Land Use, Environmental, and Real Estate Law in California
By Leslie Z. Walker
In California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, the Sixth District Court of Appeals upheld an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the master plan of a greenbelt, against appellant’s attack on the range of alternatives and findings of infeasibility.
Continue Reading Petitioners Fail to Demonstrate that the City Failed at the Two-Step
Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2010!
In January and February 2010 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will presents its annual complimentary educational 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, and mining. In addition, the following hot topics for 2010 will be discussed:
Global Warming: CEQA Guidelines, Mandatory Reporting
Water Supply Legislation
CEQA Litigation: Alternative Analysis & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Subdivision Map Extension
Interpreting Development Agreements
Endangered Species Act
Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be presenting its annual program at three California locations, Sacramento, Modesto and Redding. Details for the seminars are below. We hope you can join us and look forward to seeing you there.
Modesto Conference
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010
Location: Double Tree Hotel Modesto, 1150 Ninth Street
Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Redding Conference
Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010
Location: Hilton Garden Inn Redding , 5050 Bechelli Lane
Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Sacramento Conference
Date: Friday, February 12, 2010
Location: Sacramento Hilton Arden West, 2200 Harvard Street
Registration: 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
Program: 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon
There is no charge for the programs and MCLE and AICP CM credits are available.
An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve a spot, call our office at (916) 456-9595. When calling, please specify which conference you will be attending.
Continue Reading Save the Date!
By William W. Abbott
The Santa Barbara COG is the local transportation authority for Santa Barbara County. As authorized by statute, the COG approved Measure A, which consisted of a sales tax measure for voter approval for transportation improvements and an investment plan, which served as the statutory Expenditure Plan.
Continue Reading Approval of a Sales Tax Measure and an Investment Plan by the Regional Transportation Planning Body, as Part of a Sales Tax Measure to be Submitted to the Voters, Qualifies as Exempt from CEQA
By Katherine Hart
On August 27, 2009, the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District in California issued the first ever CEQA decision on what an energy conservation impacts analysis can entail. In Tracy First v. City of Tracy, et al., the City of Tracy (“City”) prepared and certified an EIR and approved a project which included 1) a specific plan amendment to change the designation of property from industrial to commercial, and 2) a conditional use permit (“CUP”) to build a 95,900 square foot WinCo Foods store. Petitioner Tracy First sued to challenge the certification of the EIR and the approval of the project on the grounds the City failed to look at issues of energy conservation, alternatives, and extraterritorial traffic impacts…
Continue Reading A CEQA Issue of First Impression: Energy Conservation Impacts Analysis in EIRs
By Cori Badgley
In CEQA cases, the courts evaluate whether the agency proceeded in the manner required by law and whether substantial evidence supports the agencies decision. In other words, did the agency act reasonably in its analysis. This is the crux of City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, in which the City of Long Beach (“City”) challenged the adequacy of an EIR for the construction of a high school in the City. Finding that the school district acted reasonably in its analysis of all the issues challenged by the City, the court upheld certification of the EIR.
Continue Reading Appellate Court Emphasizes CEQA’s Focus on Reasonableness
By Leslie Z. Walker
According to Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (Sept. 17, 2009, B213637) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the long standing rule that CEQA does not apply to projects rejected or disapproved by a public agency, allows a public agency to reject a project before completing or considering the EIR. In Las Lomas, the Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District made clear that a city may stop environmental review mid-stream and reject a project without awaiting the completion of a final EIR. While this holding may avoid wasting time and money on an EIR for a dead-on-arrival project, it will also make it harder for projects to stay in play until the entire environmental document is complete.
Continue Reading CEQA Does Not Apply to Project Disapproval, Even if the EIR is Underway
By Leslie Z. Walker
On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency issued a notice of proposed action (“Notice”) for the adoption of CEQA guidelines addressing the evaluation and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires that the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) “prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions,” by July 1, 2009. OPR transmitted these in April of 2009, ahead of schedule. See OPR Finalizes Proposed CEQA Guidelines and Transmits Them to Resources Agency. The Resources Agency has noticed its intent to adopt the guidelines, as proposed by the OPR. The Notice commenced the rulemaking process for the guidelines.
Continue Reading CEQA Guidelines on Greenhouse Gases One Step Closer to Law
By Cori Badgley
Generally, a lawsuit challenging an agency’s decision or environmental review must be brought within 30, 60 or 90 days, depending on the applicable statute of limitations. Often, an agency’s decision involves powers granted under different statutes, which can lead to conflicting statutes of limitations. In Strother v. California Coastal Commission (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 873, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District addressed such a conflict in a challenge to the granting of a coastal development permit. The conflict arose between the statute of limitations under the California Coastal Act (Pub. Resources Code § 30801) and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.5). The court held that as long as the challenges related to CEQA, CEQA’s statute of limitations applied.
Continue Reading CEQA Statute of Limitations Still Applies in Challenge to Coastal Development Permit
The following is an overview of CEQA court decisions issued in the first half of 2009 along with links to more detailed analysis of each decision prepared by the attorneys at Abbott & Kindermann, LLP.
Continue Reading CEQA: 2009 Mid-Year Update
By Leslie Walker
In California Oak Foundation v. County of Tehama et al. 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 923, the California Oak Foundation (“COF”) challenged Tehama County Board of Supervisors’ (the “County”) approval of the Sun City Tehama Specific Plan and EIR. The Sun City Tehama Specific Plan is a 3,320 acre residential and commercial development adjacent to Interstate Highway 5 between Red Bluff and Redding. In an unpublished portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District addressed COF’s claims that the EIR inadequately mitigated for the project’s impacts to Blue Oak Woodlands and traffic. In the published portion of the opinion, the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of COF’s motion to include privileged documents in the administrative record.
Continue Reading Common Interest Doctrine Applies to County’s Disclosure to Real Parties in Interest
