Land Use, Environmental, and Real Estate Law in California
Abbott & Kindermann’s 12th Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2013.
In January and February 2013 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its 12th annual complimentary educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate…
By William W. Abbott, Diane Kindermann, Elizabeth Strahlstrom, Katherine J. Hart, Glen Hansen, and Daniel Cucchi
We are pleased to present our cumulative Fourth Quarter CEQA Review for 2012. In addition to being italicized and bolded, the newest decisions issued in this fourth quarter are underlined and preceded by asterisks (***).
In terms of new developments, OPR is moving forward with its CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 226 (infill streamlining). Will cities embrace these new streamlining provisions?Continue Reading 2012 CEQA 4th QUARTER REVIEW
By Katherine J. Hart
In Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, considered whether the City of Newport Beach’s (City) proposal to develop the Sunset Ridge Park was reviewed in a piecemeal fashion (separate and apart from the adjacent proposed Banning Ranch project), and whether the environmental impacts of the park (e.g., cumulative traffic and biological resources impacts, growth-inducing impacts, habitat impacts) were sufficiently considered and mitigated by the City in its EIR. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment and denial of the writ.Continue Reading Neither A Shared Access Road Nor The Gnatcatcher Stop Sunset Ridge Park Project Under CEQA
By William W. Abbott
Central Basin Municipal Water District v. Water Replenishment District Of Southern California(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 943. Notwithstanding CEQA’s pervasive application, there are-on rare occasions-circumstances in which agency action is exempt from CEQA compliance. The most recent example involves a declaration of water emergency approved by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) in the Central Basin in Southern California. WRD manages groundwater for approximately 4,000,000 residents and 43 cities. In 1991, a trial court entered judgment pertaining to groundwater management in the basin. The judgment authorized WRD to declare a water emergency in circumstances in which the basin resources risked degradation. The judgment also included a “physical solution”, a phrase of art in water law, describing a comprehensive program for groundwater management. A consequence of the declaration of emergency is that the time period for extractors to remove and replenish water would be extended into later years.Continue Reading Declaration of Water Emergency in Furtherance of a Judgment Was Exempt From CEQA
By William W. Abbott
Summit Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles (December 10, 2012, B220198) ___Cal.App.4th ___.
In many situations, the settlement of a lawsuit is a flexible tool to resolve disagreements between parties and allow the participants to move on with their lives. A settlement with a public agency invokes slightly different considerations then a matter resolved exclusively through private parties. As previously noted in Trancas Property Owners Association v. City of Malibu (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 172 , a public agency cannot rely upon a settlement agreement to bypass a required land use approval step.Continue Reading When A Deal Is Not A Deal
By Glen C. Hansen
For decades, oil and gas producers in California have been engaged in the process of hydraulic fracturing, commonly called “fracking.” That process involves injecting a high pressure stream of water and chemicals deep underground to split rocks and release oil and natural gas. The technique is designed to free oil and natural gas trapped in shale rock. There is a significant amount of such rock in California. For example, the Monterey Shale, which lies under Central California and the southern San Joaquin Valley, could hold up to 15 billion barrels of oil, making it possibly the nation’s largest oil shale formation and almost half of the nation’s total shale oil resources.Continue Reading As Lawsuits Begin In California Over Oil And Gas “Fracking,” The State Issues “Discussion Draft” Regulations For The Process
By William W. Abbott
Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (November 29, 2012, S187243) ___Cal.4th ___. In a 6 to 1 decision, the California Supreme Court concluded that mobilehome park conversions subject to Government Code section 66427.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are also subject to the Coastal Act and Mello Act (the latter for affordable housing in the Coastal zone.) In 1991, the Legislature enacted Government Code section 66427.5. This new code section set forth the particular determinations under the Subdivision Map Act when local government was processing a subdivision map application for conversion of a rental park to an owner occupied park and was intended to narrow the scope of local government inquiry which might otherwise be permitted by the Subdivision Map Act when processing other types of proposed subdivisions. The 1991 legislation included language which stated, in conjunction with local government review of the tentative map, that “The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section.”Continue Reading Mobilehome Park Conversions Trigger Coastal and Mello Act Compliance Requirements
Abbott & Kindermann’s 12th Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2013.
In January and February 2013 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its 12th annual complimentary educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real…
The EPA issued a new rulemaking on the Silvicultural Rule on the eve of oral argument in the Supreme Court in a legal challenge to the earlier version of the rule. At oral argument, a host of new procedural questions were raised by the Justices about what to do with the existing lawsuit. And the arguments of counsel demonstrated that another citizen suit is likely on its way challenging the new rule.
Continue Reading EPA Tells Supreme Court Its Actions Were “Suboptimal” — But The Oral Argument On The Challenge To EPA’s Silvicultural Rule Raises More Questions Than It Answers.
By Glen Hansen
On June 1, 2012, the County of Madera, the Madera County and Merced County Farm Bureaus, Chowchilla Water District, and other individuals and entities (collectively, “Petitioners”) sued the California High-Speed Rail Authority (“Authority”) on the grounds that the Authority had violated CEQA and the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act related to the approval of the approximately 75-mile Merced to Fresno section (“Section”) of the proposed 800-mile public transit project known as the High-Speed Rail project. Petitioners allege that that a significant portion of the Section would “deviate from existing transportation corridors, resulting in the destruction of and interference with thousands of acres of farmland, wildlife habitat, hundreds of homes, may businesses, commercial properties and industrial facilities, existing roads and water delivery facilities.” Petitioners further allege that the final environmental impact report (“FEIR”) for the Section contains “myriad analytical deficiencies,” fails to disclose and analyze “the full scope and severity of impacts,” and improperly defers “impact analysis and mitigation.” Petitioners also allege that the Authority violated the Open Meeting Act by not providing “the required notice for the substantive changes to the analysis of Section impacts and the scope of mitigation measures included in the Errata to the FEIR ….” Continue Reading First Link In High Speed Rail Project Clears Preliminary Injunction Hurdle In CEQA Litigation.
