Land Use, Environmental, and Real Estate Law in California
By William W. Abbott and Janell M. Bogue
Practitioners need to immediately review public notification status on all pending Subdivision Map Act applications. AB 2867 (Chapter 363, Statutes of 2006), which was effective on January 1, 2007, amends the notice requirements of the Planning and Zoning law. Continue Reading Effective January 1, 2007 Notice of Subdivision Map Act Public Hearings Must be Provided to Mineral Rights Holders
Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
Abbott & Kindermann, LLP again presents their annual 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, vineyard and winery development, and mining. Water quality and wetlands issues 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. Handouts will be available and there will be ample opportunity for questions.
Date: Thursday, January 18, 2007
Registration:8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
Program:9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon
Location:Sacramento Radisson
500 Leisure Lane
Sacramento, CA 95815
There is no charge for this program and MCLE credit is available.
An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve your space now, call (916) 456-9595 and ask for Michelle.
By Kate J. Hart
California’s Fifth Appellate District recently decided the case of Wagner Farms, Inc. v. Modesto Irrigation District (December 6, 2006) 2006 Cal.App.Lexis 1923, which involves the awarding of costs for preparation of the record of proceeding (“ROP”) arising out of a CEQA suit. Plaintiffs filed the suit against the Modesto Irrigation District (“MID”), and requested that MID prepare the ROP. MID won in both the superior court and appellate court. MID then filed a memorandum of costs totaling $34,077.95 for preparing and filing the ROP. (All but $3,680 for copying costs went to the consultants’ preparation of the ROP.) Plaintiffs filed a motion to tax costs. As argued in Hayward Area Planning Assn. v. City of Hayward (2006) 128 Cal.App.4th 176 (see previous Abbott & Kindermann Land Use Law Blog article), the plaintiffs claimed that 1) MID impermissibly delegated the preparation of the ROP to its consultants; 2) the amounts requested for the preparation of the ROP were not adequately supported by the record; and 3) the amounts spent were not necessary or reasonable. MID provided only a declaration by counsel in support of its opposition to plaintiffs’ motion. Continue Reading Recent Case Examines Cost Recovery for Record Preparation Under CEQA
Remember to reserve your spot for Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update.
Date: Thursday, January 18, 2007
Registration:8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
Program:9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon
Location:Sacramento Radisson
500 Leisure Lane
Sacramento, CA 95815
There is no charge for this program and MCLE credit is available.
To reserve your space now, call (916) 456-9595 and ask for Michelle.
By Janell M. Bogue
Recently, the Third Appellate District held that the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (“HCP”) was properly certified by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County (“City and County”) under CEQA and that the Department of Fish and Game (“DFG”) complied with the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”) in issuing its incidental take permits. The case is Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018. Continue Reading HCPs and Hawks and Snakes…Oh My!
By William W. Abbott
When it comes to administrative appeals of land use decisions, state law largely delegates to cities and counties the choice of being flexible or rigid on administrative appeals (e.g. tentative subdivision map approvals, conditional use permits, CEQA documents). Most cities and counties opt for a de novo review by the appellate body. This means that the appellate body effectively starts over on the decision, and it is empowered to make any decision it deems to be appropriate under the circumstances. As illustrated by the recent decision of Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (Browman Development Co., real party in interest) 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1764, de novo review may permit a project opponent to challenge in court the adequacy of the CEQA document, even though the appeal to the city council was on non-CEQA grounds. Continue Reading Local Administrative Rules Leave Door Open for CEQA Challenge
By Rob Hofmann
Cultural artifacts and Native American remains receive different levels of protection under state and federal law. The federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (“NAGPRA”) (25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.) delineates the process for the return of Native American remains and specified cultural artifacts in the control or possession of most federally funded museums and agencies to direct descendants or affiliated tribes. NAGPRA also provides processes for handling future discoveries of remains and artifacts on federal or tribal land and imposes penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking. NAGPRA requires that these museums and agencies prepare inventories and summaries of all protected items in their control or possession and consult with the applicable descendants and tribes for possible repatriation or disposition. With limited exceptions, NAGPRA applies only to tribes recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and recognized Native Alaskan and Hawaiian groups. Continue Reading Effective January 1, 2007, the California Legislature expands landowners’ obligation to repatriate Native American remains and associated cultural artifacts
By William W. Abbott
Older subdivision maps create a series of unique considerations. In the case of Wright v. City of Morro Bay (November 7, 2006) 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1752, the court wrestled with the status of a mapped but unused road. Property owners Wright and Reddell (“Wright”) owned property in the City of Morro Bay. The property was the subject of an 1888 subdivision (pre-dating California’s first subdivision ordinance, enacted in 1893.) Wright’s property was adjacent to a street (“Jordan Terrace”) shown on the subdivision map. Jordan Terrace had never been used a public street or for any other public purpose. In 1935 however, the City had accepted Jordan Terrace into the City street system. Continue Reading The Road Less Traveled, Or In This Case, Not At All
Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
Abbott & Kindermann, LLP again presents their annual 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, vineyard and winery development, and mining. Water quality and wetlands issues 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. Handouts will be available and there will be ample opportunity for questions.
Date: Thursday, January 18, 2007
Registration:8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
Program:9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon
Location:Sacramento Radisson
500 Leisure Lane
Sacramento, CA 95815
There is no charge for this program and MCLE credit is available.
An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve your space now, call (916) 456-9595 and ask for Michelle.
By Janell M. Bogue
In a victory for the Regional Water Quality Control Boards and State Water Resources Control Board, the Second Appellate District revised its opinion in County of Los Angeles v. California State Water Resources Board (2006) 2006 Cal.App.LEXIS 1744 on November 6, 2006. Though several parties submitted petitions for rehearing, the court modified its previous October 5, 2006 opinion on its own and denied all the rehearing petitions. Click here to read about the court’s previous, unmodified opinion. Continue Reading Second Appellate District Modifies Opinion Regarding CEQA Analysis for NPDES Permits
