By William W. Abbott
On February 15, 2013, OPR released its Technical Advisory on Senate Bill 244, a thoughtful discussion on how cities, counties and LAFCos can implement Senate Bill 244 (Wolk) of 2011. The purpose of this legislation is to recognize and facilitate improvements to disadvantaged communities. As with general plans, it is
By William W. Abbott
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2013, No. 11-15588) ___F.3d ___.
As part of its overall regulatory code, the City of Gilbert, Arizona enacted various sign regulations. The regulations generally require a City issued sign permit unless the sign qualifies under one of nineteen different exceptions. Three of the nineteen exceptions involved (1) temporary directional signs for a qualifying event, (2) political signs and (3) ideological signs. Temporary directional signs subject to the exemption were subject to specific limitations not applicable to political and ideological signs including size, location (excluded from public right of way), and duration (same day only).Continue Reading Born (again) Under a Bad Sign: Ninth Circuit Upholds Ordinance Restricting Duration, Location, Quantity, And Size Of Directional Signs for Church Services
The State Water Resources Control Board is poised to release a final draft of the Industrial General Permit by April 2013. Public comments will be received for 45 days, and a formal workshop will be held on May 8, 2013.
For more details visit: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/
By William W. Abbott
Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 1059. Troesh Materials, Inc. submitted an application to the County of Santa Barbara (“County”) to operate a new mine within the dry bed of the Cuyama River. The mine would be positioned way from the active streambed, and roughly 1500 feet upstream from an existing, active mine. Potential excavation could proceed to a maximum depth of 90 feet, with an average production of 500,000 cubic yards per year. Petitioner filed a CEQA petition for writ of mandate which was denied by the trial court. The ensuing appeal involved two topical areas: hydrological and water resource (supply/quality) impacts.Continue Reading Court Affirms EIR for 30 Year Mining Operation; erroneous impact conclusion did not invalidate the EIR
By Glen C. Hansen
In Windsor Pacific LLC v. Samwood Co. (January 30,2013, B233514) ___ Cal.App.4th ____, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held (1) that a prescriptive easement could not be established over two roads, where the facts in the case demonstrate that the party alleging the prescriptive use was equitably estopped from denying that its use of the roads was by permission; and (2) that a proceeding to interpret a written easement agreement in order to determine whether a party to the agreement is equitably estopped from claiming that its use of the subject property was permissive is an action to ‘enforce or interpret’ the agreement, for which an attorneys’ fees provision in the agreement applies, regardless of whether that interpretation was sought by the allegations of the complaint or by affirmative defenses in the answer.Continue Reading Court Strongly Reaffirms That No Prescriptive Easement Exists Where The Facts Demonstrate That The Use Of The Property Was By Permission
By Glen C. Hansen
In Wooster v. Department of Fish & Game (2012) 211Cal.App.4th 1020, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1250, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, held that a conservation easement recorded over 30 years ago is not extinguished or rescinded because the California Department of Fish and Game (“Department”) failed to post no hunting and no trespassing signs on the property as required by the conservation easement; nor is the grant of hunting rights to the Department (which allowed the Department to prohibit all hunting in the easement area) inconsistent with the statutes governing conservation easements.Continue Reading Court Holds That A Hunting Ban Is Unquestionably A Legitimate Aspect And Aim Of A Conservation Easement Granted To The Department Of Fish And Game
Abbott & Kindermann’s 12th Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2013.
In January and February 2013 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its 12th annual complimentary educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate
By William W. Abbott, Diane Kindermann, Elizabeth Strahlstrom, Katherine J. Hart, Glen Hansen, and Daniel Cucchi
We are pleased to present our cumulative Fourth Quarter CEQA Review for 2012. In addition to being italicized and bolded, the newest decisions issued in this fourth quarter are underlined and preceded by asterisks (***).
In terms of new developments, OPR is moving forward with its CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 226 (infill streamlining). Will cities embrace these new streamlining provisions?Continue Reading 2012 CEQA 4th QUARTER REVIEW
By Katherine J. Hart
In Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, considered whether the City of Newport Beach’s (City) proposal to develop the Sunset Ridge Park was reviewed in a piecemeal fashion (separate and apart from the adjacent proposed Banning Ranch project), and whether the environmental impacts of the park (e.g., cumulative traffic and biological resources impacts, growth-inducing impacts, habitat impacts) were sufficiently considered and mitigated by the City in its EIR. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment and denial of the writ.Continue Reading Neither A Shared Access Road Nor The Gnatcatcher Stop Sunset Ridge Park Project Under CEQA
By William W. Abbott
Central Basin Municipal Water District v. Water Replenishment District Of Southern California(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 943. Notwithstanding CEQA’s pervasive application, there are-on rare occasions-circumstances in which agency action is exempt from CEQA compliance. The most recent example involves a declaration of water emergency approved by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) in the Central Basin in Southern California. WRD manages groundwater for approximately 4,000,000 residents and 43 cities. In 1991, a trial court entered judgment pertaining to groundwater management in the basin. The judgment authorized WRD to declare a water emergency in circumstances in which the basin resources risked degradation. The judgment also included a “physical solution”, a phrase of art in water law, describing a comprehensive program for groundwater management. A consequence of the declaration of emergency is that the time period for extractors to remove and replenish water would be extended into later years.Continue Reading Declaration of Water Emergency in Furtherance of a Judgment Was Exempt From CEQA
