Defendant 1080 Delaware, LLC, the owner of a mixed-use residential rental project in Berkeley, appeals from a judgment compelling it to comply with a condition in the use permit for the project requiring compliance with the inclusionary housing ordinance of the City of Berkeley. Defendant contends the City may not enforce the condition, included in the use permit obtained by former owners of the property, because the ordinance has subsequently been preempted by the Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Because there was no dispute with the contention that the ordinance itself is now unenforceable, the issue is whether the City may enforce condition 10 of the use permit, which requires compliance with the ordinance, even though subsequent to issuance of the use permit the ordinance was held to have been preempted. Here, it is undisputed that 1080 Delaware did not file any action challenging Berkeley Municipal Code § 23C.12 within three years of the enactment of the Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 1996. Thus, due to the failure to timely challenge the use permit, condition 10 of the permit remains enforceable despite the subsequent determination that the ordinance has been preempted. The conditions of the permit remained enforceable against a subsequent owner of the property because Delaware’s predecessors in interest waived their right to challenge the permits. 1080 Delaware obtained the property in question with the same limitations and restrictions which bound its predecessors in interest, and waived, by its purchase of deed-restricted lots, any right to a property interest greater than that conveyed by their predecessors in interest. If the Regulatory Agreement entered by Adeli is no longer in effect, then under the terms of the ordinance and the trial court’s judgment, 1080 Delaware must itself specify the units that it will lease at below market rates. Because the second cause of action alleging a breach of the Regulatory Agreement was dismissed, the court found that there was no impediment to the entry of final judgment determining that 1080 Delaware is bound by and must comply with condition 10 of the use permit. Berkeley v 1080 Delaware, LLC, 2015 WL 403885 (Ca. App. Div. 3 unrep. 1/30/2015) The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A142162.PDF
Posted by: Patricia Salkin | February 27, 2015
CA App. Court Holds City May Enforce Its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as a Condition of the Use Permit despite Ordinance Being Preempted by Rental Housing Act
Categories
- Access to Government
- Accessory Uses
- ADA
- Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances
- Adirondacks
- Adult Entertainment Facilities
- Aesthetics
- Affordable Housing
- Aging
- Agricultural Uses
- Airports
- Alcohol Sales
- Alienation of parkland
- Amending Zoning
- Annexation
- Architectural Review Board
- Authority to Zone
- Big Box/Formula Retail
- Book Reviews
- Brownfields
- Building Codes
- Cemeteries
- Climate Change
- Collateral Estoppel
- Comprehensive Plan
- Condemnation/Eminent Domain
- Conditions on Approval
- Conservation Easements
- Constructive Approval
- Contract Zoning
- Current Caselaw
- Current Caselaw – New York
- Density Bonus
- Development Agreements
- Development Rights Agreements
- Discrimination
- Drones
- Dual Zone Parcel
- Due Process
- Easements
- Educational Use
- Endangered Species
- Energy
- Enforcement
- Environmental Justice
- Environmental Review
- Equal Protection
- Equitable Estoppel
- Ethics
- Exactions
- Exclusionary Zoning
- Exemption from Zoning
- Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
- Fair Housing Act Amendments
- Family
- Federal Preemption
- Fees
- FHA
- Financing
- first amendment
- Floating Zones
- Flood Control
- FOIL
- Food Trucks
- Formula Retail
- Fourth Amendment
- Fracking
- GIS
- Growth Management
- Hearings
- Highways and Roads
- Historic Preservation
- Home Occupations
- Homeland Security
- Host Community Agreements
- Hours of Operation
- Housing
- Immunity
- Impact Fees
- Incentive Zoning
- Intergovernmental Conflicts
- inverse condemnation
- Junkyards
- Laches
- Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling
- Mediation
- Medical Marijuana
- Mining
- Mobile Homes
- moratoria
- New Legislation
- Non-Conforming Uses
- Notice
- Nuisance
- Oceans
- official map
- Overlay Zone
- Paper Streets
- Pine Barrens
- Planned Development Districts
- Players in the Land Use Game
- Preemption
- Procedural Issues
- Certiorari
- Consent Decree
- Declaratory Relief
- Estoppel
- Final Decisions
- Findings
- Injunctive Relief
- Intervention
- Judicial Abstention
- Jurisdiction
- Legislative vs Adjudicatory
- Mandamus
- Mootness
- Necessary Parties
- Notice of Decision
- Prior Precedent
- Referral Requirements
- Res Judicata
- Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
- Time of Application Rule
- Property Rights
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Purchase of Development Rights
- qualified immunity
- Redevelopment
- Referenda
- Regional Planning
- Religious Uses – Non-RLUIPA
- Remedies
- Residency Restrictions
- Restrictive Covenants
- Rezoning
- Ripeness
- RLUIPA
- Second Amendment
- Section 1983 Liability
- Senior Housing
- Setback Requirement
- Short Term Rentals
- sign
- Signs
- Site Plan Review
- SLAPP Suits
- Smart Growth
- solar energy
- Special Facts Exception
- Special Use/Exception
- Spot Zoning
- Standing
- Statewide Planning
- Statute of Limitations
- Straddled Parcels
- Student Housing
- Subdivision Regulation
- Takings
- tatoo parlors
- Transfer of Development Rights
- Uncategorized
- Urbanism
- Utilities
- Variances
- Vested Rights
- Waivers
- Wetlands
- Wind Development
- Wireless Communications
- Younger Abstention Doctrine
- Zoning – Interpretation
- Zoning Administration
- Zoning Boards of Appeal
- Zoning Map
- Zoning-Adopting/Amending
Leave a Reply