Articles

Subscribe to Articles via RSS

By Leslie Walker

On July 13, 2011, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 208, granting a two-year extension to certain tentative maps. To qualify, the maps must have been approved and not yet expired as of July 15, 2011 and must expire before January 1, 2014. The terms of the extension are similar to last year’s bill (Assembly Bill 333, see How Many Lawyers Does it Take to Extend a Tentative Map?) Assembly Bill 208 extensions are in addition to extensions provided for in the following Government Code sections:…
Continue Reading Tentative Maps Receive Third Extension

The Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the Court of Appeal for the Second District granting an industry association’s petition for writ of mandate challenging the city of Manhattan Beach’s ban on point-of-sale plastic bag use. In so doing, the Supreme Court (“Court”) overturned the rule that corporations must make a heightened showing to demonstrate public interest standing, urged the use of common sense at all stages in the CEQA process, and held that an EIR was not required to adopt a plastic bag ordinance.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Rejects Need for EIR and Supports Use of Common Sense

Please join William W. Abbott and Steven Rudolph on August 18, 2011 from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM for an in depth look at the art of crafting development agreements in their UC Davis Extension course, Vested Rights, Vesting Maps and Development Agreements.
Continue Reading Vested Rights Class at UC Davis Extension August 18, 2011

By Cori M. Badgley

The court in Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera (2011, No. F059382) ____ Cal.App.4th ____ faced the difficult task of interpreting an amendment to the School Facilities Act and how it interacts with CEQA as an issue of first impression. The specific provision at issue restricts the “methods of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities” to the fees provided in the School Facilities Act. (Gov. Code, § 65996(a).) The court held that although this provision obviated the need to discuss direct impacts on school facilities in the CEQA document, the provision did not apply to indirect impacts, such as traffic or construction.Continue Reading The Devil is in the Details… At Least When it Comes to Interpreting the School Facilities Act

Two Federal District Court opinions in California examined the sufficiency of pre-lawsuit notices that must be given to responsible parties and relevant agencies before citizen suits are filed either under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq. (“60-Day Notice”), and/or under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq. (“90-Day Notice”).
Continue Reading Two Instructive District Court Opinions on RCRA (90-Day) and CWA (60-Day) Pre-Lawsuit Notices: One “Boilerplate” Notice Was Insufficient; the Other Was Specific Enough

Legal challenges for non compliance with state affordable housing laws governed by relatively short statute of limitations periods.
Continue Reading Legal Challenges to Land Use Decisions Governed By Strict Statutes Of Limitation, Including Those Based Upon Non Compliance with the Housing Element Requirements

This case involved a city program to have property owners with property near the airport apply to voluntarily sell their properties to the city. After acquiring the properties, the city demolished all buildings and left the land vacant to mitigate for incompatible residential dwellings near the airport. Certain property owners that chose not to sell their properties sued the city on the grounds that its actions amounted to a taking. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the program was voluntary and the property owners could not be compensated for the decrease in the property value.
Continue Reading That’s the Way the Buildings Crumble: City’s Purchase and Demolition of Adjacent Buildings is Not a Taking