Articles

Subscribe to Articles via RSS

By Kate J. Hart and Janell M. Bogue

In Ailanto Properties, Inc. v. City of Half Moon Bay (August 30, 2006) 2006 Cal. App. Lexis 1317, the First District Court of Appeal held that Government Code section 66452.6 (b)(1) limits the length of any moratorium-related tolling of the expiration of a tentative map to five years, regardless of the length of the moratorium itself. The court further held that when a phased final map does not conform to the requirements of the vesting tentative map (“VTM”), then the filing will not extend the life of the VTM pursuant to Government Code section 66452.6(a)(1) and (d).
Continue Reading Court of Appeal Sheds Light on Moratoria, Phasing and Final Maps

Please remember to join us for the second annual “A Lot In Common” conference on condos, townhomes, and higher density developments. This year’s event will be held on September 20, 2006 from 9am to 12 noon at the Sacramento Radisson.
A Lot In Common Flyer 2006 - small.jpg

If you have any questions about the event, please call our office at (916) 456-9595.…

By William W. Abbott & Janell M. Bogue
Closely following on the heels of County of San Diego, the California Supreme Court decided City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, which also involved issues of the appropriateness of mitigation expenditures, this time by the California State University system. Here, the state university (CSU) assumed the legal position that it was not authorized to mitigate for offsite impacts, and on that basis, the Trustees rejected the feasibility of mitigation measures sought by a local city (Marina) and a base reuse authority (Fort Ord Reuse Authority or “FORA”).
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Schools CSU on Mitigation Infeasibility

Second Annual Open House on Condominiums, Townhomes, and Higher Density Development: “A Lot In Common”

Presented by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP

This “open house” style gathering will focus on bringing together the diverse groups of people involved in multi-family developments, including architects, title companies, engineers, attorneys, and builders. It provides an opportunity to meet others in the field, exchange ideas, and network. There will also be short presentations on current issues and topics of interest in the field.
“A Lot In Common” is a valuable chance to discuss important issues with those experienced in the unique area of high density developments.
There is no charge for admission and a continental breakfast
will be served. Reservations are not required. If you have any questions, please call Abbott & Kindermann, LLP at (916) 456-9595.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006
9am to 12 noon
Sacramento Radisson
500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento, CA

No charge for admission and a continental breakfast will be served. Reservations not required, but questions can be directed to Abbott & Kindermann, LLP at 916-456-9595.
Continue Reading A Lot In Common – 2006

By Elias E. Guzman
A court recently held in Peak Investments v. South Peak Homeowners Association, Inc. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1363, that the Davis-Stirling Act (“Act”) requires that a proposed CC&Rs amendment must be approved by a simple majority of the HOA members before a court may properly reduce the percentage of votes set by the CC&Rs.
Continue Reading Court Shuts Off Civil Code §1356 Safety Valve…Well, Halfway At Least

By Joel Ellinwood, AICP
Recognizing that the often seemingly interminable delay by local agencies in development permit processing drives up costs of providing housing and other desirable projects, the development industry succeeded in persuading the legislature to impose what at first glance appear to be strict timelines for the agency to approve or disapprove projects. The timelines are given teeth by provisions which may result in projects being “deemed approved” if the agency fails to act within the time provided. However, as the recent case of Mahon v. County of San Mateo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 812 (modified June 19, 2006) illustrates, the teeth don’t seem to have much bite…
Continue Reading Take Notice!

Bill Abbott was once again selected as a “Super Lawyer” by the Law & Politics publication 2006 Northern California Super Lawyers for his work as a land use attorney. Only five percent of Northern California attorneys are selected for this honor using a nomination system and rigorous peer review.

By Diane Kindermann Henderson and Elias E. Guzman

Two weeks after the United States Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Rapanos/Carabell, et al. v. United States (2006) 126 S.Ct. 2208, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas delivered an opinion in United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Co. (D. Tex. June 28, 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47210. The court in Chevron was the first federal district court to apply the Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdictional authority standards enunciated in Rapanos. In granting summary judgment, the Chevron court opined that the connection of generally dry channels and creek beds does not create a “significant nexus” to a navigable water simply because one fed into the next during the rare times of actual flow.
Continue Reading District Court Struggles with Rapanos in U.S. v. Chevron Pipe Line

By William W. Abbott
There is no middle of the road for Wal-Mart Stores. People are passionate on both sides, which includes the lawyers and consultants caught in the debate as it appears that Wal-Mart, as a single entity, generates more CEQA litigation than any other California applicant. Recent Wal-Mart litigation, Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, illustrates the importance of the small details in CEQA litigation…
Continue Reading The Importance of the Mundane in CEQA Litigation: It’s All in the Details