Land Use, Environmental, and Real Estate Law in California
Join William Abbott of Abbott & Kindermann, LLP in a class which ties together best practices for land development projects. This is an advanced class aimed primarily at project managers, engineers, and development consultants. This intense, three hour class interprets and applies:
…
Glen C. Hansen of Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, will present the 2nd annual update on 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 examines recent case law about:
…
By William W. Abbott
City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, S199557, Supreme Court of California, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 5291, August 3, 2015
The California Supreme Court cleared the air over one of its earlier CEQA decisions concerning the responsibility of CSU to consider and mitigate for offsite impacts. In 2006, the Court determined that CSU Monterey was not precluded from mitigating for offsite impacts occurring in the City of Marina. City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341. In the Marina decision, the court stated “[A] state agency’s power to mitigate its project’s effects through voluntary mitigation payments is ultimately subject to legislative control; if the Legislature does not appropriate the money, the power does not exist.” The University system is directed by a Board of Trustees, who, in reliance upon the above quoted language in Marina, determined that the University was not authorized to engage in offsite mitigation absent a specific legislative appropriation.Continue Reading WILL CSU EVER GRADUATE FROM CEQA SCHOOL?
By Glen Hansen
In Shoen v. Zacarias (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 16, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that the hardship that a trespasser would have in removing her portable patio furniture from a neighbor’s property would not be “greatly disproportionate” to the hardship on the neighbor in losing the trespassed-upon portion of that neighbor’s property occupied by the furniture, and so the trespasser was not entitled to an equitable easement to maintain that furniture on the neighbor’s property.Continue Reading An Equitable Easement To Keep Your Patio Furniture On Your Neighbor’s Property?
By William W. Abbott
Coppinger v. Rawlins (August 14, 2015, E060664) ___ Cal.App.4th ___.
County acceptance of a roadway dedication on a map does not assure acceptance of the roadway into the County maintained highway system.
In 1980, Robinson filed a parcel map, creating two numbered lots and 3 lettered lots: A, B and C. By certificate on the map, the County accepted the dedication offer on Lot A into the County maintained road system, and accepted Lots B and C on behalf of the public, but not into the County maintained system, specifying that acceptance would require a separate resolution by the Board of Supervisors.Continue Reading Accepting Roadway Dedications On Behalf Of The Public As Compared To Accepting Roads Into The Publically Maintained Road System. Words Matter.
