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 Leslie Z. Walker

In Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Land Use Commission (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1, decided on June 19, 2008, the appellate court resolved the issues not addressed the first time it reviewed the case. (Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 810, reversed by Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission, (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372.) In this case, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District found that the Travis Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“TALUP”) was not inconsistent with the Air Force Installation Compatible Use Zone (“AICUZ”) and that the Solano County Airport Land Use Commission (“Commission”) did not abuse its discretion in adopting the TALUP.
Continue Reading The Rest of Muzzy Ranch: ALUCs Not Required to Adopt AICUZ Standards

By Janell M. Bogue

In the case of Coos County Board of County Commissioners v. Kempthorne (June 26, 2008) 2008 U.S.App.Lexis 13475, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reiterated that the appropriate way for a species to be removed from the protections of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) is via a petition for delisting. The court held that there is no mandatory duty imposed upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) to delist species through the five year review process. (See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(2).)…
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Confirms That USFWS Has No Ongoing Duty to Remove Endangered Species from List; Appropriate Method is to Petition for Delisting

By Rob Hofmann

The Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) has reaffirmed the judicial trend to give great deference to the terms of an executed real property purchase agreement as written, emphatically stating that the pre-litigation mediation provision at issue in Lange v. Schilling (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1412 “means what it says and will be enforced.” Substantial conformity with the provision requirements is not enough to qualify to recover attorney’s fees. Continue Reading Wronged Real Property Buyer Pays Dearly For Not Complying With Standard Purchase Agreement Pre-Litigation Mediation Provision

By Leslie Z. Walker

On June 26, 2008, the California Air Resources Board released a draft of the scoping plan required under Assembly Bill 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes 2006), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
Continue Reading Local Government Responsible for 1% of Statewide GHG Emission Reduction According to ARB Draft Plan

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. This is illustrated by the recent case of Christian v. Flora (June 30, 2008) 2008 Cal.App.Lexis 959.
Continue Reading Old Maps, Re-Subdivision Maps, and Relocated Easements

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?
Continue Reading Offers of Dedication and Public Acceptance; How Much is Enough and Reconciliation of Common Law Revocation with Express Provisions of the Subdivision Map Act

By Katherine J. Hart

In Moss v. County of Humboldt, et al (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1041, the Court of Appeal (1st Appellate District) held that a project previously studied under CEQA need not undergo supplemental CEQA review upon reapplication of the same project unless new information (supported by substantial evidence in the record) indicates there will be potential environmental impacts.
Continue Reading Re-Approval of Expired Entitlements Can Track Prior CEQA Documentation, Subject to the Substantial Change Doctrine

By Janell M. Bogue

In the case of Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (May 22, 2008) 2008 Cal.Lexis 6207, the California Supreme Court discussed several issues important to those who deal with CEQA. The Court held that the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“Department”) properly approved several timber harvest plans (“THPs”) for land located in Tuolumne County. In doing so, the Court examined the requirements for cumulative impacts analysis and the analysis of foreseeable actions.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Upholds THPs; Discusses Cumulative Impacts and Foreseeable Actions