Glen C. Hansen of Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., will present an update on recent developments in resolving easement, boundary, and implied public dedication disputes in California. This is an advanced class aimed primarily at land surveyors, civil engineers, attorneys, and property owners. This intense, three-hour class examines recent case law about:

  • Creating, Interpreting, and Terminating Easements
  • Accommodating Neighbors vs. Creating Prescriptive Easements
  • Establishing Equitable Easements
  • When Implied Dedications of Public Easements Exist, and When They Don’t.

MCLE and American Planning Association continuing education credits offered. (Pending)

MCLE 3.0       CM 3.0

Glen C. Hansen is Senior Counsel at Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., and a long-time practitioner in real estate and land use law.

Cost $85.00

Location and Time

Roseville – October 13, 2017, 8:00 a.m.-11:45 a.m.  (To Register CLICK HERE)

Holiday Inn Express – Roseville, 1398 East Roseville Parkway, Roseville, CA 95661

Registration:   8:00 a.m.

Class:              8:30 a.m. – 11:45 a.m.

Break:             10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.

Glen C. Hansen of Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., will present an update on recent developments in resolving easement, boundary, and implied public dedication disputes in California. This is an advanced class aimed primarily at land surveyors, civil engineers, attorneys, and property owners. This intense, three-hour class examines recent case law about:

  • Creating, Interpreting, and Terminating Easements
  • Accommodating Neighbors vs. Creating Prescriptive Easements
  • Establishing Equitable Easements
  • When Implied Dedications of Public Easements Exist, and When They Don’t.

MCLE and American Planning Association continuing education credits offered. (Pending)

MCLE 3.0       CM 3.0

Glen C. Hansen is Senior Counsel at Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., and a long-time practitioner in real estate and land use law.

Cost $85.00

Location and Time

Roseville – October 13, 2017, 8:00 a.m.-11:45 a.m.  (To Register CLICK HERE)

Holiday Inn Express – Roseville, 1398 East Roseville Parkway, Roseville, CA 95661

Registration:   8:00 a.m.

Class:              8:30 a.m. – 11:45 a.m.

Break:             10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.

PRIVATE LAND USE SETTLEMENTS: The potential fallout when a private side settlement agreement fails to settle your legal woes.

In 2010, the County of San Benito granted a conditional use permit for a solar project to the Panoche Valley Solar, LLC.  The project was a 3,200 acre, 399-megawatt solar electric generation facility involving up to 4 million solar panels in the Panoche Valley, a semiarid open space and range land west of Interstate 5 in San Benito County.  The approved project would have become one of the largest solar farms in the world and could have powered over 100,000 homes.  The project would have given the County $5.4 million in sales tax from the purchase of the solar panels.  In August 2011, the San Benito County Superior Court denied a legal challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act and the Williamson Act.  The trial court’s judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal (Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 503.)

In 2014, the project applicant sought to modify the conditional use permit.  The revised project was for a 2,506-acre, 247-megawatt solar generation facility, including an additional 24,176 acres for habitat conservation (which is more than the original project.)  The County expected to receive approximately $2.5 million in sales tax revenue from that revised project.  The County approved a revised use permit and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) in 2015.  The SEIR addressed the project’s impact and mitigation measures for the certain animal and plant species, including the San Joaquin kit fox, giant kangaroo rat, and blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and numerous bird species.  However, the Sierra Club and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society again filed a writ of mandate action and challenged the Final SEIR. The trial court rejected that challenge as well.  This year, in an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth District affirmed the trial court’s judgment.  (Sierra Club v. County of San Benito (March 22, 2017, case no. H042915), unreported decision, 2017 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 1987.)

The project construction already began in the Fall of 2016 and is scheduled to be completed in 2018.  But those two fully litigated lawsuits, and that ongoing construction, are not the end of the story.

In a special public hearing about the project’s statute before the County Board of Supervisors on April 18, 2017 (less than a month after they prevailed on the second appeal), one Supervisor asked if the rumor that the project was being downsized was true.  An official of ConEdison Development, the company that acquired the project admitted that the office of Governor Brown wanted to reduce the size of the project.  However, the ConEdison official also stated:  “We have all of our permits for the project signed and we are building 100 percent of the Panoche Valley Solar project at this time.”  That led one County resident to exclaim to the Board of Supervisors: “…the rat people went to the governor to cut the project in half. If you guys take that sitting down you’re idiots because it affects every project in this county.”

But the rumor proved true.  In July 2017, ConEdison reached an agreement with Sierra Club, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife and the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife that dramatically reduced the project to 130 megawatts, about 1/3 the size of the original project.  According to a ConEdison official, the company signed the agreement because, even though the environmental groups had repeatedly lost in court, they purportedly still had cases they could appeal that could have slowed or killed the project.  The environmental groups are hailing the agreement as a “win-win.”  A Sierra Club spokesperson stated:  “As we work toward lowering carbon pollution, it’s critical that new clean energy development is not done at the expense of endangered animals and their habitat.”

The agreement essentially shifts 100-117 megawatts of the Panoche Valley project to another ConEdison solar project that is proposed for Imperial County in Southern California.  Not surprisingly, the environmental groups have indicated that they will not oppose that other project.  The Sierra Club announced: “Initially, 247 MW of solar generation was planned for development in the Panoche Valley, but now approximately 100 MW is instead proposed for development at a site in Imperial County, California. Development at the Imperial County site will have less impact on threatened and endangered species and their habitat. The relocation of that portion of the project is subject to approval by Southern California Edison (SCE) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The settlement will also resolve several legal challenges commenced against the project by the Environmental Groups.”

The County Board of Supervisors, which approved the original and then the modified project, and which was the prevailing party in both lawsuits, was never included in those settlement talks or made a party to that agreement.  The Supervisors are furious because the County will lose out on millions of dollars in taxes that they were promised by the project developer.  According to the County’s clerk-auditor-recorder, the County will not be receiving any sales tax from the project now because ConEdison had purchased the panels in a way that made San Francisco the recipient of the sales tax rather than San Benito County. One Supervisor said:  “I can barely speak because I’m so angry.  This would have generated much-needed revenue. All you have to do is drive down there and see the conditions of our roads. We have minimal amounts of public safety. This was going to be a big thing, but the rug was pulled out from under us. And it was all done in secret.”  Another Supervisor exclaimed:  “[the developer] basically raped and pillaged us.”

The County is now considering filing a lawsuit against ConEdison, on the grounds that the company violated the project’s original 2010 development agreement with the county.  An official with PV2 Energy, the company that owned the project from 2011 to 2015, and then sold the project to ConEdison, said:  “By diverting half of the project’s value to a different project outside the county, ConEdison is clearly violating their commitments to the county and to PV2 Energy.” As to the sale tax issue, a ConEdison official said:  “We’re looking into that.  We understand we have obligations under the development agreement. We’re going to live up to them.” In short, there are still unresolved legal issues, even as the project is being built.

So here is an interesting legal question:  If the new settlement agreement constitutes a breach of the original development agreement, could the State of California be liable to the County of San Benito for the torts of intentional interference with contractual relations or intentional interference with prospective economic advantage?  The Director of DFW appears to concede such involvement:  “Con Edison Development’s leadership and the environmental groups deserve a lot of credit for opening a dialogue with the Department and asking whether it was better to negotiate and collaborate than litigate.”

This cautionary tale is not over yet.

Glen Hansen is a Senior Counsel at Abbott & Kindermann, Inc.  For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, real estate, environmental and/or planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. at (916) 456-9595.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

Glen C. Hansen of Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., will present an update on recent developments in resolving easement, boundary, and implied public dedication disputes in California. This is an advanced class aimed primarily at land surveyors, civil engineers, attorneys, and property owners. This intense, three-hour class examines recent case law about:

  • Creating, Interpreting, and Terminating Easements
  • Accommodating Neighbors vs. Creating Prescriptive Easements
  • Establishing Equitable Easements
  • When Implied Dedications of Public Easements Exist, and When They Don’t.

MCLE and American Planning Association continuing education credits offered. (Pending)

MCLE 3.0       CM 3.0

Glen C. Hansen is Senior Counsel at Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., and a long-time practitioner in real estate and land use law.

Cost $85.00

Location and Time

Roseville – October 13, 2017, 8:00 a.m.-11:45 a.m.  (To Register CLICK HERE)

Holiday Inn Express – Roseville, 1398 East Roseville Parkway, Roseville, CA 95661

Registration:   8:00 a.m.

Class:              8:30 a.m. – 11:45 a.m.

Break:             10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.

In Murr v. Wisconsin, U.S., 137 S.Ct. 1933 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court established a multi-factored test to determine what is the proper unit of property against which to assess whether a challenged governmental action constitutes a regulatory taking for which just compensation is owed under the U.S. Constitution. Because the test for a regulatory taking involves a comparison of the value that has been taken from the property with the value that remains in the property, the multi-factored test defines “the unit of property ‘whose value is to furnish the denominator of the fraction.’”

In Murr, Petitioners owned two adjacent lots–Lot E and Lot F–along the lower portion of a river in Wisconsin that is protected under local state and federal law. State and local regulations prevented the use or sale of adjacent lots as separate building sites unless they have at least one acre of land suitable for development. Both lots were over one acre in size, but each had less than one acre suitable for development due to their topography. The unification of the lots under the Petitioners’ common ownership implicated the rules barring their separate sale or development. Petitioners considered selling Lot E as part of an improvement plan for the lots, and sought variances from the existing regulations from a local agency. However, that agency denied the variance request and the state courts affirmed on the ground that the regulations effectively merged the lots for sale or development purposes.

Petitioners filed suit in state court against the State of Wisconsin on the ground that the merger regulations were a taking under the U.S. Constitution because the regulations deprived Petitioners of all, or practically all of the use of Lot E since the lot cannot be sold or developed as a separate lot under the regulations. The trial court granted summary judgment to the State on the ground that Petitioners had other options to enjoy and use their properties. The trial court also found that Petitioners had not been deprived of all economic value of their property because the decrease in market value of the unified lots was less than 10 percent. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed.

Writing for the 5-3 majority, Justice Kennedy described the key legal question in the case as follows:

What is the proper unit of property against which to assess the effect of the challenged governmental action? Put another way, “[b]ecause our test for regulatory taking requires us to compare the value that has been taken from the property with the value that remains in the property, one of the critical questions is determining how to define the unit of property ‘whose value is to furnish the denominator of the fraction.’” [Citations omitted.]

The majority rejected each of the formalistic rules advocated by the State and Petitioners because “the question of the proper parcel in regulatory takings cases cannot be solved by any simple test.” Justice Kennedy stated that no single consideration can supply the exclusive test for determining the denominator. That is because of the competing constitutional principles underlying the Takings Clause. Justice Kennedy explained:

A central dynamic of the Court’s regulatory takings jurisprudence, then, is its flexibility. This has been and remains a means to reconcile two competing objectives central to regulatory takings doctrine. One is the individual’s right to retain the interests and exercise the freedoms at the core of private property ownership. Property rights are necessary to preserve freedom, for property ownership empowers persons to shape and to plan their own destiny in a world where governments are always eager to do so for them.

The other persisting interest is the government’s well-established power to “adjus[t] rights for the public good.” In adjudicating regulatory takings cases a proper balancing of these principles requires a careful inquiry informed by the specifics of the case. In all instances, the analysis must be driven “by the purpose of the Takings Clause, which is to prevent the government from ‘forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’”.

In light of those countervailing public policies, Justice Kennedy stated that courts must consider a number of factors in making the “denominator” determination:

[W]hether reasonable expectations about property ownership would lead a landowner to anticipate that his holdings would be treated as one parcel, or, instead, as separate tracts. The inquiry is objective, and the reasonable expectations at issue derive from background customs and the whole of our legal tradition.

The majority held that the factors to be considered in such an analysis are the following.

First, courts should give substantial weight to the treatment of the land, in particular how it is bounded or divided, under state and local law. This factor recognizes that “reasonable expectations of an acquirer of land must acknowledge legitimate restrictions affecting his or her subsequent use and dispensation of the property.” Therefore, a reasonable restriction that predates a landowner’s acquisition can be one of the objective factors that most landowners would reasonably consider in forming fair expectations about their property.

Second, courts must look to the physical characteristics of the landowner’s property. Such characteristics include the physical relationship of any distinguishable tracts, the parcel’s topography, and the surrounding human and ecological environment. For example, the property’s location in an area that is subject to, or likely to become subject to, environmental or other regulation is a relevant consideration.

Third, courts should assess the value of the property under the challenged regulation, with special attention to the effect of burdened land on the value of other holdings. Though a use restriction may decrease the market value of the property, the effect may be tempered if the regulated land adds value to the remaining property, such as by increasing privacy, expanding recreational space, or preserving surrounding natural beauty.

Applying that multifactor standard, the majority held in this case that Petitioners’ property should be evaluated as a single parcel consisting of Lots E and F together. The Court reasoned that (1) The treatment of the property under state law indicates petitioners’ property should be treated as one when considering the effects of the restrictions; (2) the physical characteristics of the property support its treatment as a unified parcel; (3) the prospective value that Lot E brings to Lot F supports considering the two as one parcel for purposes of determining if there is a regulatory taking; and (4) the special relationship of the lots is shown by their combined valuation. Therefore, the Court held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was correct in analyzing petitioners’ property as a single unit.

The Court further held that, by considering Petitioners’ property as a whole, the state court was correct to conclude that petitioners cannot establish a compensable taking in these circumstances. Petitioners had not been deprived of all economically beneficial or productive use of their property (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)), and they failed to establish that they suffered a taking under the more general test of Penn Central Trans. Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104.

In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts advocated sticking with “our traditional approach,” under which “[s]tate law defines the boundaries of distinct parcels of land, and those boundaries should determine the ‘private property’ at issue in regulatory takings cases.” Justice Roberts complained that the majority decision “knocks the definition of ‘private property’ loose from its foundation on stable state law rules and throws it into the maelstrom of multiple factors that come into play at the second step of the takings analysis.” In short, the dissent believed that the new framework established by the majority “compromises the Takings Clause as a barrier between individuals and the press of the public interest.”

Glen Hansen is a Senior Counsel at Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, real estate, environmental and/or planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., at (916) 456-9595.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

 

By Glen Hansen

The California Supreme Court held in Lynch v. California Coastal Commission (2017) 3 Cal.5th 470, that plaintiff property owners forfeited their challenge to conditions attached to a permit to rebuild a seawall and beach access stairway because the plaintiffs accepted the benefits the permit conferred, even though they simultaneously filed an action challenging the conditions.

In Lynch, plaintiffs owned homes that sit on a coastal bluff that cascades steeply down to the beach and Pacific Ocean. Since 1986, the properties have been protected by a shared seawall at the base of the bluff and a mid-bluff erosion control structure. A shared stairway provided the only access from the bluff-top to the beach below. Plaintiffs applied to the City of Encinitas (“City”) for authorization to replace the wooden seawall and mid-bluff structure and rebuild the lower portion of the stairway. The City approved the project, but final approval required a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission (“Commission”). A heavy winter storm then caused part of the bluff to collapse and destroyed part of the seawall, the mid-bluff structure, and the stairway. Plaintiffs sought a new permit to rebuild the damaged structures. The Commission approved a permit that allowed seawall reconstruction and mid-bluff protection, but with special conditions, including the following: (1) reconstruction of the lower stairway is prohibited; (2) the seawall permit will expire in 20 years and prohibits future bluff-top redevelopment from relying on the seawall; and (3) before expiration of the 20-year period, plaintiffs must apply for a new permit to remove the seawall, change its size or configuration, or extend the authorization period. Plaintiffs submitted written objections to those conditions during the review process. But, then plaintiffs complied with the permit requirements and recorded deed restrictions stating that the special conditions of the permit were covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of their properties. Plaintiffs also filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging the 20-year expiration conditions and the condition prohibiting reconstruction of the lower stairway. While the mandate action was pending, however, plaintiffs satisfied all other conditions, obtained the permit, and built the seawall.

The trial court issued a writ directing the Commission to remove the challenged conditions and held that “by proceeding with the repairs,” plaintiffs “have not necessarily accepted the conditions in question. No action has been taken as to the twenty year condition[,] which can be removed after review of the instant petition.” The Court of Appeal reversed in a split decision. The California Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision.

The Supreme Court held that “plaintiffs forfeited their right to challenge the permit’s conditions by complying with all pre-issuance requirements, accepting the permit, and building the seawall. The Court relied on the general rule in the land use context that “a landowner may not challenge a permit condition if he has acquiesced to it either by specific agreement, or by failure to challenge the condition while accepting the benefits afforded by the permit. Generally, challenges to allegedly unlawful conditions must be litigated in administrative mandate proceedings.” That general rule stems from the equitable concept that permit holders are obliged to accept the burdens of a permit along with its benefits. The general rule also serves the public purpose of “promptly alerting the [agency] that its decision is being questioned and allows the government to mitigate potential damages.” In this case, plaintiffs obtained all the benefits of their permit when they built the seawall and “[t]hey cannot now be heard to complain of its burdens.” The Court refused to create a new exception to that general forfeiture rule which would allow landowners to accept the benefits of a permit under protest if the challenged restrictions can be severed from the project’s construction.

The Court recognized that there is a “narrow exception” to the general rule for challenges to permit conditions imposing a fee or similar exaction. The Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code, §66000 et seq.) (“MFA”) contains a procedure by which developers may proceed with a project and still protest the imposition of “fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions.” If a developer tenders payment of the disputed fee and gives written notice of the grounds for protest, local agencies cannot withhold project approval during litigation of the dispute, and local agencies must refund the fee if the challenge is successful. But that MFA procedure does not govern the type of land use restrictions that were imposed by the Commission on the project in this case.

Thus, the plaintiffs in Lynch forfeited their objections by constructing the project. The Court concluded:  “Without an express agreement with the agency providing otherwise, landowners who object to permit conditions not covered by the Mitigation Fee Act must litigate their objections in an administrative mandate proceeding before constructing the permitted project. Landowners who proceed with a project before the merits of their claims have been decided risk a finding that their objections were forfeited.”

Glen Hansen is Senior Counsel at Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, real estate, environmental and/or planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., at (916) 456-9595.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

By Glen Hansen

In Gion v. City of Santa Cruz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 29, the California Supreme Court held that private owners of certain coastal property who allowed the public to use the property for recreational purposes over a period of years thereby impliedly dedicated property rights to the public. The Legislature responded to Gion by enacting Civil Code section 1009. That section generally provides that “no use” of private noncoastal property after the legislation’s effective date of March 4, 1972, will give rise to “a vested right” in the public to continue using the property permanently, unless the property owner makes an express, irrevocable offer to dedicate the property to public use. In Scher v. Burke (2017) 3 Cal.5th 136, the California Supreme Court resolved a dispute between the Courts of Appeal and held that section 1009 bars all use of non-coastal private real property, not simply recreational use of such property, from ever ripening into an implied dedication to the public after March 4, 1972.

In Scher, Plaintiffs owned property along Henry Ridge Motorway, which is located in the unincorporated Topanga Canyon area in the Santa Monica Mountains in Los Angeles County. Plaintiffs purchased their property along Henry Ridge Motorway in 1998 with a 1948 easement that only gave them access to the north. Defendants’ properties were located south of Plaintiffs’ property along Henry Ridge Motorway and/or along an adjacent road.

Much of the case concerned whether and in what manner Henry Ridge Motorway and the adjacent road were used by the public. When Pauline Stewart, the “matriarch of Henry Ridge,” moved to Henry Ridge Motorway in 1977, it was merely a “fire road.” In 1984, the Los Angeles County Fire Department notified Stewart that it would no longer maintain the road because the “County had designated it as a private road.” Stewart described Henry Ridge Motorway in a 1988 letter as “a road on private property so it is considered a private road, it is not a public thoroughfare, even though it is open to the public for all practical purposes.” In the past, several Defendants recorded irrevocable offers to dedicate easements to the public for a hiking and/or an equestrian trail over those portions of Henry Ridge Motorway that crossed over Defendants’ properties. Defendants have also sought to limit public access over Henry Ridge Motorway and the adjacent road south of Plaintiffs’ property, including locking gates, “religiously” stopping drivers on those roads that they did not recognize, and placing signs that forbid trespassing or state “No access to Henry Ridge Road. Locked gates ahead.”

Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, Defendants have acquiesced to the dedication to public use of the entirety of Henry Ridge Motorway and the adjacent road across defendants’ properties, and that Plaintiffs are entitled to use Henry Ridge Motorway and the adjacent road as a public street. The Superior Court for Los Angeles County held, among other things, that Henry Ridge Motorway and the adjacent road had been impliedly dedicated as public streets under Civil Code section 1009. Defendants appealed part of the judgment. The Court of Appeal reversed the implied dedication part of the judgment in a published portion of its decision. The California Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, and remanded to the Superior Court for entry of judgment in favor of Defendants.

In 1971, the Legislature enacted Civil Code section 1009 to restrict the common law implied dedications to the public. Subdivision (b) of that section declares that

“no use of such property by the public after the effective date of this section shall ever ripen to confer upon the public or any governmental body or unit a vested right to continue to make such use permanently, in the absence of an express written irrevocable offer of dedication of such property to such use, made by the owner thereof in the manner prescribed in subdivision (c) of this section, which has been accepted by the county, city, or other public body to which the offer of dedication was made … .”

That statutory restriction was made effective March 4, 1972.

Several cases included language and/or dicta that section 1009, subdivision (b), applied only to recreational uses from developing into an implied public dedication. (See Hanshaw v. Long Valley Road Assn. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 471; Pulido v. Pereira (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1246; Bustillos v. Murphy (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1277.) In Scher, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the language in those cases, and held that section 1009, subdivision (b), barred all public use, not just recreational use, from developing into an implied public dedication. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve that disagreement among the Courts of Appeal.

The Court held that section 1009, subdivision (b), applies to non-recreational use of roadways for vehicle access as it applies to recreational use of other private noncoastal property. The Court reviewed the explicit language, legislative concerns, general legislative scheme and legislative history of the statute, and concluded that “section 1009, subdivision (b) contains no implicit exception for non-recreational use of roadways.” In so holding, the Court disapproved Hanshaw, Pulido and Bustillos to the extent they are inconsistent with the Court’s opinion.

So at the end of the litigation, the Supreme Court essentially followed the testimony of the “matriarch of Henry Ridge.” Ms. Stewart testified that she was unaware of facts that would show that the general public had used Henry Ridge Motorway, over the adjacent road, to access a public road. She added: “I don’t know anybody in their right mind that would even try to go that way.” Apparently, everyone ended the case in their right mind.

Glen Hansen is a Senior Counsel at Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, real estate, environmental and/or planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., at (916) 456-9595.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

Glen C. Hansen of Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., will present an update on recent developments in resolving easement, boundary, and implied public dedication disputes in California. This is an advanced class aimed primarily at land surveyors, civil engineers, attorneys, and property owners. This intense, three-hour class examines recent case law about:

  • Creating, Interpreting, and Terminating Easements
  • Accommodating Neighbors vs. Creating Prescriptive Easements
  • Establishing Equitable Easements
  • When Implied Dedications of Public Easements Exist, and When They Don’t.

MCLE and American Planning Association continuing education credits offered, pending approval.

MCLE 3.0       CM 3.0

Glen C. Hansen is Senior Counsel at Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., and a long-time practitioner in real estate and land use law.

Cost $85.00

Location and Time

Roseville – October 13, 2017, 8:00 a.m.-11:45 a.m.  (To Register CLICK HERE)

Holiday Inn Express – Roseville, 1398 East Roseville Parkway, Roseville, CA 95661

Registration:   8:00 a.m.

Class:              8:30 a.m. – 11:45 a.m.

Break:             10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.

Diane G. Kindermann (2015-2017) and William W. Abbott (2004-2017) were again selected for the Northern California Super Lawyers List in the practice areas of Land Use and Zoning law. More information is available at http://www.superlawyers.com/california-northern/. The firm is pleased to continue to serve private and public clients in Northern California on land use, environmental and real estate matters for more than 20 years.


By William W. Abbott

Cinema West, LLC v. Christine Baker 2017 Cal.App. LEXIS 599

As former redevelopment agency properties come back into the marketplace, prospective developers must proceed cautiously to avoid tripping on the State’s prevailing wage law. What appears to be a fair market transaction may include a disguised agency contribution or publically funded construction, thus triggering prevailing wage for the entire development project. Frequently, this obligation does not surface until after the project is under construction.

The City of Hesperia became the successor agency to its redevelopment agency following dissolution by the state legislature. For a number of years, the City sought the development of the first theater complex inside the City limits. Eventually, as the successor agency, the City negotiated a fair market priced sale to Cinema West, LLC, (“Cinema”) to develop a 12-screen complex. As part of the negotiations, the City would construct the parking lot, provide reciprocal easements, develop a water retention system for the theater and parking lot, and construct offsite improvements. The theater operator would sign a 10-year operating covenant for the theater. The documents recited that the developer was providing all the financing for the theater and permits, and that the City was purchasing the operating covenant in the form of a forgivable loan in the amount of $1,546,363. The City also agreed, as part of the consideration for the operating covenant, to the payment of $102,259., to Cinema a sum equal to the purchase price paid by the theater developer for the land. As the project moved forward, construction costs proved to be greater than originally budgeted. The City provided an additional $250,000 in the form of a forgivable loan in exchange for a second operating covenant.

Nearing the end of theater construction, Union Local 477 sought a public works coverage determination by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Following submittal of documents by the City and written arguments by Cinema, the Director concluded that the theater was a public work subject to prevailing wage requirements. This conclusion was reached based upon the City payment of $102,259, the two forgivable loans, and the construction of the parking lot and offsite improvements. Cinema filed a timely appeal. The Director considered the additional evidence and argument, but affirmed its initial decision. The Department then initiated a wage enforcement proceeding. Cinema then filed a writ in superior court and sought injunctive relief against the enforcement proceeding. The superior court ruled in favor of the Department.

On appeal, the Appellate Court also affirmed. Procedurally, Cinema argued that it was entitled to present extra record evidence before the Superior Court. Both the trial court and appellate court rejected this argument, citing the established cases that extra record evidence (that is evidence not presented to the administrative tribunal) can only come in at trial in limited circumstances.

Turning to the merits, Cinema made four arguments (1) private construction is not subject to prevailing wage merely because other related construction is publically funded; (2) mere coordination of two related construction projects does not create a complete integrated “object”; (3) Cinema did not receive public funds or their equivalent; and (4) the construction of the parking lot did not transform the private theater into a public work. Looking at the totality of circumstances, the appellate court concluded that the evidence supported the conclusion that the parking lot construction and theater were interlinked. This evidence included communications by the Cinema to the City describing the City’s contribution along with the approving resolutions referencing the City’s contributions. Other factors weighed in support of finding the requisite relationship between theater and parking lot, including timing of construction, the use of the same contractor and the fact that the theater did not meet the City’s parking requirements without use of the parking lot. The appellate court also considered that the evidence regarding the forgivable loans as reflecting a public subsidy, but eventually concluded that it need not reach that issue.

Given the expansive statutory definition of public works for prevailing wage purposes, developers need to look closely at any transaction which goes beyond a fair market sale.

William W. Abbott is a shareholder at Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, real estate, environmental and/or planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. at (916) 456-9595.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.