s exemption had originally been challenged by nearby residents because a fast-food restaurant was included, saying that was an “unusual circumstance” that permitted as exception to the exemption. When the fast-food restaurant was removed from the project, the residents switched to the argument that the possibility of traffic cutting through the adjacent neighborhood constituted an unusual circumstance. But the Third District Court of Appeal ruled for the city. While acknowledging that nearby residents feared cut-through traffic on Camino Real Way, an adjacent private road, the court wrote, “the record contains no factual foundation supporting the proposition that the approved project will create significant traffic-related safety issues for residents of the subdivision due to increased traffic on Camino Real Way from non-residents.” The case arose from a proposal to construct a Grocery Outlet supermarket that included three parcels allowing three separate businesses, including a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through. During the approval process, neighbors argued that the fast-food restaurant would create significant traffic and noise impacts that would disqualify the use of Article 32 exemption. However, the city concluded that it could not approve the fast-food restaurant and retain the Article 32 exemption. Subsequently the developer withdrew the fast-food restaurant from the project, though a future retail or restaurant development on that project remained possible. In court, the neighbors argued that the possibility of cut-through traffic was an unusual circumstance and that the city piecemealed the project by excluding the fast-food pad from its decision to apply the exemption.

In the latest housing element skirmish from Redondo Beach, an appellate court has ruled that the city’s mixed-use overlay district doesn’t meet the requirements of the housing element law.

An appellate court has upheld San Diego’s revised impact fee ordinance, saying it meets the Nollan/Dolan standard. But the unpublished ruling depends heavily on the Ehrlich ruling from the 1980s, which the U.S. Supreme Court recently repudiated.

Eden Housing has been trying to build an affordable housing project in Downtown Livermore since 2018. Two local groups with the same backer have gone to court with different lawsuits to stop the project – or at least move it.

San Diego’s Midway redevelopment project has been held up by litigation again, as an appellate court has ruled – for the second time – that the city did not prepare adequate environmental documents in preparation for a ballot measure lifting the city’s 30-foot coastal height limit. In reversing a lower court ruling, the appellate court also concluded that the state’s reforms of the California Environmental Quality Act adopted back in June do not apply to the Midway plan.

The acrimonious battle between the City of San Diego and La Jolla citizens who want a separate city continues in court – with the citizens recently winning a battle to throw out a lawsuit from the city on anti-SLAPP grounds. The judge in the case essentially concluded that the citizens’ attempt to move the La Jolla incorporation attempt forward constitutes free speech.

The owners of a Long Beach gas station wanted to add a car wash. But the property is adjacent to a school and in close proximity to several other gas stations, and Long Beach Unified claimed that the air quality analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act was inadequate.

A Santa Barbara developer with a pending builder’s remedy project has sued the state in federal court, claiming a new law violates the developer’s constitutional rights. The developer’s lawsuit also names the City of Santa Barbara as a defendant, claiming that the city’s overlay zone does not conform with state Housing Element law. The overlay claim builds on a recent appellate court ruling from Redondo Beach. (Previous CP&DR coverage about that ruling can be found here .)

The City of Fresno has been ordered to overturn its decision to deny a multifamily housing project and instead approve the 82-unit project.

A few months ago, a Los Angeles judge ruled – in a fairly technical opinion – that SB 9, the lot-split law, is unconstitutional for charter cities. But after a new state law was passed clarifying SB 9’s intent, an appellate court has tossed the case back to the judge to reconsider it. Another appellate ruling declaring SB 9 constitutional as it relates to general-law cities still stands. SB 9, which went into effect in 2022, essentially did away with binding single-family zoning in most parts of California. The law permits landowners build up to four units on their single-family parcel by to splitting their parcels in two and build two units on each of the resulting parcels, all by ministerial action. The bill was very controversial during legislative debate in 2021 and has received a lot of national publicity. However, its actual effect has been limited. Relatively few single-family parcel owners have chosen to go the SB 9 route. The general consensus is most single-family homeowners find it easier to add an accessory dwelling unit on the property, an action that is also available by ministerial approval thanks to a different state law. Decades ago, California declared that both a shortage of housing and a lack of affordable housing as matters of statewide concern, thereby allowing the state to override the California Constitution’s guarantee of local home rule. SB 9, however, mentioned only “affordable housing” and not “a lack of housing supply” as the justification for interfering with home rule. This was the basis of the constitutional challenge brought by several cities led by Redondo Beach. Other cities involved in the lawsuit include Carson, Cerritos, Torrance, and Whittier. That led Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin to rule in favor of the cities in 2024, saying that housing affordability and housing supply are not the same thing. ( CP&DR ’s coverage of Kin’s ruling can be found here. ) This year, however, the Legislature passed SB 450, which expanded the purpose of SB 9 to include housing supply as well as affordability. For this reason, Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office argued that Kin’s ruling no longer applied. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed with Bonta and sent the case back to Kin. “We agree that the amended language of SB 450 is an intervening change in law that is entitled to consideration by the trial court in determining the constitutionality of the statute,” the court wrote. The appellate court also overturned Judge Kin’s award of $270,000 in attorney’s fees to the city and sent that issue back to him for reconsideration as well. Meanwhile, a different appellate court ruling stating that SB 9 applies to general law cities still stands. That ruling was issued by the Second District in January. ( CP&DR ’s coverage of that ruling can be found here .) The Case: City of Redondo Beach v. Bonta , No. B338990 (unpublished, issued November 12, 2025) The Lawyers: For Redondo Beach: Michelle L. Villarreal, Aleshire & Winder, mvillarreal@awattorneys.com For Attorney General’s Office: Kevin J. Kelly, kevin.kelly@doj.ca.gov , Deputy Attorney General

The University of San Francisco Health Center’s expansion plans are exempt from the City of San Francisco’s local development regulations – even though at least some of the expansion plans are intended to facilitate UCSF’s business goals rather than the university’s educational mission.