“Cities throughout California must play by the same set of rules,” said Tamara Suminski, C.A.R.’s president and a Southern California broker and REALTOR®, in a statement accompanying the lawsuits.
Three cities, three legal theories
Each city is accused of a distinct form of non-compliance. In San Diego, the nonprofit alleges the city applied a “walking path” exemption to exclude large areas near San Diego Trolley stations, including parcels blocked by minor alleyways or sidewalk gaps. The plaintiffs argue state law bars cities from citing their own infrastructure shortfalls to restrict transit-adjacent development.
Separately, San Diego’s planning office is accused of publishing internally inconsistent maps that have complicated site review for developers. The case is filed as Californians for Homeownership et al. v. City of San Diego in San Diego County Superior Court.
The San Francisco lawsuit targets the city’s decision to designate portions of its land base as “industrial employment hubs,” a classification the plaintiffs contend does not comply with state standards for lawful exclusion under SB 79.
The city is also alleged to be improperly restricting access to California’s State Density Bonus Law, a key housing production tool. Spokesperson Jen Kwart said only that the city would “review the complaint and respond in court.”
