William Abbott will be speaking at UCLA Extension’s 27th Annual Land Use Law & Planning Conference on January 18, 2013 in Los Angeles, CA. For more information visit: www.uclaextension.edu/landuse.
When A Deal Is Not A Deal
By William W. Abbott
Summit Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles (December 10, 2012, B220198) ___Cal.App.4th ___.
In many situations, the settlement of a lawsuit is a flexible tool to resolve disagreements between parties and allow the participants to move on with their lives. A settlement with a public agency invokes slightly different considerations then a matter resolved exclusively through private parties. As previously noted in Trancas Property Owners Association v. City of Malibu (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 172 , a public agency cannot rely upon a settlement agreement to bypass a required land use approval step.Continue Reading When A Deal Is Not A Deal
As Lawsuits Begin In California Over Oil And Gas “Fracking,” The State Issues “Discussion Draft” Regulations For The Process
By Glen C. Hansen
For decades, oil and gas producers in California have been engaged in the process of hydraulic fracturing, commonly called “fracking.” That process involves injecting a high pressure stream of water and chemicals deep underground to split rocks and release oil and natural gas. The technique is designed to free oil and natural gas trapped in shale rock. There is a significant amount of such rock in California. For example, the Monterey Shale, which lies under Central California and the southern San Joaquin Valley, could hold up to 15 billion barrels of oil, making it possibly the nation’s largest oil shale formation and almost half of the nation’s total shale oil resources.Continue Reading As Lawsuits Begin In California Over Oil And Gas “Fracking,” The State Issues “Discussion Draft” Regulations For The Process
Mobilehome Park Conversions Trigger Coastal and Mello Act Compliance Requirements
By William W. Abbott
Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (November 29, 2012, S187243) ___Cal.4th ___. In a 6 to 1 decision, the California Supreme Court concluded that mobilehome park conversions subject to Government Code section 66427.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are also subject to the Coastal Act and Mello Act (the latter for affordable housing in the Coastal zone.) In 1991, the Legislature enacted Government Code section 66427.5. This new code section set forth the particular determinations under the Subdivision Map Act when local government was processing a subdivision map application for conversion of a rental park to an owner occupied park and was intended to narrow the scope of local government inquiry which might otherwise be permitted by the Subdivision Map Act when processing other types of proposed subdivisions. The 1991 legislation included language which stated, in conjunction with local government review of the tentative map, that “The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section.”Continue Reading Mobilehome Park Conversions Trigger Coastal and Mello Act Compliance Requirements
Two Major Projects Approved in Calistoga and Lincoln, California.
Calistoga, CA
Enchanted Resorts – A luxury resort project on Diamond Mountain in Napa wine country.
On August 21, 2012, the Calistoga City Council approved the Enchanted Resorts project and Environmental Impact report for a 110-unit luxury resort hotel and associated amenities, as well as 20 Residence Club units, and 13 custom residences. The resort hotel is set in a forested hillside setting on Calistoga’s Diamond Mountain. It is anticipated to employ as many as 200 persons in full-time, part-time, and seasonal positions. The project will incorporate a significant number of environmentally-friendly features including solar technology, electric vehicle use, and water-efficient landscaping. Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, with Diane Kindermann as lead counsel, represented the developers of the Calistoga Enchanted Resort project through the city’s approval process and successfully secured EIR certification, as well as land use entitlements which included: a general plan amendment, tentative map, rezone, conditional use permit, and a development agreement.Continue Reading Two Major Projects Approved in Calistoga and Lincoln, California.
Abbott & Kindermann, LLP Represented Three Clients In Successful Appeals Before The Third Appellate District
Abbott & Kindermann, LLP represented three clients in successful appeals before the Third Appellate District. William Abbott represented Siskiyou County and the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District inMount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, et al. v. County of Siskiyou, et al. and Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, et al. v. Siskiyou County Air
Save the Date!
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
EPA Tells Supreme Court Its Actions Were “Suboptimal” — But The Oral Argument On The Challenge To EPA’s Silvicultural Rule Raises More Questions Than It Answers.
The EPA issued a new rulemaking on the Silvicultural Rule on the eve of oral argument in the Supreme Court in a legal challenge to the earlier version of the rule. At oral argument, a host of new procedural questions were raised by the Justices about what to do with the existing lawsuit. And the arguments of counsel demonstrated that another citizen suit is likely on its way challenging the new rule.
Continue Reading EPA Tells Supreme Court Its Actions Were “Suboptimal” — But The Oral Argument On The Challenge To EPA’s Silvicultural Rule Raises More Questions Than It Answers.
First Link In High Speed Rail Project Clears Preliminary Injunction Hurdle In CEQA Litigation.
By Glen Hansen
On June 1, 2012, the County of Madera, the Madera County and Merced County Farm Bureaus, Chowchilla Water District, and other individuals and entities (collectively, “Petitioners”) sued the California High-Speed Rail Authority (“Authority”) on the grounds that the Authority had violated CEQA and the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act related to the approval of the approximately 75-mile Merced to Fresno section (“Section”) of the proposed 800-mile public transit project known as the High-Speed Rail project. Petitioners allege that that a significant portion of the Section would “deviate from existing transportation corridors, resulting in the destruction of and interference with thousands of acres of farmland, wildlife habitat, hundreds of homes, may businesses, commercial properties and industrial facilities, existing roads and water delivery facilities.” Petitioners further allege that the final environmental impact report (“FEIR”) for the Section contains “myriad analytical deficiencies,” fails to disclose and analyze “the full scope and severity of impacts,” and improperly defers “impact analysis and mitigation.” Petitioners also allege that the Authority violated the Open Meeting Act by not providing “the required notice for the substantive changes to the analysis of Section impacts and the scope of mitigation measures included in the Errata to the FEIR ….” Continue Reading First Link In High Speed Rail Project Clears Preliminary Injunction Hurdle In CEQA Litigation.
Multiple Harmless Errors Do Not Require Project Approvals Be Overturned Unless Prejudice Is Shown
By Katherine J. Hart
In Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899 (Rialto Citizens), the City of Rialto (City) and Walmart appealed a trial court’s grant of writ of mandate invalidating the City’s approval of a 230,000-square-foot commercial shopping center to be anchored by a 24-hour Walmart Supercenter. In its decision, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, discussed public interest standing to challenge a CEQA project, the import of defective notice of a public hearing, whether the approval of the development agreement missing a general/specific plan consistency finding was valid, and a myriad of other CEQA issues such as the adequacy of (1) the project description, (2) cumulative impact analyses on traffic and air quality, (3) the greenhouse gas analysis, and (4) mitigation measures for biological impacts, and whether the City properly rejected the reduced density alternative as infeasible.Continue Reading Multiple Harmless Errors Do Not Require Project Approvals Be Overturned Unless Prejudice Is Shown