The Supreme Court granted review in this case on January 25, 2006, and the opinion below is no longer citable. See Abbott & Kindermann Land Use Law Blog article for a discussion of the Supreme Court opinion. by Elias E. Guzman and Janell M. Bogue CALFED is an unprecedented collaboration among 18 state and federal agencies and the state’s leading urban, agricultural, and environmental interests. The ultimate goal is to develop a long-term, comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system, the intricate waterways created at the junction of the San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and the watersheds that feed them. After many years of study and analysis, CALFED adopted a program to be administered over the next 30 years. The program includes measures designed to improve the Bay-Delta ecosystem, water quality and quantity, and Delta levee stability. On August 28, 2000, the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (PEIS/R) was certified and CALFED adopted the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Program in accordance with NEPA and CEQA. Continue Reading Programmatic EIRs Still Require Details and Analysis to be Found Sufficient

by William W. Abbott

How far can a city council go in closed session in settling litigation involving a land use dispute? We have a better idea after reading Trancas Property Owners Association v. City of Malibu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1245 (rehearing granted October 26, 2005). In the eyes of the Second District Court of Appeal, the city council cannot (1) contract away the police power (the authority to apply later enacted zoning), and (2) make land use decisions which would otherwise be subject to a public hearing process. Continue Reading Municipal Authority to Settle Litigation in Closed Session

by Elias E. Guzman

In Trend Homes v. Superior Court of Fresno County (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 950, the court of appeal recently held a judicial reference clause in a sale and purchase contract for residential real property was not unconscionable. Continue Reading Trend Homes: Judicial Reference Provision Held not Unconscionable

by Joel Ellinwood, AICP

Developers and the general public think of townhouses as dwellings built on separate lots with common walls shared with neighboring property owners, as being more like single family homes. Each unit has a direct connection to the earth below and sky above. Condominiums, on the other hand, are perceived as being cubicles within a larger structure, and only a shared interest in the real estate on which the structure is located and common areas within and around the building. Continue Reading What is the Difference Between a Townhouse and a Condominium? Depending Upon the Statute, Most Likely Nothing.

Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, along with David Storer at Development Advisory Services, recently teamed up to secure City Council approval of a 230 lot subdivision in Porterville, California. Their efforts included convincing the City that a proposed emergency ordinance would not apply to the tentative map application previously deemed complete by the City.

by Janell M. Bogue

Recently in San Diego County, an association of residents of two subdivisions (“Association”) sued the developer that retained control over the architectural committees responsible for enforcing the community’s CC&Rs. Property Owners of Whispering Palms, Inc. v. Newport Pacific, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 666. Continue Reading DRE Regulations on Architectural Control Committees Apply Only to Common Interest Subdivisions

On the bright side, we have learned that there is one more local agency action exempt from CEQA. In Citizens to Enforce CEQA v. City of Rohnert Park (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1594, an MOU entered into between the City of Rohnert Park and a local tribe, the subject of which was a funding agreement to mitigate impacts on a gaming facility to be located in the County, was not subject to CEQA. The MOU did not commit the City to any course of action, and recognized that later City actions taken in response to the gaming facility impacts would be subject to environmental review. The court relied upon the exclusion from the definition of a project “the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities, which do not involve a commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.” Guidelines section 15378. See also Kaufman & Broad-South Bay Inc. v. Morgan Hill Unified School District (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 464.

For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, environmental and planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann at (916) 456-9595.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

After four planning directors, 12 years, and umpteenmillion dollars, El Dorado County finally has a general plan. On August 31, the trial court found that the County had complied with its earlier ruling in 1999, which had set aside the 1996 General Plan. It remains to be seen if the opponents will purse their claims to the appellate court. El Dorado’s experience took the fun out of planning for a lot of folks.

by Elias E. Guzman

In Acosta v. Glenfed Development Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1278, the court of appeal recently held that a developer/general contractor can be liable long after the 10 year statute of limitation period for the willful misconduct of subcontractors involved in the project. Continue Reading Exception to 10-Year Statute of Limitations Rule for Construction Defect Litigation

As a general limitation, the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, §§ 51-51.4), bars any form of discrimination in residential developments unless expressly permitted. Senior citizen housing is one of the exceptions. In order to comply with the Act, the development is subject to limitations impacting physical design, age and related occupancy, and operation of CC&Rs.

“Housing developments for senior citizens” are for residents 62 or over, although additional occupancy is allowed for someone 45 or older who provides economic or physical support. Special residency rules also apply to health care attendants, and dependent or disabled children and grandchildren. These projects must have walkways, hallways, grab bars, common walkway lighting, non-stair access to common areas, a common room, common open space and refuse collection designed for a minimum of physical exertion. (Civ. Code, §§ 51.2(d), 51.3.)

Age restricted projects subject to a public report require a complete statement of the restrictions on occupancy. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11010.05.)

For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, environmental and planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann at (916) 456-9595.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.