By Janell M. Bogue
The California Supreme Court recently held that in specific situations, a newly incorporated city has greater discretion to reject a final map when the tentative map was approved by the county. This case is City of Goleta v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County (2006) 40 Cal.4th 270.
Continue Reading Timing is Everything: The California Supreme Court Says a Newly Incorporated City Can Refuse to Approve a Final Map
By William W. Abbott & Janell M. Bogue
Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (February 1, 2007, S132972) __ Cal.4th __ [2007 Cal.Lexis 748]
Few CEQA cases reach the California Supreme Court. Accordingly, it is noteworthy that the court has issued two decisions on CEQA issues in the past eight months. The most recent decision in Vineyard Area Citizens, provides added extensive guidance on the interface between water supply and CEQA. The case also provides a more limited analysis on EIR recirculation.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Weighs In Once Again on CEQA Compliance
By William W. Abbott and Janell M. Bogue
Practitioners need to immediately review public notification status on all pending Subdivision Map Act applications. AB 2867 (Chapter 363, Statutes of 2006), which was effective on January 1, 2007, amends the notice requirements of the Planning and Zoning law.
Continue Reading Effective January 1, 2007 Notice of Subdivision Map Act Public Hearings Must be Provided to Mineral Rights Holders
Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update – January 18, 2007
Abbott & Kindermann, LLP again presents their annual program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, real estate acquisition, easements, leasing and property acquisition, vineyard and winery development, and mining. Water quality and wetlands issues will also be covered. The focus will be on recent developments in case law, statutes and administrative regulations, and how these changes impact your daily business practices. Handouts will be available and there will be ample opportunity for questions.
Date: Thursday, January 18, 2007
Registration: 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
Program: 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon
Location: Sacramento Radisson, 500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento, CA 95815
There is no charge for this program and MCLE credit is available.
An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve your space now, call (916) 456-9595 and ask for Michelle.
Continue Reading There Is Still Time To Sign Up!
By Kate J. Hart
California’s Fifth Appellate District recently decided the case of Wagner Farms, Inc. v. Modesto Irrigation District (December 6, 2006) 2006 Cal.App.Lexis 1923, which involves the awarding of costs for preparation of the record of proceeding arising out of a CEQA suit.
Continue Reading Recent Case Examines Cost Recovery for Record Preparation Under CEQA
Remember to reserve your spot for the Abbott & Kindermann Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update on January 18, 2007.
Continue Reading Reminder: Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
By Janell M. Bogue
Recently, the Third Appellate District held that the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (“HCP”) was properly certified by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County (“City and County”) under CEQA and that the Department of Fish and Game (“DFG”) complied with the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”) in issuing its incidental take permits. The case is Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018.
Continue Reading HCPs and Hawks and Snakes…Oh My!
By William W. Abbott
When it comes to administrative appeals of land use decisions, state law largely delegates to cities and counties the choice of being flexible or rigid on administrative appeals (e.g. tentative subdivision map approvals, conditional use permits, CEQA documents). Most cities and counties opt for a de novo review by the appellate body. This means that the appellate body effectively starts over on the decision, and it is empowered to make any decision it deems to be appropriate under the circumstances. As illustrated by the recent decision of Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (Browman Development Co., real party in interest) 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1764, de novo review may permit a project opponent to challenge in court the adequacy of the CEQA document, even though the appeal to the city council was on non-CEQA grounds.
Continue Reading Local Administrative Rules Leave Door Open for CEQA Challenge
By Rob Hofmann
Cultural artifacts and Native American remains receive different levels of protection under state and federal law. This article discusses the different laws and recent changes brought about by the passage of AB 2641.
Continue Reading Effective January 1, 2007, the California Legislature expands landowners’ obligation to repatriate Native American remains and associated cultural artifacts
By William W. Abbott
Older subdivision maps create a series of unique considerations. In the case of Wright v. City of Morro Bay (November 7, 2006) 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1752, the court wrestled with the status of a mapped but unused road.
Continue Reading The Road Less Traveled, Or In This Case, Not At All
