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

By William W. Abbott

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.

• Email This
• Print

By William W. Abbott

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?

• Email This
• Print

By Cori M. Badgley and Kate J. Hart

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.

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Z. Walker and William W. Abbott

This article discusses steps that can add life to existing tentative subdivision map approvals until such time as development opportunities improve.

• Email This
• Print

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.)

• Email This
• Print

By William W. Abbott

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.

• Email This
• Print

By William W. Abbott

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.

• Email This
• Print

By Janell M. Bogue

The recently decided case of Black Hills Investments, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 883 illustrates the importance of contract language when selling parcels of land before a valid map has been filed.

• Email This
• Print

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.

• Email This
• Print

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.

• Email This
• Print

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.

• Email This
• Print

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).

• Email This
• Print

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.

• Email This
• Print

by Robert T. Yamachika

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.

• Email This
• Print

by William W. Abbott

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.

• Email This
• Print

by William W. Abbott

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.

• Email This
• Print