August 2010

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case put a new twist on the debate over what constitutes adverse modification to critical habitat by upholding a black and white mathematical percentage formula applied by FWS in its BO to determine whether critical habitat destruction jeopardized listed species or adversely impacted their critical habitat. In this case, FWS found that there was no adverse impact because the acreage of critical habitat was miniscule in relation to the amount of critical habitat available nationwide.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Upholds Application of Percentage Methodology to Determine Whether There Has Been an Adverse Modification to Critical Habitat

Sacramento County released the general strategy component of its Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) in May of 2009. A workshop on Wednesday August 25, 2010 will focus on strategies for the implementation component of the CAP. The workshop will take place on August 25, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers at 700 H Street, Sacramento, California 95814. More information is available on Sacramento County’s Sustainability Web Page.
Continue Reading Sacramento County Climate Action Plan Information Workshop

By Leslie Z. Walker

In a case with a curious procedural posture, the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, ruled that the Department of Water Resources is a “Person” for the purposes of Fish and Game Code section 2080 and thus is prohibited from taking an endangered or threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.) Kern County Water Agency v. Watershed Enforcers (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 969.
Continue Reading Department of Water Resources is a “Person” for Purposes of the California Endangered Species Act

By Glen Hansen

In Pinnacle Museum TowerAssn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (UC), LLC (D055422, July 30, 2010), 2010 Cal.App. LEXIS 1261, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that an arbitration provision in a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s) recorded by a condominium project developer did not constitute an “agreement” sufficient to waive the constitutional right to jury trial for construction defect claims brought by the homeowners association against the developer.Continue Reading Arbitration Clause in Condominium Project CC&Rs Unenforceable in Construction Defects Action by Homeowners’ Association against Developer