Laurel Way Appellate Decision
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:16 am
This is why I get up in the morning.
Our firm has been involved in this project for a number of years. I got involved a short time ago.
This was a case that relied heavily on Gardner v. County of Sonoma (2003) 29 Cal.4th 990, Abernathy Valley, Inc. v. County of Solano (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 42, Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 543 and a few others.
The map was recorded in 1926. I’ve attached it for reference. The lots in question are on sheet 4. Lots 12, 13, and 14 have already been combined into one lots.
I’ve also attached a Google Earth Image. The cul-ds-sac is at 37°28’00”N / 122°15’28”W.
Our clients are the property owners who want to build homes.
This has been going on for years. Initially, the project was a Planned Development Permit (PDP) to build out the road and utilities along the end of Laurel Way. Redwood City approved the plans after going through the plan review and EIR process.
The local home owners got together as Save Laurel Way to oppose the project. It went to court. The trial judge enjoined the project based on the fact that the subdivision map did not receive the review required under the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and the lots were not legal lots.
Even though the Appellate Court had 90 days to come back with their decision, they only took a month to overturn the decision.
The trial court reasoned that “the issue is not whether the 1926 subdivision map here complied with the law as of 1926, but whether it complies with the law now or otherwise fits squarely within the grandfather clause under the present language.” Relying on Abernathy and Hays, the court concluded there was no showing in the record that any applicable “design and improvement” laws existed when the 1926 Map was filed. Thus, it did not appear that the parcels in the Project would fall within the SMA’s grandfather provision. However, the trial court did not make an ultimate finding as to whether the lots are illegal. Rather, it found that the city abused its discretion because it expressly found all 16 Project lots were legally created without having considered their status under the SMA. While the court’s reasoning is not inconsistent with the pertinent authorities, its ultimate conclusion is flawed.
The story is not over.
Future instalments to come…
Our firm has been involved in this project for a number of years. I got involved a short time ago.
This was a case that relied heavily on Gardner v. County of Sonoma (2003) 29 Cal.4th 990, Abernathy Valley, Inc. v. County of Solano (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 42, Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 543 and a few others.
The map was recorded in 1926. I’ve attached it for reference. The lots in question are on sheet 4. Lots 12, 13, and 14 have already been combined into one lots.
I’ve also attached a Google Earth Image. The cul-ds-sac is at 37°28’00”N / 122°15’28”W.
Our clients are the property owners who want to build homes.
This has been going on for years. Initially, the project was a Planned Development Permit (PDP) to build out the road and utilities along the end of Laurel Way. Redwood City approved the plans after going through the plan review and EIR process.
The local home owners got together as Save Laurel Way to oppose the project. It went to court. The trial judge enjoined the project based on the fact that the subdivision map did not receive the review required under the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and the lots were not legal lots.
Even though the Appellate Court had 90 days to come back with their decision, they only took a month to overturn the decision.
The trial court reasoned that “the issue is not whether the 1926 subdivision map here complied with the law as of 1926, but whether it complies with the law now or otherwise fits squarely within the grandfather clause under the present language.” Relying on Abernathy and Hays, the court concluded there was no showing in the record that any applicable “design and improvement” laws existed when the 1926 Map was filed. Thus, it did not appear that the parcels in the Project would fall within the SMA’s grandfather provision. However, the trial court did not make an ultimate finding as to whether the lots are illegal. Rather, it found that the city abused its discretion because it expressly found all 16 Project lots were legally created without having considered their status under the SMA. While the court’s reasoning is not inconsistent with the pertinent authorities, its ultimate conclusion is flawed.
The story is not over.
Future instalments to come…