December 2006

Remember to reserve your spot for Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update. 

Date: Thursday, January 18, 2007

Registration:8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast

Program:9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon

Location:Sacramento Radisson
500 Leisure Lane
Sacramento, CA 95815

There is no charge for this program and MCLE credit is available.

To reserve your space now, call (916) 456-9595 and ask for Michelle.

By Janell M. Bogue

Recently, the Third Appellate District held that the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (“HCP”) was properly certified by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County (“City and County”) under CEQA and that the Department of Fish and Game (“DFG”) complied with the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”) in issuing its incidental take permits. The case is Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018. Continue Reading HCPs and Hawks and Snakes…Oh My!

By William W. Abbott

When it comes to administrative appeals of land use decisions, state law largely delegates to cities and counties the choice of being flexible or rigid on administrative appeals (e.g. tentative subdivision map approvals, conditional use permits, CEQA documents). Most cities and counties opt for a de novo review by the appellate body. This means that the appellate body effectively starts over on the decision, and it is empowered to make any decision it deems to be appropriate under the circumstances. As illustrated by the recent decision of Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (Browman Development Co., real party in interest) 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1764, de novo review may permit a project opponent to challenge in court the adequacy of the CEQA document, even though the appeal to the city council was on non-CEQA grounds. Continue Reading Local Administrative Rules Leave Door Open for CEQA Challenge