data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/30247/30247e5c2b8e407affec42d445aa17e4ce3531a1" alt=""
WEIGHT: 57 kg
Bust: SUPER
One HOUR:120$
NIGHT: +30$
Sex services: Toys, Toys / Dildos, Facial, Cum on breast, Games
After the City of San Mateo denied an application to build a ten-unit apartment building, petitioners sought a writ of administrative mandamus seeking to compel the project's approval.
The trial court denied the petition, ruling that the project did not satisfy the City's design guidelines for multifamily homes and that, to the extent the Housing Accountability Act HAA , Government Code section The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the design guideline the City invoked as part of its reason for rejecting this housing development is not "objective" for purposes of the HAA, and so cannot support the City's decision to reject the project.
Furthermore, because the HAA checks municipal authority only as necessary to further the statewide interest in new housing development, the HAA does not infringe on the City's right to home rule. The court rejected the City's remaining constitutional arguments.
The trial court shall issue a writ of mandate directing the City to 1 vacate its February 5, action upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny the application, and 2 reconsider the challenge to the Planning Commission's decision. The design guideline the City invoked as part of its reason for rejecting this housing development is not "objective" for purposes of the Housing Accountability Act, and so cannot support the City's decision to reject the project.
Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice.