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

Second Annual Open House on Condominiums, Townhomes, and Higher Density Development: “A Lot In Common”

Presented by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP

This “open house” style gathering will focus on bringing together the diverse groups of people involved in multi-family developments, including architects, title companies, engineers, attorneys, and builders. It provides an opportunity to meet others in the field, exchange ideas, and network. There will also be short presentations on current issues and topics of interest in the field.
“A Lot In Common” is a valuable chance to discuss important issues with those experienced in the unique area of high density developments.
There is no charge for admission and a continental breakfast
will be served. Reservations are not required. If you have any questions, please call Abbott & Kindermann, LLP at (916) 456-9595.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006
9am to 12 noon
Sacramento Radisson
500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento, CA

No charge for admission and a continental breakfast will be served. Reservations not required, but questions can be directed to Abbott & Kindermann, LLP at 916-456-9595.
Continue Reading A Lot In Common – 2006

By Elias E. Guzman
A court recently held in Peak Investments v. South Peak Homeowners Association, Inc. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1363, that the Davis-Stirling Act (“Act”) requires that a proposed CC&Rs amendment must be approved by a simple majority of the HOA members before a court may properly reduce the percentage of votes set by the CC&Rs.
Continue Reading Court Shuts Off Civil Code §1356 Safety Valve…Well, Halfway At Least

By Joel Ellinwood, AICP
Recognizing that the often seemingly interminable delay by local agencies in development permit processing drives up costs of providing housing and other desirable projects, the development industry succeeded in persuading the legislature to impose what at first glance appear to be strict timelines for the agency to approve or disapprove projects. The timelines are given teeth by provisions which may result in projects being “deemed approved” if the agency fails to act within the time provided. However, as the recent case of Mahon v. County of San Mateo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 812 (modified June 19, 2006) illustrates, the teeth don’t seem to have much bite…
Continue Reading Take Notice!

Bill Abbott was once again selected as a “Super Lawyer” by the Law & Politics publication 2006 Northern California Super Lawyers for his work as a land use attorney. Only five percent of Northern California attorneys are selected for this honor using a nomination system and rigorous peer review.

By Diane Kindermann Henderson and Elias E. Guzman

Two weeks after the United States Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Rapanos/Carabell, et al. v. United States (2006) 126 S.Ct. 2208, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas delivered an opinion in United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Co. (D. Tex. June 28, 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47210. The court in Chevron was the first federal district court to apply the Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdictional authority standards enunciated in Rapanos. In granting summary judgment, the Chevron court opined that the connection of generally dry channels and creek beds does not create a “significant nexus” to a navigable water simply because one fed into the next during the rare times of actual flow.
Continue Reading District Court Struggles with Rapanos in U.S. v. Chevron Pipe Line

By William W. Abbott
There is no middle of the road for Wal-Mart Stores. People are passionate on both sides, which includes the lawyers and consultants caught in the debate as it appears that Wal-Mart, as a single entity, generates more CEQA litigation than any other California applicant. Recent Wal-Mart litigation, Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, illustrates the importance of the small details in CEQA litigation…
Continue Reading The Importance of the Mundane in CEQA Litigation: It’s All in the Details

By William W. Abbott
Unlike other areas of CEQA practice, there has been less frequent and less critical analysis of what constitutes a valid finding of infeasibility. The recent decision in San Diego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District begins to shed light on what is likely to be a new chapter of CEQA challenges.
Continue Reading Mitigation Infeasibility: New Thinking on an Old Issue

By William W. Abbott

So what happens if you host an election party, and not enough people vote for an assessment? According to the California Attorney General, a community service district is not obligated to provide road maintenance services and snow removal to an existing zone within the district if the voters reject an increase…

By Janell M. Bogue

As cities and developers look inward for new development opportunities, the dark cloud of CEQA is never far away. The legislature has attempted to facilitate infill opportunities by narrowing CEQA’s application. This case illustrates how far this infill exemption can reach. In Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (May 8, 2006) 2006 Cal.App.Lexis 684, developers proposed an urban infill project in the City of San Diego (“City”) near the northwest corner of Balboa Park. The project, a fourteen-story, fourteen-unit multi-family residential building, was approved by the City and found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Guidelines section 15332. A neighborhood preservation group filed for a writ of mandate and after losing at the trial court level, the neighborhood group appealed, claiming that the project was not exempt from CEQA and that the City reviewed the project in a piecemeal fashion.
Continue Reading More Infill, More Problems: The Categorical CEQA Exemption for Infill Developments