Filings and Letters
|03.10.2016||Staff Report||March 10, 2016 Berkeley Zoning Board approved a zoning and general plan compliant proposal to tear down an existing single family house and build three single family houses in its stead. The approval was appealed to the Berkeley City Council.||link||City|
|07.12.2016||Staff Report||The Berkeley City Council disapproved the project, contra state law.||Berkeley|
|10.07.2016||Petition||CaRLA filed a petition in Alameda County Superior court asking the Court to force Berkeley to follow the state law.
Unlike you or I, who might be apprehended by police if we break a city, state, or federal law, there are no police that force cities to comply with the state laws that govern cities' behavior. The way cities get in trouble for breaking state laws is that citizens, non-profits or aggrieved businesses have to file petitions with the Superior Court, asking the Court to get involved.
|Stipulated Order||The City of Berkeley capitulated immediately. The city attorney agreed that Berkeley had no defenses, was clearly acting contrary to state law. The parties signed an order where the City agreed to reconsider the decision it had made, and make a new decision, in compliance with state law.||link||Court|
|02.28.2017||Meeting Agenda||Four months later, Berkeley City Council finally reheard the proposal for 3 houses at 1310 Haskell Street, item 25 on the agenda linked in the column on the right. Despite the order the Council had signed and over the objections of the city attorney, the Council voted the project down again.||link||City|
|05.25.2017||Petition||In response to Berkeley's decision, we did two things, (1) start a new lawsuit by filing a new petition ...||link||CaRLA/ SFBARF|
|05.26.2017||Motion||... and (2) file a Motion to enforce the order from the first lawsuit. So Berkeley is actually defending two lawsuits from us right now. We did this to cover our bases.
Linked here on the right is the Notice of Motion and the Motion itself. It is a very short document. Basically just "here ye, here ye, Berkeley broke their agreement with us."
|05.26.2017||Memo of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion||This document is more of what you probably expected to read. It has a narritive, and cites laws and cases in support of our Motion.||link||CaRLA/ SFBARF|
|06.07.17||Opposition to Motion||This is where Berkeley argues that we are wrong and Berkeley shouldn't have to approve the three houses.||link||Berkeley|
|06.07.17||Declaration in Opposition to Motion||This is funny document. In this document Berkeley's Manager of Housing Services outlines all of the wonderful programs Berkeley has to protect or create affordable housing. Of course none of this has anything to do with whether they broke state law.||link||Berkeley|
|06.07.17||Declaration in Opposition to Motion||Here is another declaration, this one by Berkeley's land use planning manager. It has a nice appendix showing how much housing Berkeley entitled and built over the last 5 years. Also, none of this is relevant for the lawsuit.||Opposition, Supporting docs||Berkeley|
|Reply||Petitioners' Reply in Support of Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement||link||CaRLA/ SFBARF|
|Exhibit to support the Reply||Link||CaRLA/SFBARF|
|07.21.2017||Order||We won. The judge agreed that Berkeley illegally disapproved the houses ... AGAIN. The remedy is that the houses are going to go back to Berkeley City Council to be reconsidered.
This is why passing the right laws can only get us so far. Sign up for the mailing list at the top of the page to be alerted when 1310 Haskell goes back to City Council.
|07.31.2017||Order||This is another Order, clarifying the one from 10 days ago. The project is going to go back to be heard by Berkeley City Council, but the judge clarified that if she sees us again, she'll order the permits granted. Little Bunny Foo Foo||Link||Court|
|09.19.17||Order||All of the parties agreed that Cristian would get his permits and we would get about $45,000 in legal fees from Berkeley.||link||Court|