NEW CLASS - Update on Easement Law and Boundary Disputes

Join Glen C. Hansen of Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, in a new class which discusses recent developments in resolving easement and boundary disputes in California.  This is an advanced class aimed primarily at land surveyors, civil engineers, attorneys, and property owners. This intense, three‑hour class interprets and applies:

  • Easement Creation and Termination
  • Determining the Scope of an Easement
  • Locating and Maintaining Boundary Dividers
  • Resolving Conflicting Surveys
  • Recently Enacted and Pending Legislation
Continue Reading...
Tags:

California Courts of Appeal Issue Several Decisions Clarifying Disclosure Duties Of Real Estate Sellers And Their Brokers/Agents

By Glen C. Hansen

A trio of cases were reported by the California Court of Appeal in the first half of 2014 that clarified the disclosure and fiduciary duties of real estate brokers and their agents.

Continue Reading...

Abbott & Kindermann Is Pleased To Announce That William W. Abbott Has Been Included In The 21st Edition Of The Best Lawyers In America

William Abbott has been selected by his peers for inclusion in the 21st Edition of The Best Lawyers in America ® in the practice areas of Land Use & Zoning Law and Litigation-Land Use & Zoning Law.

Tags:

The Third DCA Turns Off The Lights and Directs A More Thorough Energy Analysis Be Prepared For Regional Shopping Center Project

By Katherine J. Hart

In California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, the Court of Appeal, Third District, held the City of Woodland’s (City) programmatic environmental impact report (EIR) was invalid on the following three grounds: (1) it failed to provide sufficient mitigation measures for urban decay impacts; (2) it failed to properly assess the feasibility of the mixed-use alternative and support the City’s rejection of the alternative; and (3) the City did not adequately study and disclose transportation, construction and operational energy impacts in the EIR. The appellate court refused to consider plaintiff’s general plan consistency arguments as they were not properly presented to the court.

Continue Reading...
Tags:

An NOD Filed On A Facilities Master Plan In 2006 Applied To A 2010 Tree-Cutting Contract Awarded In Furtherance Of The Master Plan

By William W. Abbott

Citizens for a Green San Mateo v. San Mateo County Community College District (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1572.

Details do matter in CEQA litigation as reflected in the recent decision involving the application of the statute of limitations to bar a CEQA claim. Citizens for a Green San Mateo v. San Mateo County Community College District (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1572. The facts involve a facilities master plan adopted by the San Mateo County Community College District. The chronology begins in 2001 when the District adopted a master plan. The District updated the master plan in 2006. The 2006 plan called for building demolition and reconstruction, and extensive site redevelopment including modification to existing landscaping. A mitigated negative declaration was approved in conjunction with the updated master plan. From 2008 through 2010, the District developed, approved and awarded site specific construction contracts. To differing degrees, these plans and construction contracts referenced tree removal. In late 2010, the District awarded a contract for tree removal which began on December 29, 2010, continuing on into January. Citizens raised concerns in early January, and filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the District on July 1, 2011. 

Continue Reading...
Tags:

One Hundred Years Later Hiram Johnson Dances on His Grave: California Supreme Court Upholds Initiative Rights Against CEQA Based Challenge

By William W. Abbott

First, a micro history lesson. Hiram Johnson served as California’s governor from 1911 to 1917. For purposes of this blog, one of Hiram’s important contributions was his support for the constitutional amendment which added the right of initiative and referendum to the California Constitution. At the start of the 20th century, California joined the national populist movement embracing direct citizen involvement, thereby revolutionizing state politics. In California, the push for direct citizen involvement in the legislative process was designed in part to break the political control in Sacramento which was held by Southern Pacific Railroad, and by all counts the effort accomplished that goal. The initiative power was only one of several significant reforms championed by Johnson, but more on that later. For the curious, check out Hiram’s profile by the State Librarian: http://governors.library.ca.gov/23-hjohnson.html. For more on the history and significance of initiatives, check out the Initiative and Referendum Institute.

Continue Reading...
Tags:

SUPREME COURT TAKES UP TWO CASES OF INTEREST

Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Game, et al. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1105, review granted and depublished (July 9, 2014), 2014 Cal.LEXIS 5032.

The California Supreme Court granted review and depublished the Court of Appeal opinion. (2014 Cal.LEXIS 5032.) The court agreed to hear the following questions: (1) Does the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.) supersede other California statutes that prohibit the taking of “fully protected” species, and allow such a taking if it is incidental to a mitigation plan under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)? (2) Does the California Environmental Quality Act restrict judicial review to the claims presented to an agency before the close of the public comment period on a draft environmental impact report? (3) May an agency deviate from the Act’s existing conditions baseline and instead determine the significance of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions by reference to a hypothetical higher “business as usual” baseline?

Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn., S218240. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1542, review granted and depublished (July 9, 2014), 2014 Cal.LEXIS 4992.

The California Supreme Court granted review and ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, S201116, which presents the following issue: Did the City of Berkeley properly conclude that a proposed project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) under the categorical exemptions set forth in California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15303, subdivision (a), and 15332, and that the “Significant Effects Exception” set forth in section 15300.2, subdivision (c), of the regulations did not operate to remove the project from the scope of those categorical exemptions?

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, nor 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.

Tags:

Please Join William Abbott on August 8, 2014 for UC Davis Extension's Development Agreements Public Private Partnerships & Redevelopment Class

This course will discuss public-private partnerships and the legal and practical considerations impacting how cities, counties and private developers can collaborate on matters involving economic development Class starts August 8, 2014 – Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Sacramento: Sutter Square Galleria, 2901 K Street.

Instructors:

William Abbott, Steven Rudolph, & Harriet Steiner

For more info, or to enroll visit: http://bit.ly/1xiShNl

Tags:

2014 MID-YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL LAW UPDATE

By Diane Kindermann, William W. Abbott, Glen Hansen and Katherine J. Hart

Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2014 Mid-Year Environmental update. This update discusses selected litigation, regulations/administrative guidance and pending legislation, on both the federal and state levels, in the following general areas of environmental law: (A) Water Supply, (B) Water Quality, (C) Wetlands, (D) Air Quality, (E) Endangered Species, (F) NEPA, (G) Mining / Oil & Gas, (H) Cultural Resources, (I) Environmental Enforcement, and (J) Renewable Energy.

Click here to read the complete update.

If you have any questions about this article, contact Diane Kindermann, William Abbott, Glen Hansen or Katherine Hart. The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, nor 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.

Please Join William Abbott on August 8, 2014 for UC Davis Extension's Development Agreements Public Private Partnerships & Redevelopment Class.

For details click here to view the brochure.

August 8, 2014 – Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Sacramento: Sutter Square Galleria, 2901 K Street

Tags: