Land Use, Environmental, and Real Estate Law in California
The landmark Federal Endangered Species Act, approved in 1973 by huge margins in both the House and the Senate, turned 40 on December 31, 2013. If the ESA could speak it might say however, “I’m not 40, I am 18 with 22 years’ experience”.
The litmus tests of its success include: numbers of species brought…
Abbott & Kindermann’s 13th Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law UpdateContinue Reading REMINDER – SAVE THE DATE!
By William W. Abbott, Diane Kindermann, Katherine J. Hart, Glen Hansen and Brian Russell
Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2013 CEQA update. It is cumulative for the year, with the newest cases issued in the 4th quarter shown in bold type face. Click here to access the complete update.
To read our prior annual reviews, click here: 2012; 2011; 2010.Continue Reading 2013 CEQA 4th QUARTER REVIEW
By William W. Abbott
The California Supreme Court has a number of cases on its docket for consideration in 2014 that are of interest to planners, local government officials, developers and community interest groups. These cases include both CEQA and land use considerations. Here are the summaries from the Court’s website:Continue Reading 2014 Court Watch
Peter Detwiler, the long time LAFCo policy wonk at the state capitol, has prepared a history of local agency formation commissions and has generously agreed to share it with the readers of this blog. Thank you Peter.
Abbott & Kindermann’s 13th Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
Reserve your seat for one of four seminars taking place in 2014.
In February 2014 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its 13th annual educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, agriculture, real estate transactions, easements, mining and the construction materials production industry.
A summary of 2013 case law and legislative updates includes the following hot topics for 2014:
By Katherine J. Hart
In Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 192; 2013 Cal.App. LEXIS 893 (Latinos Unidos II), the Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, upheld the City of Napa’s (City) use of its 1998 Program EIR (prepared and certified for purposes of the City’s 2020 General Plan update) for the proposed 2009 Housing Element update, and related Land Use Element and zoning code amendments. More specifically, in updating its Housing Element, the City of Napa also amended its Land Use Element to (1) increase the minimum residential densities in seven areas zoned as mixed use or community commercial from 10 to 40 residential units per acre, (2) increase the permitted density for eight multi-family sites by a total of 88 units, as well as amended its zoning ordinance to comply with state laws regarding emergency shelters and various types of low-income housing, and to permit single-family detached homes at the same densities of single-family attached homes (the Project).Continue Reading NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIRED TO INCREASE HOUSING DENSITIES IN CITY’S GENERAL PLAN
By William W. Abbott
If you were hoping for an insightful article on human relationships, you are out of luck and clearly, you are reading the wrong blog. But if you are interested in bonding as it relates to subdivisions and improvement agreements, read on. With a frequency slightly ahead of locusts appearing every seventeen years, cases involving subdivision improvement bonds are cyclical, trailing serious downturns in the real estate development market. Two cases this year illustrate interesting features of this practice area.Continue Reading BONDING IS NOT ALWAYS A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE
By William W. Abbott
South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (October 8, 2013, C067764) ___ Cal.App.4th ___.
Starting in 2005, KKP submitted an application for a mixed use commercial center to be located in Nevada County on a 20 acre site. The proposal included a 60,000 square foot grocery store anchor, two retail buildings, two drive through restaurants and nearly 500 parking stalls. Four parcels would be retained by the property owner, and the proposal accommodated roughly 42,000 square feet of light industrial and office uses on the owner’s retained land. The last parcel was restricted to wetland/open space uses. The County released the DEIR in November 2007, disclosing three significant unmitigated impacts; two traffic impacts and one cumulative air impact. After an extended public review process, including additional analysis submitted by the applicant, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the FEIR in January 2009. The staff report for this hearing included a staff recommendation for an approval, with a variation on alternative 4 in the DEIR. The commission voted to recommend certification of the EIR and the various approvals associated with the project to the Board of Supervisors, including the staff recommended plan (which capped the amount of commercial footage and increased the open space area.) KKP then developed two alternatives responsive to the Planning Commission recommendation of the staff’s alternative. Staff evaluated KKP’s two additional alternatives, and recommended that the Planning Commission formally recommend KPP’s second alternative to the Board of Supervisors.Continue Reading ADDITIONAL STAFF GENERATED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE DID NOT COMPEL RECIRCULATION OF THE DRAFT EIR NOR WERE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF INFEASIBILITY REQUIRED
By Glen Hansen
In Garcia v. Governing Board of Bellflower Unified School District (October 24, 2013, B247320) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ a former employee of the Bellflower Unified School District (“District”) filed an extraordinary writ petition against the District relating to her alleged exposure to mold. Her counsel later served on the District’s counsel in that proceeding a request for records from the District pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) (“PRA”). The letter listed eight (8) categories of records that were requested pursuant to the PRA. During the next month, the former employee’s counsel sent several additional letters and an email to the District’s counsel because the District did not respond to the original letter request. The District’s general counsel finally responded with a letter stating that there were no documents responsive to four of the requests, that two of the requests were overly broad and vague, and that documents responsive to two of the requests were exempt from disclosure. The former employee’s counsel then sent a ‘meet and confer’ letter to the District’s general counsel disputing the District’s objections and responses. But when the District did not respond to that letter, the former employee commenced mandamus proceeding seeking to compel the District to comply with the PRA. Continue Reading A Petitioner Is Entitled To Attorneys’ Fees Under The Public Records Act If The Petitioner Succeeds On Any Significant Issue And Achieves Some Of The Benefit Sought In The Litigation
