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 Hansen

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District in Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1561, vividly illustrates the conflict that can arise between the desire by local voters to limit housing growth, the local jurisdiction’s obligations under state law to allow construction of low and moderate income housing, and the local officials’ reluctance to thwart the voters’ desire in order to meet those state obligations. That conflict invariably leads to litigation, even years after a no-growth initiative is passed by the voters.
Continue Reading Is the Local No-Growth Initiative Conflicting With The Local Low-Income Housing Obligations? When Is It Time To Sue?

By William W. Abbott and Janell M. Bogue

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.
Continue Reading Revisiting History: When is a Recorded 1915 Map Not a Subdivision Map?

By Cori Badgley

In the area of prescriptive easements, courts and practitioners have been challenged by the issue of who has the burden to prove “adverse use.” “The elements necessary to establish an easement by prescription are open and notorious use of another’s land, which use is continuous and uninterrupted for five years and adverse to the land’s owner.” Some courts have held that by providing evidence that the use is open, notorious and continuous, a presumption arises that the use is also adverse, and therefore, the defendants, and not the plaintiffs, must prove that the use is not adverse. The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District in Grant v. Ratliff (July 16, 2008) 2008 Cal.App.Lexis 1063, disagreed with these courts.
Continue Reading Long-time Debate Over Presumptions in Prescriptive Easement Cases Settled by Second Appellate District

By Cori Badgley

Generally, when a plaintiff challenges the action of a government agency, the plaintiff has the burden to overcome the presumption that the government agency acted lawfully. In regards to special assessments falling within the protections of Proposition 218, the burden shifts. When a plaintiff challenges a special assessment, the government agency has the burden to prove that it acted lawfully, and the court reviews the agency’s decision de novo.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Rules Open Space Assessment is Invalid Special Tax Under Proposition 218

By The Attorneys of Abbott & Kindermann, LLP

Readers of the Land Use Law Blog know that we host an annual land use update; the most recent on January 24, 2008. At that event, we review the most important developments in land use, environmental, and real estate law from the previous year. Our next annual update is planned for January 22, 2009 and more details will be forthcoming.

This year, we are also providing a mid-year update on the blog, covering the most significant developments from the first half of this year. Click on the link below to read the entire mid-year update and listen to audio commentary.
Continue Reading Abbott & Kindermann Land Use Law Blog 2008 Mid-Year Review

By Leslie Walker

For the general public, the most exciting events so far this year on the climate change front have been at the national level. The Secretary of the Interior announced that the Polar Bear is a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) because reduced sea ice coverage threatens its habitat; and Congress hotly debated, and then rejected, a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 66% below 2005 levels by 2050.Continue Reading Mid Year Heat Up: Climate Change January-July 2008

By Leslie Z. Walker and William W. Abbott

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. Continue Reading Senate Bill 1185: Legislature Puts Time on the Side of Tentative Subdivision and Parcel Maps, But Drafting Error May Trigger Follow-Up Legislation

By Cori M. Badgley

In St. Vincent’s School for Boys v. City of San Rafael (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 989, the court addressed various issues relating to the City of San Rafael’s (“City”) approval of a new general plan. The court also addressed a claim brought by the City against St. Vincent’s School for Boys (“St. Vincent’s”) regarding obtaining reasonable costs for record preparation.
Continue Reading Unwanted, Now Unplanned: City Says “No” to Annexation and Draws the Line on City Expansion