Articles

Subscribe to Articles via RSS

By Rob Hofmann

Real property purchase and sale transactions are so common place that it may be hard to justify paying a lawyer to review, let alone prepare, the applicable documentation. This is especially true when the transaction appears straightforward and the broker is taking a healthy cut off the top. Why pay an attorney when boilerplate agreements are readily available for little or no cost from the broker/agent, online, or even the local stationary store? Given that the broker or agent is precluded from giving legal advice, there are any numbers of reasons.
Continue Reading SELLER BEWARE!! – What You See Isn’t Necessarily What You Get!

By Cori Badgley

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the definition of “environment” includes historical resources. If a project has the potential to affect historical resources, it is subject to environmental review. In Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno (2008) No. F050952, the appellate court held that the inquiry of whether a resource should be listed in the local register cannot be relied upon for purposes of CEQA to determine whether a resource is historic. Additionally, the court held that the fair argument standard does not apply to the question of whether a resource is a discretionary historical resource under CEQA.Continue Reading What You Consider Ancient History Might Require a Fresh Look Under CEQA

By Rob Hofmann

The California Coastal Commission lacks the statutory authority required to declare a property an ‘environmentally sensitive habitat area’ when it hears an appeal from a local government’s grant of a coastal development permit to develop the property. Such action infringes upon powers that the Legislature expressly allocated to local government. Security National Guaranty v. California Coastal Commission (2008) Cal. App. LEXIS 131, January 25, 2008.
Continue Reading Coastal Commission Out of Bounds with ESHA Determination

By Cori M. Badgley

Exhaustion of local remedies is a well-known doctrine among those who have attempted to appeal an administrative decision. The doctrine requires that a petitioner appealing a governmental agency’s determination or order must exhaust all of the remedies available through that agency before appealing to the courts. The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District has now made it easier for petitioners appealing a determination of a regional water quality control board (“regional board”) to exhaust their local remedies. In Schutte & Koerting v. Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (2007) Cal.App.LEXIS 2146, the appellate court held that anyone appealing the determination or order of a regional board must only request a hearing before the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”) in order to exhaust his or her local remedies.
Continue Reading Petitioners Only Run to State Water Resources Control Board Before Exhaustion Kicks In

Diane Kindermann Henderson, a partner with the firm, along with Glen Hansen, a senior associate with Abbott & Kindermann, will be speaking at the Sacramento Legal Secretaries Association regarding CEQA Part II: Litigation, on March 5, 2008.  This “lunch lesson” seminar will be held at Downey Brand, 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor, in…

By Joel Ellinwood, AICP

A July 1, 2005 article posted on this blog termed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528 a “sea change” in 5th Amendment regulatory takings claim analysis by striking the “substantially advances a legitimate state interest” test. Now the fallout from Lingle from the Ninth Circuit makes it clear that the test survives to form the basis for 14th Amendment substantive due process challenges to land use regulations. However, the ultimate viability of such claims remains to be seen.
Continue Reading A Dim Light at the End of a Long Tunnel: Municipal Land Use Decisions and Substantive Due Process