Skip to main content

California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

Fonseca v. City of Gilroy, H028369

Denial of a petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside defendant city-s General Plan on the basis that its housing element does not meet or substantially comply with the requirements of the "Housing Element Law," is affirmed over claims that the 2002 housing element: 1) does not contain an inventory of available residentially zoned land identified by parcel or site, and it also fails to provide the required analysis of these sites; 2) does not identify adequate housing sites that will be made available to meet Gilroy-s allocated share of the regional housing need at all income levels for the 2001-2006 planning period; 3) does not alternately provide sufficient housing sites that are zoned to permit multifamily residential use -by right- in order to otherwise meet the regional housing need; and 4) fails to zone sufficient residential sites at appropriate densities to facilitate the development of the regional housing need at each income level-read the lower income levels-during the current planning period.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 03/23/2007
  • Published 03/23/2007


  • DUFFY, J.


  • California Court of Appeal


  • For Appellant:
  • James F. Zahradka II,Kyra Kazantzis, Public Interest Law Firm, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Phyllis S. Katz, CA Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Gilroy, CA, Richard A. Marcantonio Public Advocates Inc., for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

  • For Appellees:
  • Andrew L. Faber, Linda A. Callon, Thomas P. Murphy, Berliner Cohen, San Jose, for Defendants and Respondents.
Copied to clipboard