Abbott & Kindermann Land Use Law Blog : California Land Use, Environmental & Real Estate Lawyer & Attorney : Abbott & Kindermann Law Firm : Sacramento, CA

While CEQA predominates many local government discussions of climate change, the state has taken a longer view as well, seeking input on strategies for local adaption to climate change. The draft handbook can be found at http://resources.ca.gov/climate_adaptation/docs/APG_-_PUBLIC_DRAFT_4.9.12_small.pdf. A state sponsored webinar will take place on May 15, and comments can be submitted electronically at http://resources.ca.gov/climate_adaptation/local_government/adaptation_policy_guide.html

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By William W. Abbott

James Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District (April 26, 2012, D058329) ___ Cal.App.4th ___.

In November 2006, the Imperial Irrigation District, based upon a negative declaration, adopted an Equitable Distribution Plan (“EDP”). The plan was designed to provide for the equitable apportionment of water in the event of a supply/demand imbalance. The governing board approved the plan which provided for a straight-line method of allocation among agricultural users during shortfall periods. Agricultural users were the largest users within the district, with industrial users making up a small percentage of the remainder. In 2007, the District adopted regulations implementing the EDP which provided more detail on allocations to non-residential users, including industrial. In adopting these regulations, the District relied upon the 2006 Negative Declaration. In 2008, the District adopted amended regulations, further refining the regulations. Language was added pertaining to new industrial water contracts. The District again relied upon the prior negative declaration, and relying in part on CEQA Guidelines 15162, concluded that no new environmental review was required. The petitioners then filed a CEQA challenge. The trial court denied the petition, determining that Benton v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467 was controlling, and under the traditional substantial evidence test (as compared to the fair argument test), ample evidence supported the District’s decision to rely upon the prior CEQA document. Petitioners dismissed their other claims without prejudice, then appealed.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Katherine J. Hart

In the most recent fee mitigation case, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156, the Third District Appellate Court held that a county was required to prepare a tiered EIR before adopting its oak woodland management plan and mitigation fee program.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Association of Environmental Professionals will be holding an MCLE as part of its Statewide Conference (May 6-9). Panelists include: Chris Butcher, Thomas Law Group; Braiden Chadwick, Downey Brand, LLP; Diane Kindermann, Abbott & Kindermann, LLP; and Tiffany Wright, Remy Moose Manley, LLP.

Navigating Projects through CEQA and Local Government Biological and Regulatory Policies (2 hours of MCLE Credit Approval Pending)

Wednesday, May 9, 10-11:30 a.m., Sheraton Grand Hotel, Sacramento, CA

Cost $50.00 at the door

To RSVP, please email amcintire@brandman.com; for more information about this, and other AEP Statewide Conference events, visit http://conference.califaep.org/.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Solano Press releases the third edition of Exactions and Impact Fees in California, co-authored by Bill Abbott, Harriet Steiner, Tom Jacobson, Peter Detwiler and Margaret Sohagi. This edition covers the next generation of impact fee practice and legal issues, including Proposition 218. For more information, click here: http://solano.com/processxml.asp?tid=EX12&StyleSheet=title.xsl

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By William W. Abbott

Duea v. County of San Diego (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 691

Proposition 13 changed the property tax rules in California in 1978. One of its many key features was the rolling back of the taxes, and limiting annual increases. A change in ownership was treated as a triggering event for purposes of establishing property valuation, and in turn, the recalculated property tax liability. Overtime, one of the important considerations in applying tax liability was whether a transfer took place. Subsequent to Proposition 13, the Legislature enacted legislation for purposes of defining certain transfers as not constituting a triggering event. Exemptions include acquisition through eminent domain, acquisition by a public entity, or governmental action resulting in a judgment of inverse condemnation.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Yesterday, OPR announced the new draft CEQA Guidelines on SB 226’s infill provisions. As always, the devil is in the details, and OPR does an admirable job explaining the basis for its intended direction. Notably, OPR stakes out the position that the traditional substantial evidence test applies, not the less deferential fair argument standard. It is hard to believe that this position will go unchallenged (think back to Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98.) Check out the draft Guidelines at http://opr.ca.gov/s_sb226.php.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By William W. Abbott

Sierra Club v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (April 20, 2012, A130980) ___Cal.App.4th ___.

In 1991, the California Legislature amended the Subdivision Map Act to restrict the use of boundary line adjustments by limiting their use to four or fewer adjacent parcels. Government Code Section 66412(d). While intended to deal with the reconfiguration of large ranches without going through the subdivision process, the 1991 amendment made the process of making minor technical adjustments between contiguous parcels unnecessarily more cumbersome then what was really necessary. (Essentially, the use of a nail gun to put in a thumbtack.) Local governments and engineers developed different strategies for working around the amendments. One of those was processing multiple sequential adjustments. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

In December 2011, we posted an article reviewing the Second Appellate District’s determination in Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455.

The petitioner, Ballona Wetlands Land Trust filed a petition for review on January 12, 2012. On February 2, 2012, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a request for depublication. On March 21, 2012, the California Supreme Court denied both the petition for review and depublication requests [2012 Cal. LEXIS 3142.] resulting in a decisive conflict between the reported cases on Guidelines section 15126.2, subdivision (a) and the text of Section 15126.2, subdivision (a) itself.

For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, real estate, environmental and/or planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann, LLP at (916) 456-9595.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link