In plaintiffs-developers' suit against the city challenging its extension of an interim ordinance restricting development in areas zoned for multifamily residential uses raising various statutory and constitutional claims, judgment denying plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate and denying any relief on their complaint is reversed where: 1) trial court's denial of plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate as to the first count was improper as the city council failed to make findings required under Gov. Code section 65858(c) upon extending the interim ordinance and the extension therefore was contrary to law and invalid; 2) although it was improper for the trial court to deny plaintiffs' petition on their first count, plaintiffs have not shown prejudicial error in the denial of relief on their Permit Streamlining Act claim, and a CEQA violation claim is moot; and 3) trial court's entry of judgment on counts four through seven is reversed as plaintiffs were not afforded an opportunity to be heard on those counts which deprived them of their right to a fair hearing.
Filed November 23, 2009
Opinion by Judge Croskey
For Appellee: Jenkins & Hogin, Michael Jenkins and Christi Hogin