On August 31, 2016, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 2299 which amends Government Code section 65852.2 relating to second units on residential houses. The law relaxes some of the impediments to building secondary or accessory dwelling units and limits the city or county’s ability to reject such units. The term “accessory dwelling unit” is defined as an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. Accessory dwelling units also include efficiency units (H&S Code § 17958.1) and manufactured homes (H&S Code § 18007). The purpose of the law is to boost the state’s affordable housing supply in a time when the state is facing a critical housing shortage. Continue reading
In Spring Valley Lake Association v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 91, the court emphasized the importance of being consistent with the general plan in planning and zoning decisions affecting land use and development in holding that the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) failed to support its conclusion that the development project complied with the general plan. In Spring Valley, the project at issue consisted of 214,596 square feet of commercial retail use on approximately 23.72 acres of land, which was vacant and undeveloped. Among the project’s commercial retail uses was a Walmart store of approximately 184,946 square feet.
Spring Valley Lake Association (“the Association”) brought an action against the City and Wal-Mart for writ relief challenging the EIR for the shopping center construction project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The lower court granted the petition in part and both parties appealed. Continue reading
The ruling in Jiminez v. Roseville City School District (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 594 is a cautionary tale to all schools concerning supervision of extracurricular activities on school grounds. In Jiminez, the relevant facts are as follows: The Plaintiff Uriel Jiminez (“Jiminez”) was a 14-year old middle school student. Jimenez was part of a group of students who were practicing break dancing on school grounds. One of the teachers (not a trained break dancing instructor) allowed the group to use his classroom for practice to participate in a talent show. The group had practiced in the teacher’s room on several occasions before the date of the incident. On the date of the incident, the teacher momentarily left the room, as he done in the past, and Jiminez performed a flip as part of the break dancing and was severely injured.
Prior to the date of the injury, the Assistant Principal had seen group members doing flips and told them to stop, but did not disseminate this information or a warning to the teachers to be on alert for this. The teacher who lent his classroom for the activity was not aware that flipping was part of the practice sessions. The operative complaint alleged negligence and negligent supervision. The lower court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Jiminez had assumed the risk of injury by participating in break dancing.