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.
William W. Abbott has been selected by his peers for inclusion in the 22nd Edition of The Best Lawyers in America© in the practice areas of Land Use & Zoning Law and Litigation-Land Use & Zoning Law.
Mr. Abbott has also been included in Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyers List in the practice area
California Appellate Court finds that a local agency’s general plan calling for the agency to “work with” other responsible agencies in land use decisions requires nothing more than notice, willingness to meet, and consideration of their concerns.
Continue Reading Return of Banning Ranch: The Spurned Responsible Agency
Diane G. Kindermann was selected in the practice areas of Environmental, Land Use/Zoning and Real Estate and William W. Abbott in the practice areas of Land Use/Zoning and Real Estate. 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
On July 9, 2015, the California Department of Water Resources released the Bay Delta Conservation Plan/California WaterFix Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for public review. The public comment period is July 10, 2015 through August 31, 2015. The BDCP’s new documents include a new sub-alternative-Alternative 4A (California WaterFix) – as the proposed
By Glen C. Hansen
In Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 388, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District held that a landowner’s inverse condemnation claim for damages against the County of Stanislaus caused by an unconstitutional temporary taking was time-barred under Government Code section 66499.37. The owner previously had filed a successful petition for writ of mandate challenging the disapproval of a subdivision application, which resulted in the County’s reconsideration of the application and eventual approval of the project. However, the owner’s subsequent claim for compensation damages was time-barred under section 66499.37 because the mandamus proceeding had not established that there had been a compensable taking.Continue Reading Do You Seek Compensation For An Unconstitutional Taking? Then Plead That With The Mandamus Action To Avoid The Potential Statute Of Limitations Bar!
