Photo of Abbott & Kindermann, Inc.

Abbott & Kindermann, Inc.

Subscribe to Abbott & Kindermann, Inc.'s Posts
Follow:Read more about Abbott & Kindermann, Inc.Jeaninne's Linkedin Profile

By Glen C. Hansen

In Quail Lakes Owners Assn. v. Kozina (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1132, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District affirmed a trial court’s decision to grant a verified petition by a homeowners’ association for an order under Civil Code section 1356 to modify the association’s governing laws to reduce a supermajority voting restriction.Continue Reading Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Granting Verified Petition To Remove Supermajority Voting Restriction In CC&Rs.

Abbott & Kindermann, LLP is pleased to announce that two of its attorneys have been picked for the 2012 Northern California Super Lawyers list in the fields of land use and zoning: Kate Hart and William Abbott. More information is available at http://www.superlawyers.com/california-northern/. The firm is pleased to continue to serve private and public…

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit in Pacific Rivers Council v. United States Forest Service, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12553 (9th Cir. 2012), rehearing and en banc rehearing denied, held that the National Environmental Protection Act requires that a programmatic environmental impact statement analyze environmental consequences of a proposed agency action as soon as it is “reasonably possible” to do so, even if the agency has not made a critical commitment of resources regarding any site-specific project.
Continue Reading Did The Ninth Circuit Disregard Its Precedent And Impose A Higher Degree Of Analysis On Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements?

By William W. Abbott

In order to promote more logical urban development pattern, the extension of city services and to avoid underserved populations surrounded by more intense development typically with higher level of services, the legislature has periodically tinkered with the island annexation provisions. In 2000, the legislature created a streamlining provision for unincorporated islands of 75 acres or less, subsequently increased to 150 acres. Pursuant to Government Code section 56375.3, local agency formation commissions (LAFCos) may exercise a more streamlined annexation approval process and can waive the protest proceeding if an annexation is initiated by a city, and the property consists of an island of less than 150 areas. In 2010, Senator Gloria McLeod requested an opinion from the California Attorney General regarding administration of this code section. In July of 2012, the Attorney General weighed in with a formal opinion. While these opinions are not binding on courts or agencies, they are normally afforded great weight in terms of statutory interpretation. In other words, best to pay attention.Continue Reading California Attorney General Opines On Streamlined Island Annexations

By Glen C. Hansen

In RealPro, Inc. v. Smith Residual Company, LLC(2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1215, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court judgment sustaining a seller’s and their agent’s demurrer to a cooperating broker’s complaint to recover a real estate commission, where the cooperating broker presented a written offer of a buyer that was “ready, willing, and able to purchase the Property … on all material terms” contained in the listing, including an all cash purchase at the full listing price of $17 million, but where the seller did not accept the offer and a sale was never completed.Continue Reading What Is The Meaning Of The Word “Or”: A Real Estate Broker Commission Is Not Owed Even Though An All-Cash Offer Meets The Full Price In The Listing Agreement

Vested Rights, Vesting Maps and Development Agreements

William Abbott & Steven Rudolph

121LUP154

Thursday, August 23, 2012, 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

Sutter Square Galleria

Sacramento, CA

Development agreements are an effective avenue for a community and developer to come together and process a project. Both sides of the table need to carefully consider the terms of these contracts and explore questions of content and performance before completing such an agreement. Learn the legislative and judicial aspects of development agreements.Continue Reading Join William Abbott & Steven Rudolph this summer at UC Davis Extension Land Use and Natural Resources Program:

By William W. Abbott

Neighborhood activists organized to defeat the proposed demolition of the Van De Kamp Bakery Building for the construction of a new commercial building. With the support of the activists, the Los Angeles Community College District acquired the site in 2001 with the idea of developing a satellite college facility. The District completed an EIR and two addenda for a reuse plan for the building, but due to budgetary constraints, the campus was not developed. In 2009, the District adopted an interim use plan, and authorized the execution of a lease with a private education service provider. The District determined that the lease did not require additional CEQA review as it served the same functionality that the site had been analyzed for under the EIR and related documents. Appellants filed a CEQA lawsuit (CEQA I) challenging the 2009 approvals. In 2010, while the CEQA I lawsuit was pending, the District took further actions to implement the 2009 resolutions. Appellants then filed a second CEQA action (CEQA II), challenging the 2010 actions on the basis that they violated CEQA. The District demurred to the CEQA II lawsuit on the basis that it was duplicative of the first lawsuit and time barred by the statute of limitations running from the 2009 resolutions. Appellants argued in part that the District did not commit itself to a particular course of action until such time as the 2010 approvals were granted. Applying the 180 day statute of limitations running from the 2009 resolutions, the trial court determined that the CEQA II claim was untimely. The court also concluded that the second lawsuit was duplicative. The court dismissed CEQA II, and in the separate CEQA action, granted the appellants partial relief.Continue Reading Court Says No Second Servings in CEQA Case

By William W. Abbott, Diane Kindermann, Elizabeth Strahlstrom, Katherine J. Hart and Glen Hansen

Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2012 CEQA update. It is cumulative for the year, with the newest cases issued in the 2nd quarter bolded and referenced by asterisks (***).

The most notable decisions in the second quarter involves upholding an EIR which relied upon a future baseline (Neighbors for Smart Rail), a stark contrast to the Sunnyvale West case of 2010. The battle over the record of proceedings continues as the 3rd Appellate District specifies the proper legal procedure in the event of a dispute over the scope of the record (Citizens for Open Government) and the 5th provides continued clarification/elaboration on the scope of the record of proceedings in a CEQA writ (Consolidated Irrigation District v. Superior Court of Fresno County.)

In terms of pending developments, the California Supreme Court granted review in City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University and in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, two troublesome cases. On the administrative side, OPR is moving forward with the proposed CEQA Guideline amendments pertaining to infill projects (SB 226). For more information, see http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb226.php.Continue Reading 2012 CEQA 2nd QUARTER REVIEW

Appellate court affirms the decision of the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations denying exemption from paying prevailing wages for a seniors project in circumstances in which the developer utilized two sources of otherwise exempt funds.
Continue Reading A Combination of Otherwise Exempt Funding Sources Causes a Seniors Project to be Subject to Prevailing Wage Requirements