September 2015

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:

  • CEQA
  • Permit Streamlining Act
  • Subdivision Map Act
  • Clean Water Act
  • Endangered Species Act
  • Updating Existing Entitlements                                                        

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

MCLE 3.0       CM 3.0

Cost $85.00 

Locations and Times

Roseville – November 5, 2015, 8:30-11:30 a.m. (To Register for the Roseville Location Click Here)

Holiday Inn Express – Roseville, 1398 E. Roseville Pkwy., Roseville, CA 95661                                                                                                  

Fairfield – November 17, 2015, 8:30-11:30 a.m. (To Register for the Fairfield Location Click Here)

Hilton Garden Inn – Fairfield, 2200 Gateway Court, Fairfield, CA 94533


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:

  • Creating and Terminating Easements
  • Accommodating Neighbors vs. Creating Prescriptive Easements
  • Determining the Scope of an Easement
  • Interfering with Easement Rights
  • Locating and Maintaining Boundary Dividers
  • Using Historical Evidence in Boundary Disputes
  • Resolving Conflicting Surveys

MCLE and American Planning Association continuing education credits offered.

MCLE 3.0       CM 3.0

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

Cost $85.00 

Location and Time

Roseville – October 23, 2015, 8:00 a.m.-11:45 a.m.  (To Register for the Roseville Location 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.


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.


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.