Sonoma County Housing Action Group v. City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Superior Court (2002). Comparison and order in the right of appeal against the inability of the city to take over an element of housing in accordance with state law. The installation requires the city to decide, among other things, an affordable overstocking zone, to unload affordable housing to significant increases in density and “by law” authorization. The colony also requires the city to designate a specific site for the development of homeless housing. (Co-counsel with David Grabill`s law firms.) “At the end of the day, we reached an agreement because I didn`t think a long legal battle would be productive for the team I have,” he said. “My energy would be brought to justice in this fight instead of being put in the attempt to develop Christian Vande Velde to get on the podium of the Tour de France, or for Tyler Farrar to win stages. Rogel v. City of Lynwood, Los Angeles County Superior Court (2006). Legal action on behalf of mobile-home park tenants in a park threatened by closure by the new owner who wanted to develop the market price of condominiums. The closure of the park and subsequent evictions are contrary to government laws on mobile parks, the city`s residential element, and state rehabilitation and relocation laws. The parties reached an agreement on the construction of at least 90 affordable housing units and on a review of all Agency activities. (Co-Counsel with Public Counsel, O`Melveny – Myers, Gibson, Dunn – Crutcher.) Community Housing Improvement Program v.
Stadt Orland, Bezirksgericht, E.D.C.A. (2001). The planned billing and judgment require the city to identify and approve the development of 48 farm workers` housing units by petitioners. The city had declared a moratorium on the construction of apartment buildings on the petitioner`s first site. (Co-Counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance.) Coplen v. County of Mendocino, Mendocino County Superior Court; First Court of Appeal (2004; 2008). Petition for the order to challenge the county`s inability to take over a residential element that provides sites for the development of housing affordable enough to cover the county`s share of regional needs. Pilp assisted legal Services of Northern California in securing a transaction, including the recovery of the disputed costs. The county has agreed to allocate 50 hectares for the development of apartment buildings. (Co-Counsel with Legal Services of Northern California, California Rural Legal Assistance and Law Offices of David Grabill.) Fontana Redevelopment Agency against interested parties, Orange County Superior Court (2003); 153 Cal.App.4. 902 (4th dist., 2007). appeal a court decision in a validation proceeding against the Agency`s attempt to validate a bond issue for exceeding the Agency`s debt ceiling and for failing to comply with its obligations to affordable housing; The measures also called into question the Agency`s attempt to confirm an agreement with the state that allegedly concluded an audit in which the agency allegedly diverted about $60 million from modest- and middle-income housing for affordable housing.
(Co-Counsel with Western Center on Law – Poverty, Inland Counties Legal Services and Law Offices of Cory Briggs.) “For me, now that cycling is becoming a more professional and bigger sport, there probably needs to be a more formal reform in terms of transfers,” he said. “That`s what`s going to have to come out of the work of the governing body. It will also have to come from the agreement of the teams involved. Lagunas v. Stockton Redevelopment Agency, U.S. Dist. Short, E.D. (1998). The action called into question Stockton`s “Gateway” renovation project, which wanted to demolish four one-room occupancy hotels and supplant residents to make room for a McDonald`s and a gas station.