Two years into the new Builder's Remedy era, only a handful of cases have been brought. But, it remains a point of intrigue and, arguably, had an outsized influence on how cities approach their housing elements.
Judge rules that Housing Accountability Act bond requirement applies in dispute over builder's remedy case even though the developer is not the plaintiff in the case.
Cities are moving aggressively to adopt objective design standards, now required in reviewing housing projects. But developers can use the Density Bonus Law to end-run some of the standards.
San Diego judge rules that Santee couldn't end-run a voter referendum by repealing approval and then passing an emergency ordinance moving the project forward. SB 330 was no help.
The City of Berkeley got hammered in court for violating SB 35 and the HAA by denying a project to be built on a parking lot on Native American shellmound property. Now the city has to pay the developer $2.6 million -- plus attorneys fees.
In a new lawsuit, the developer claims the city stalled the application so long it amounted to a denial. The city claims it is processing the developer's builder's remedy application.
Davis situation highlights the growing tension between local ballot measures requiring voter approval and the Housing Accountability Act's restrictions on project denial.
Two years ago, an appellate panel ruled that the controversial housing proposal should have been processed under SB 35 -- the first major ruling. Now the court has ruled that a local judge had the authority to rule on Housing Accountability Act violations as well.
