by William W. Abbott Most developers are familiar with the use of development agreements (“DAs”) as a means of memorializing a land use agreement governing development. DAs are approved following traditional land use procedures of notice, hearing and environmental review. But what about deals made at the courthouse? The appellate court recently granted rehearing of Trancas Property Owners Association v. City of Malibu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1245 (click here to read Abbott & Kindermann’s November 2005 article on the case). In Trancas, the appellate court defined the limits on settlement agreements, effectively precluding terms which would otherwise be required to follow a traditional land use approval procedure.
Continue Reading Let’s Make a Deal!

by Joel Ellinwood, AICP Ninth Circuit Prohibits Aesthetic Regulation of Cell Towers in Public Rights-of-Way Based on California Public Utilities Code In a unique twist to the preemption argument based on conflicts between the federal Telecommunications Act of 1999 (“TCA”) and state and local land use powers, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that California Public Utilities Code section 7901 permitting installation of telephone facilities in public rights-of-way bans local governments from denying applications for cell phone facilities based on aesthetic considerations. Sprint PCS Assets LCC v. City of La Ca�ada-Flintridge, 2006 U.S.App.Lexis 1032 (9th Cir. 2006). The TCA explicitly allows local governments to apply traditional land use powers in regulating wireless telecommunications facilities. In applying those powers, local governments may not use health effect concerns about radio signals if the applicant demonstrates that the facility complies with Federal Communications Commission safety standards, discriminate between functionally equivalent service providers, or effectively frustrate provision of telecommunications services. The various Circuit Courts of Appeals have applied the TCA limitations inconsistently, but all apply the generally deferential “substantial evidence” standard of review. The 9th Circuit recently adopted a pragmatic but fact-intensive approach in MetroPCS v. City & County of San Francisco, 400 F3d 715 (2005) (click here to read Abbott & Kindermann’s July 2005 article on the case).
Continue Reading Can You Hear (er, See) Me Now?

by Sophie Rowlands

Many property owners are loathe to allow the public onto their land for any reason at all. That being said, many cities and counties routinely impose as a condition of approval a requirement that the project include publically accessible trails, maintained by the underlying property owner or homeowners’ association. The California legislature recognizes the potential hardship resulting from this situation, and has crafted special liability protections. Pursuant to Civil Code section 846, any landowner who permits the public to enter and use his land without charging a fee is completely absolved of all liability and responsibility when, as inevitably happens, a litigious member of the public gets injured for whatever reason on the property and decides to sue. Provided the owner didn’t willfully or maliciously fail to disclose some dangerous condition on the property, the statute is quite broad in its powers and has been interpreted to protect property owners from liability for injuries stemming from a wide range of activities, from spelunking to hunting to hang gliding.
Continue Reading They Sue Horses, Don’t They?

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.

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

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…