Land Use, Environmental, and Real Estate Law in California
By Leslie Walker and Nathan Jones
The following case exemplifies that a developer cannot instigate litigation attacking a proposed ordinance until a municipal government has passed the ordinance in question. The matter of Stonehouse Homes, LLC. v. City of Sierra Madre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531, more broadly holds that to maintain a declaratory relief action, a plaintiff must be able to demonstrate a present conflict in addition to showing the existence of tangible injury.
By Leslie Walker and Nathan Jones
A recent case published by the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District has struck down a decision by the California Fish and Game Commission (“Commission”) to deny listing the California tiger salamander (“salamander”) as a candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”). In Center for Biological Diversity v. California Fish and Game Commission (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 597, the court ruled that the Commission must accept a listing petition of a candidate species if the information would “lead a reasonable person to conclude there is a substantial possibility” that the species could be listed. Placing a species on the candidate list triggers a review by the Department of Fish and Game (“DFG”) to determine whether permanent listing under the CESA is required.
On January 21 and January 22, 2009, Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will presents its annual complimentary educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, real estate acquisition, easements, leasing and property acquisition, and mining. Water quality, water supply, wetlands issues, endangered species and climate change will also be covered. The focus will be on recent developments in case law, statutes and administrative regulations, and how these changes impact your daily business practices. A comprehensive written outline will be provided and there will be ample opportunity for questions and answers.
For the first time, Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be presenting its annual program at two locations, Sacramento and now Modesto. Details for both seminars are below. We look forward to seeing you there.
First Ever – Modesto Conference
Sacramento Conference
There is no charge for the programs and MCLE credits are available.
An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve a spot now, call our office at (916) 456-9595. When calling, please specify which conference you will be attending.
By Leslie Walker
On October 30, 2008, the California Supreme Court decided Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116 (“Save Tara”) finding that CEQA was triggered by early agreements between a city and developer, even when the agreements were expressly conditioned upon later CEQA compliance. This case will act as an impediment to many forms of agreements in the areas of redevelopment, affordable housing, and infrastructure which frequently require long-term cooperation of private developers and public agencies.
Continue Reading For CEQA, Project Commitment Is Still A Question Of Fact
By Glen Hansen
In Romoland School District v. Inland Empire Energy Center, LLC (9th Cir.Cal., Nov. 18, 2008, No. 06-56632) U.S.App. 23854, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit examined when the citizen suit provision of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) may be used to halt construction of a power plant that was granted an integrated permit.
By Glen C. Hansen
The recent decision by the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three in Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174 describes how a judgment entered pursuant to a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 must include all of the material terms of the settlement.
Continue Reading When Settling Easement Disputes, Don’t Skimp on the Details
By Cori Badgley
In Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District grappled with several issues related to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) along with the Senate Bill 610 water supply analysis, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, and general plan consistency. Among the court’s various holdings, the court found examples of improper deferral of mitigation under CEQA. Additionally, the court refined the definition of a “probable future project” for purposes of cumulative impacts. The project at issue involved the development of an aggregate mining operation in the unincorporated area of Madera County ("County").
By William W. Abbott and Nathan Jones
While much is written about takings claims in the field of land use practice, the reality has been that for a number of reasons, it is extremely difficult for a California property owner to make a successful legal claim. In the context of a regulatory (as opposed to a physical) taking, the fact pattern to support a regulatory taking has to be extreme. The recent case of Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 263, vividly illustrates the types of extraordinary facts that must exist for a property owner to cross the finish line first.
Continue Reading Court Answers Monk’s Prayers: City, Thou Shall Not Take!
By Leslie Z. Walker and Cori M. Badgley
California’s land use planning structure has long been governed by a philosophy of home rule. Periodically, the legislature has identified specific typical areas for state intrusion: housing policy and airport land use planning are two examples. Among other provisions, SB 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes 2008) reflects a new area of state intervention, brought on by the rising concern over global warming. This time, it is through the regional transportation planning process, with the apparent thinking that once you control the purse strings, local governments will fall into line. SB 375’s major elements are:
Continue Reading SB 375: A Subtle Shift in the State-Local Long Range Planning Paradigm
By Leslie Z. Walker
For the two years following passage of Assembly Bill 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes 2006), practitioners have wrestled with establishing the level at which a project’s contribution to global climate change is considered to be significant for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
Continue Reading ARB Guidance on CEQA Thresholds: Not Every Bit Counts, and CEQA Exemptions Apply
