Land Use, Environmental, and Real Estate Law in California
By Rob Hofmann
The Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) has reaffirmed the judicial trend to give great deference to the terms of an executed real property purchase agreement as written, emphatically stating that the pre-litigation mediation provision at issue in Lange v. Schilling (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1412 “means what it says and will be enforced.” Substantial conformity with the provision requirements is not enough to qualify to recover attorney’s fees.
By Leslie Z. Walker
On June 26, 2008, the California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) released a draft of the scoping plan required under Assembly Bill 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes 2006), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (“AB 32”). AB 32 requires greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. (Health & Saf. Code, § 38550.) In order to accomplish this, ARB had to determine, by January 1, 2008, what the statewide greenhouse gas emission level was in 1990. (Id.) By January 1, 2009, ARB must prepare and adopt a scoping plan which achieves required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. (Health & Saf. Code, § 38561.) A draft of this scoping plan was released on June 26, 2006.
By William W. Abbott
The Subdivision Map Act (“SMA”) contains a process for re-subdividing all or a part of an existing subdivision. When that occurs, public easements shown on the prior map are extinguished unless incorporated into the new map. (Gov. Code, § 66499.20 ½.) This sounds like a simple enough concept, but in reality, there is nothing truly simple whenever the facts involve dirt, the SMA and easements.
Continue Reading Old Maps, Re-Subdivision Maps, and Relocated Easements
By Janell M. Bogue
On May 9, 2008, the Sacramento, San Francisco, and Los Angeles Districts of the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) released standard templates for mitigation banks. Included are templates for:
Continue Reading California Army Corps Districts Release Mitigation Bank Templates
By William W. Abbott
A common scenario in California counties involves the concurrent recording of a subdivision or parcel map, coupled with the subdivider’s offer of dedication of a road easement to the County. Frequently, the offer to dedicate goes unaccepted by the County. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act ("SMA"), this offer remains open and can be accepted by the Board of Supervisors at a later date. Government Code section 66477.2. Official action is not always required for the public to gain rights of use. Roads can also be informally dedicated to the public by public use, the question being, how much public use is required?
Diane Kindermann Henderson, a partner at the firm, will be speaking at the Lorman Seminar on Current Issues in Stormwater Regulation on August 27, 2008, in Redding. This seminar will involve a discussion on changes in Stormwater regulations including the permitting process, legal issues and the effects of Stormwater on the environment. For more information, including RSVP details visit the Lorman website.
By Katherine J. Hart
In Moss v. County of Humboldt, et al (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1041, the Court of Appeal (1st Appellate District) held that a project previously studied under CEQA need not undergo supplemental CEQA review upon reapplication of the same project unless new information (supported by substantial evidence in the record) indicates there will be potential environmental impacts.
By Janell M. Bogue
In the case of Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (May 22, 2008) 2008 Cal.Lexis 6207, the California Supreme Court discussed several issues important to those who deal with CEQA. The Court held that the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“Department”) properly approved several timber harvest plans (“THPs”) for land located in Tuolumne County. In doing so, the Court examined the requirements for cumulative impacts analysis and the analysis of foreseeable actions.
By Leslie Z. Walker
CEQA practitioners have spent the last year anxiously anticipating the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) advice to local agencies on the evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their effect on climate change in the CEQA process. On June 19, 2008, OPR offered a peek at its perspective by issuing the Technical Advisory CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act Review.
Continue Reading OPR on CEQA and Climate Change: Local Agencies Continue to Bear the Heat
By Cori M. Badgley
In Ocean Harbor House Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 215, the California Coastal Commission (“Commission”) imposed a $5.3 million mitigation fee on a homeowner’s association that needed a permit to build a seawall to protect residences that would otherwise fall into the ocean. Attempting to find relief from the fee, the homeowner’s association sued the Commission, but the court denied all relief and upheld the fee.
