Land Use, Environmental, and Real Estate Law in California
By: Katherine J. Hart
As determined by the California Supreme Court 27 years ago, local agencies may impose a fee for the filing of an appeal of a CEQA decision so long as that fee is reasonable.
Continue Reading Yes, Local Appeal Fees Apply to CEQA Appeals
By Leslie Z. Walker
Today, February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law filed the Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines addressing greenhouse gas emissions (“Amendments”) with the Secretary of State. The Amendments require the quantification and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. (For more information about the Amendments, see OPR Finalizes Proposed CEQA Guidelines and Transmits Them to Resources Agency and CEQA Guidelines on Greenhouse Gases One Step Closer to Law.) The Amendments will become effective on March 18, 2010. Lead agencies should consult Guidelines section 15007 to determine when the Amendments apply to the agency’s actions.
Continue Reading 30 Days Left: CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Become Law on March 18, 2010
Counties and cities must let go of another share of property tax revenues to school districts under the redevelopment law’s distribution of the property tax increment.
Continue Reading The Fight Over Property Taxes Continues: School District Entitled to Larger Share of Property Tax Increment
From the quick fix solutions for the Delta to CEQA analysis on mitigation deferral, impact fees and the feasibility of alternatives, to the scope of the Corps permitting authority, the following legislation, regulations, and cases from 2009 (listed first by type of document, then in chronological order) will have the most impact on water supply, water quality, and land use and entitlement practice (e.g., development) in California in the coming years. And remember, you read it here first!
Continue Reading 2009’s Top 10: Legislation, Regulations, & Cases
This article highlights the 2009 CEQA court decisions along with the proposed changes to the CEQA guidelines. Many of the highlights are linked to more detailed analyses prepared by the attorneys at Abbott & Kindermann, LLP.
Continue Reading CEQA: 2009 Year in Review
By Leslie Z. Walker
In California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, the Sixth District Court of Appeals upheld an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the master plan of a greenbelt, against appellant’s attack on the range of alternatives and findings of infeasibility.
Continue Reading Petitioners Fail to Demonstrate that the City Failed at the Two-Step
By Cori Badgley
Since the passage of Proposition 13, cities and counties have been prohibited from reassessing property taxes until a property is sold or transferred, at which point the property tax cannot exceed one percent of the assessed value.
Continue Reading The Battle Over Property Taxes Continues
By Cori Badgley
In San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District v. San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 190, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District addressed the statutory interpretation of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Gov. Code, §§ 56000 et seq., 57000 et seq.) (“CKH Act”) as it relates to water districts. Specifically, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (“SBVWCD”) argued that the repeal of certain sections in the Water Code relating to consolidation meant that LAFCo had no authority over the consolidation of water districts. The appellate court disagreed.
Continue Reading Are Small, Special Purpose Districts an Endangered Species?
By William W. Abbott
Well, Mark Twain got that right. Beginning with the voter approval in 1978 of Proposition 13, California voters and public agencies have been at odds with each other over local government revenue strategies. The dilemma for local government being of course, that residents demand high level of services but expect someone else to pay for it. Walking the fine line between service delivery and voter enacted limitations on revenue streams, local agencies continuously explore and implement new strategies to capture new revenue streams, and over time, the trend has been to link charges to services provided. In the most recent levy case, the City of San Diego attempted to forge new territory by charging a processing fee for the purpose of offsetting costs associated with sending tax bills. In other words, a processing fee imposed on top of, and for the purpose of, collecting a general tax collected from property owners.
Continue Reading “What is the Difference between a Taxidermist and a Tax Collector? The Taxidermist Takes Only Your Skin.”
William W. Abbott, partner of Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be speaking on the following topic on Monday September 14, 2009 at 11:45 a.m.
“Preservation of Local Government Approvals”
Location:
Date/Time:
…
