While land use litigation is not overly complex, it contains two procedural rules which occasionally trip up project opponents. First, CEQA requires that the petitioner request a hearing within 90 days. Public Resources Code section 21167.4 An oral request is insufficient. Second, if the challenge is to a tentative map approval, the petitioner must also obtain and serve a summons. Government Code section 66499.37. In Torrey Hills Community Coalition v. City of San Diego(2010) ___ Cal.App.4th ____, the appellate court affirmed the action of a trial court dismissing a writ petition on both grounds. With respect to the dismissal of the CEQA claim, the court held that an oral request was insufficient as it was non compliant with the statutory obligation to serve the request on all parties. The Map Act dismissal was more intriguing. Petitioner claimed impossibility as a form of relief, based upon declarations establishing that the San Diego superior court routinely declined to issue a summons in cases involving CEQA writs, a scenario we highlighted in an earlier write up. Notwithstanding the evidence that a summons would not have been issued in the case, the appellate court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient facts to claim impossibility. The appellate court followed its earlier reasoning as set forth in Friends of Riverside’s Hills v. City of Riverside (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 743, wherein the same court dismissed the related CEQA causes of action, based upon the non compliance with the Subdivision Map Act service rules. While the holding in Friends was published on November 24, 2008, and the 90 day period in Torrey Hills expired on December 15, 2008, there was no evidence that the petitioner had requested a summons between the publication date and end of the 90 day service period and consequently made an inadequate showing of impossibility.
William W. Abbott is a partner at Abbott & Kindermann, LLP. 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, 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.
From the quick fix solutions for the Delta to CEQA analysis on mitigation deferral, impact fees and the feasibility of alternatives, to the scope of the Corps permitting authority, the following legislation, regulations, and cases from 2009 (listed first by type of document, then in chronological order) will have the most impact on water supply, water quality, and land use and entitlement practice (e.g., development) in California in the coming years. And remember, you read it here first!
In 2001, the County of Inyo adopted an updated General Plan, which included a definition of “net acreage”. This definition excluded areas devoted to streets, roads and utilities. Over time, staff was concerned with interpretation of this provision as it related to utilities, and in 2005, the Board of Supervisors, based upon a negative declaration, amended the General Plan’s definition of net acreage, deleting the reference to utilities. The Board then acted to approve three parcel maps, each based upon negative declarations.
Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2010!
In January and February 2010 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its annual complimentary educational 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, and mining. In addition, the following hot topics for 2010 will be discussed:
Global Warming: CEQA Guidelines, Mandatory Reporting
Water Supply Legislation
CEQA Litigation: Alternative Analysis & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Subdivision Map Extension
Interpreting Development Agreements
Endangered Species Act
Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be presenting its annual program at three California locations: Sacramento, Modesto and Redding. Details for the seminars are below. We hope you can join us and look forward to seeing you there.
Modesto Conference
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010
Location: Double Tree Hotel Modesto, 1150 Ninth Street
Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Redding Conference
Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010
Location: Hilton Garden Inn Redding , 5050 Bechelli Lane
Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Sacramento Conference
Date: Friday, February 12, 2010
Location: Sacramento Hilton Arden West, 2200 Harvard Street
Registration: 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
Program: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
There is no charge for the programs and MCLE and AICP CM credits are available.
An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve a spot, call our office at (916) 456-9595. When calling, please specify which conference you will be attending.
Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2010!
In January and February 2010 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its annual complimentary educational 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, and mining. In addition, the following hot topics for 2010 will be discussed:
Global Warming: CEQA Guidelines, Mandatory Reporting
Water Supply Legislation
CEQA Litigation: Alternative Analysis & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Subdivision Map Extension
Interpreting Development Agreements
Endangered Species Act
Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be presenting its annual program at three California locations: Sacramento, Modesto and Redding. Details for the seminars are below. We hope you can join us and look forward to seeing you there.
Modesto Conference
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010
Location: Double Tree Hotel Modesto, 1150 Ninth Street
Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Redding Conference
Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010
Location: Hilton Garden Inn Redding , 5050 Bechelli Lane
Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Sacramento Conference
Date: Friday, February 12, 2010
Location: Sacramento Hilton Arden West, 2200 Harvard Street
Registration: 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
Program: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
There is no charge for the programs and MCLE and AICP CM credits are available.
An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve a spot, call our office at (916) 456-9595. When calling, please specify which conference you will be attending.
The Building Industry Association (“BIA”) scored a major success with AB 333, which protects many tentative maps by tacking on an additional statutory life jacket of 24 months. Chapter 18, Statutes of 2009 operates as follows.
Tentative subdivision maps scheduled to expire before January 1, 2012, are statutorily extended by 24 months. The new extension authorization, Government Code section 66452.22 is in addition to those already provided for by law, listed below:
Sixells, LLC v. Cannery Business Park (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 648 reminds buyers and sellers that when entering into a purchase agreement whereby the property must be subdivided, the Subdivision Map Act requires that a parcel map be filed prior to contracting for the sale or the sale must be expressly conditioned upon the approval and filing of a final map. The purchase and sale agreement between Sixells and Cannery Business Park failed to meet these requirements and was therefore void.
Posted on December 15, 2008 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Glen Hansen
In Friends of Riverside’s Hills v. City of Riverside (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 743, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District addressed some of procedural traps that can befall unwary litigants who seek to bring CEQA challenges to local land use decisions including subdivision approval.
The following case exemplifies that a developer cannot instigate litigation attacking a proposed ordinance until a municipal government has passed the ordinance in question. The matter of Stonehouse Homes, LLC. v. City of Sierra Madre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531, more broadly holds that to maintain a declaratory relief action, a plaintiff must be able to demonstrate a present conflict in addition to showing the existence of tangible injury.
The 2003 California Supreme Court decision of Gardner v. County of Sonoma (2003) 29 Cal.4th 990 left unanswered the status of pre-1929 subdivision maps. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District in Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (July 29, 2008) 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 1160 has now tackled one aspect of this issue in the context of a 1915 subdivision map.
The California Legislature borrowed a trick from California’s last economic downturn to assist struggling homebuilders. On July 15, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Senate Bill 1185 (Chapter 124, Statutes 2008), which, similar to previous legislation passed in the mid 1990's (Gov. Code, §§ 66452.11 and 66452.13) extends the life of approved tentative subdivision maps.
The Subdivision Map Act (“SMA”) contains a process for re-subdividing all or a part of an existing subdivision. When that occurs, public easements shown on the prior map are extinguished unless incorporated into the new map. (Gov. Code, § 66499.20 ½.) This sounds like a simple enough concept, but in reality, there is nothing truly simple whenever the facts involve dirt, the SMA and easements.
A common scenario in California counties involves the concurrent recording of a subdivision or parcel map, coupled with the subdivider’s offer of dedication of a road easement to the County. Frequently, the offer to dedicate goes unaccepted by the County. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act ("SMA"), this offer remains open and can be accepted by the Board of Supervisors at a later date. Government Code section 66477.2. Official action is not always required for the public to gain rights of use. Roads can also be informally dedicated to the public by public use, the question being, how much public use is required?
In an attempt to invalidate or, at a minimum, get damages for the California Coastal Commission’s (“Commission”) denial of a coastal development permit, Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. (“Pratt”) brought suit against the Commission, claiming that the Commission’s decision violated Pratt’s vested right to develop its property and, in the alternative, if the decision was valid, the Commission committed a regulatory taking by denying the coastal development permit. In Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1068, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District upheld the Commission’s denial of the permit and dismissed Pratt’s regulatory takings claim for lack of ripeness.
Posted on September 17, 2007 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
The California Attorney General was recently asked whether or not the grant of a conservation easement on a portion of a parcel constituted a “division” for purposes of the Subdivision Map Act. (Government Code, §§ 66410 et seq.) The AG concluded, as many surveyors, local officials and land use attorneys had already determined, that such a conveyance was in fact, not a subdivision. (California Attorney General Opinion 06-801, August 14, 2007.)
When does an easement cross over and become a “division of land” for purposes of the Subdivision Map Act? Apparently, not as frequently as suggested by the California Attorney General and noted California authority.
In Blackmore v. Powell (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1593, the Second Appellate District ruled on the validity of an easement granted between adjacent owners, which provided the grantee with the right to an exclusive easement for ingress and egress as well as the right to construct a garage within the easement area. In Blackmore, a property owner (grantor) granted an exclusive easement to an adjacent owner (grantee). The scope of the easement was for driveway purposes, including the right to build a garage within the easement area. Title to both the benefited and burdened parcels passed to subsequent owners, who then initiated the dispute over the nature and scope of the easement, as it related to the ability to construct and exclusively occupy a garage.
Citing "Exactions and Impact Fees in California" [1], the Third Appellate District ruled that the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66410 et seq.) 90-day statute of limitations trumped the longer Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66000 et seq.) timeline when reviewing a legal challenge to a subdivision map denial by the City of Chico. The case is Thomas Fogarty v. City of Chico (March 12, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.Lexis 339.
Continue Reading...
Posted on February 12, 2007 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Janell M. Bogue
The California Supreme Court recently held that in specific situations, a newly incorporated city has greater discretion to reject a final map when the tentative map was approved by the county. This case is City of Goleta v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County (2006) 40 Cal.4th 270. Continue Reading...
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...
Posted on November 27, 2006 by Abbott & Kindermann
By William W. Abbott
Older subdivision maps create a series of unique considerations. In the case of Wright v. City of Morro Bay (November 7, 2006) 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1752, the court wrestled with the status of a mapped but unused road. Property owners Wright and Reddell (“Wright”) owned property in the City of Morro Bay. The property was the subject of an 1888 subdivision (pre-dating California’s first subdivision ordinance, enacted in 1893.) Wright’s property was adjacent to a street (“Jordan Terrace”) shown on the subdivision map. Jordan Terrace had never been used a public street or for any other public purpose. In 1935 however, the City had accepted Jordan Terrace into the City street system.
Continue Reading...
Posted on September 11, 2006 by Abbott & Kindermann
By Kate J. Hart and Janell M. Bogue
In Ailanto Properties, Inc. v. City of Half Moon Bay (August 30, 2006) 2006 Cal. App. Lexis 1317, the First District Court of Appeal held that Government Code section 66452.6 (b)(1) limits the length of any moratorium-related tolling of the expiration of a tentative map to five years, regardless of the length of the moratorium itself. The court further held that when a phased final map does not conform to the requirements of the vesting tentative map ("VTM"), then the filing will not extend the life of the VTM pursuant to Government Code section 66452.6(a)(1) and (d).
Mahon v. County of San Mateo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 812
The "deemed approved" remedy for untimely processing must give heads up to neighbors -- what may be "deemed" is not what it seemed.
By Joel Ellinwood, AICP
Recognizing that the often seemingly interminable delay by local agencies in development permit processing drives up costs of providing housing and other desirable projects, the development industry succeeded in persuading the legislature to impose what at first glance appear to be strict timelines for the agency to approve or disapprove projects. The timelines are given teeth by provisions which may result in projects being "deemed approved" if the agency fails to act within the time provided. However, as the recent case of Mahon v. County of San Mateo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 812 (modified June 19, 2006) illustrates, the teeth don't seem to have much bite. This article will identify strategies for making the best use of what little bite is left to help manage the pace of development processing.
The Subdivision Map Act has a long memory. This is what a prospective purchaser of several parcels in Ventura County recently found out in Fishback v. County of Ventura (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 896. This decision is an excellent overview of the arcane world of antiquated subdivisions.
How far can a city council go in closed session in settling litigation involving a land use dispute? We have a better idea after reading Trancas Property Owners Association v. City of Malibu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1245 (rehearing granted October 26, 2005). In the eyes of the Second District Court of Appeal, the city council cannot (1) contract away the police power (the authority to apply later enacted zoning), and (2) make land use decisions which would otherwise be subject to a public hearing process.
In 1990, Terry Parkin, obtained approval of a tentative parcel map for a four lot residential development located in Orange County. The map approval included 37 conditions, some of which pertained to site grading. Sixteen months later, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan ("FTSP"). The FTSP approval included development regulations, and development and design guidelines. In regards to grading, the FTSP development requirements specified that no grading could be approved unless the County first approved a site development permit or use permit.
