In Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure, (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, the court upheld the environmental review conducted for the new basketball arena for the Golden State Warriors (and related development), in what is known as the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan Area in San Francisco.  (See http://www.chasecenter.com/.)

Committee for Re-Evaluation of the T-Line Loop v. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1237, involved a CEQA challenge to the San Francisco MUNI’s approval of a project to construct a new streetcar loop in the southeastern part of the City.  MUNI determined that the loop project was part of a larger light rail extension project to provide service to that part of the City.  MUNI determined that no new environmental review was required because the earlier project was approved in 1998 in conjunction with a full environmental impact report, and that this project did not involve any new information, project changes or additional impacts that were not previously addressed (pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166).  Following the Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens case (discussed above), the court applied the deferential substantial evidence standard and affirmed MUNI’s decision.

©2017 Miles J. Dolinger

In Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Community College District, (2016) 1 Cal.5^th 937, the California Supreme Court resolved some issues about using the environmental review that was conducted for a previous project for a new or significantly changed project.  Essentially, the Court held that an an approving agency can rely on an old EIR as the environmental review for a new project as long as the old EIR retains some informational value to the analysis of the new project.

In Horiike v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co., (2016) 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 383 P.3d 1094, the California Supreme Court ruled that all salespeople working under a single broker in a “dual agent” transaction owe the same fiduciary duties to both buyers and sellers that the broker does, even if different agents within the brokerage represent the buyer and seller separately.

In Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Association v. McMullin, (2016) 4 Cal.App.5^th 982, the court of appeal affirmed a trial court ruling quieting title to a portion of planned development’s common area in favor of a homeowners association (HOA) in Laguna Hills.  In this case, a homeowner sought the HOA’s approval to construct several backyard improvements, including renovations to a pool, and new stairways, retaining walls and fences that dropped down the owner’s hillside towards HOA common area (Lot 274).  The HOA approved the pool renovations, but not the owner’s proposed re-grading, retaining walls and fences.  However, the owner’s constructed those improvements anyway, which had the effect of fencing in 6,000 SF of the common area, and the HOA sued.

In 616 Croft Ave., LLC v. City of West Hollywood, (2016) 3 Cal.App.5^th 621, the court of appeal held that the City’s in-lieu affordable housing fee was not subject to the reasonable relationship test under the Nollan/Dolan line of cases.  The subject project, an 11-unit condominium development on two combined lots, was approved in 2005, but because of the economic downturn the developer did not request building permits until 2011.  During that time, the City’s in-lieu housing fee under its 2011 fee schedule had increased to $540,000.00.  The developer paid under protest, and then sued the City for a refund in 2012, arguing that the fee was an illegal “exaction”.

In Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, (2016) 3 Cal.App.5^th 927, the court of appeal held that affordable housing requirements set forth in the Density Bonus Act (Gov. Code § 65915 et seq.) and the Mello Act (Gov. Code § 65590 et seq.) were superseded by development restrictions set forth in the California Coastal Act (Pub. Resources Code § 30001 et seq.).  The subject project included five new duplexes and five new single family homes in an old neighborhood in Venice comprised mostly of single-story 1920s-era bungalows.  The project also included density bonus concessions under the City’s density bonus ordinance, including higher rooflines and shorter setbacks.  Plaintiffs argued that the project violated the Coastal Act because its height, density, setbacks and other visual and physical characteristics were out of character of the existing neighborhood.

The California Legislature recently passed new rules making it easier, faster, and presumably less expensive, for people to get permits for new “granny units” otherwise referred to as “accessory dwelling units” (“ADUs”).  Senate Bill 1069, which was signed by Governor Brown on September 27, 2016 and takes effect on January 1, 2017, amends Government Code section 65852.2 to require local agencies statewide to amend their zoning ordinances to implement several uniform development requirements and restrictions on ADUs – both substantive and procedural.

The new substantive rules include the following:

• ADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence;
• Off-street parking requirements (not more than 1 per ADU or bedroom), may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway;
• No off-street parking requirements may be imposed on ADUs that meet any of the following criteria:
  • The ADU is located within one-half mile of public transit.
  • The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
  • The ADU is part of the existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure.
  • When the local jurisdiction requires on-street parking permits but does not offer them to the occupant of an ADU.
  • When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the ADU.
• In addition, a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any ADU located within its jurisdiction;
• ADUs shall not be considered new residential uses for the purposes of calculating local agency connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service;
• For certain types of ADUs, a local agency shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge;
• The floor area of an attached ADU shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing living area of the existing structure (increased from 30 percent). (Note: Unchanged are the existing restrictions that for attached ADUs the maximum increase in floor area is 1,200 square feet, and that the maximum total floorspace for a detached ADU is 1,200 square feet);
• A local agency may require an applicant to be an owner-occupant and may require that the property not be used for rentals for terms shorter than 30 days.

Railroad Trestle/Historical Resource.  In Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose, (6^th Dist. 2016) 2 Cal.App.5^th 457, petitioners challenged the City of San Jose’s decision to not to prepare a full environmental impact report (EIR) for a project to replace an old wooden trestle with a new steel bridge.  The trestle is a wooden railroad bridge that was built in 1922 as part of a “spur line” to provide “rail freight access” to “canning districts” near downtown San Jose.  The trial court struck down the City’s approval of the project, holding that petitioners had demonstrated that there was a “fair argument” that the project would have significant environmental impacts (thereby requiring an EIR), because there was a fair argument that the bridge was a historical resource.  However, the appellate court reversed, holding that the more deferential “substantial evidence” standard of judicial review applied to the City’s determination that the bridge was not a historical resource.

In Rancho Mirage County Club Homeowners Association v. Hazelbaker, (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, the court of appeal affirmed a trial court award of attorneys’ fees to an HOA in a lawsuit filed to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement with a homeowner.  The homeowner applied for and received approval from the HOA’s architectural review committee to make certain improvements to a patio area, however, the HOA contended that the homeowner made improvements that exceeded the scope of the approval and which would not have been approved had they been included in the application.