January 2007

By William W. Abbott and Janell M. Bogue

Practitioners need to immediately review public notification status on all pending Subdivision Map Act applications. AB 2867 (Chapter 363, Statutes of 2006), which was effective on January 1, 2007, amends the notice requirements of the Planning and Zoning law. Continue Reading Effective January 1, 2007 Notice of Subdivision Map Act Public Hearings Must be Provided to Mineral Rights Holders

Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update

Abbott & Kindermann, LLP again presents their annual program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, real estate acquisition, easements, leasing and property acquisition, vineyard and winery development, and mining. Water quality and wetlands issues will also be covered. The focus will be on recent developments in case law, statutes and administrative regulations, and how these changes impact your daily business practices. Handouts will be available and there will be ample opportunity for questions.

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.

An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve your space now, call (916) 456-9595 and ask for Michelle.

By Kate J. Hart

California’s Fifth Appellate District recently decided the case of Wagner Farms, Inc. v. Modesto Irrigation District (December 6, 2006) 2006 Cal.App.Lexis 1923, which involves the awarding of costs for preparation of the record of proceeding (“ROP”) arising out of a CEQA suit. Plaintiffs filed the suit against the Modesto Irrigation District (“MID”), and requested that MID prepare the ROP. MID won in both the superior court and appellate court. MID then filed a memorandum of costs totaling $34,077.95 for preparing and filing the ROP. (All but $3,680 for copying costs went to the consultants’ preparation of the ROP.) Plaintiffs filed a motion to tax costs. As argued in Hayward Area Planning Assn. v. City of Hayward (2006) 128 Cal.App.4th 176 (see previous Abbott & Kindermann Land Use Law Blog article), the plaintiffs claimed that 1) MID impermissibly delegated the preparation of the ROP to its consultants; 2) the amounts requested for the preparation of the ROP were not adequately supported by the record; and 3) the amounts spent were not necessary or reasonable. MID provided only a declaration by counsel in support of its opposition to plaintiffs’ motion. Continue Reading Recent Case Examines Cost Recovery for Record Preparation Under CEQA