Land Use, Environmental, and Real Estate Law in California
The following article by Diane Kindermann was published by the Orange County Lawyer Magazine in its August 2014 issue. It encapsulates the State of California’s response to the drought through state legislation, local regulation, litigation, and new technical guidance addressing both surface and groundwater. To read the entire article click here.
Since the original…
By Glen Hansen
Roberson v. City of Rialto (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1499.
On July 15, 2008, the City of Rialto approved development of a commercial retail center to be anchored by a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The notice of the initial, July 1, 2008, public hearing before the city council on the project approvals was legally defective because the notice did not indicate that the planning commission had recommended the city council adopt the project approvals. (See Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 877, 890–893.) In August 2008, Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth, a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation (“Rialto Citizens”), petitioned the trial court to invalidate and set aside the project approvals based in part on the defect in the notice of the July 1 city council hearing. On appeal, the court ruled against Rialto Citizens, holding that the petitioner made no attempt to show in the trial court, and the trial court did not find, that the defect in the notice was prejudicial, caused substantial injury to any of Rialto Citizens’ members, or that a different result was probable absent the defect. (See Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 916–921.)Continue Reading CEQA Case Barred: Petitioners Seeking Vindication of Same Public Interest as Prior Unsuccessful Claimant
By Glen Hansen
In Brandt Trust v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1257, 188 L.Ed.2d 272 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held that rights of way granted by the U.S. Government to railroads under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 constituted easements, and not reversionary interests held by the U.S. Government, such that when a right of way granted in 1908 under the 1875 Act was abandoned in 2004, the servient property for that right of way became unburdened by the easement and all property rights were then held by the patentee of the underlying land.Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds That U.S. Government Does Not Have A Reversionary Interest To Abandoned Railroad Right Of Ways Under 1875 Statute
By William W. Abbott
Town of Atherton v. California High-Speed Rail Authority (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 314.
Programmatic EIRs invariably invoke the uneasy question, of “how much information is enough?” This question is reminiscent of the challenge to the United States Supreme Court in defining obscenity and Justice Potter Stewart’s concurring opinion when he acknowledged the difficulty of articulating a standard, writing “I know it when I see it”, and then concluding that the movie in question was not obscene. The Third District Court of Appeal recently wrestled with CEQA’s equivalent to defining the undefinable, concluding that the level of detail on a programmatic EIR was sufficient.Continue Reading Third District Court of Appeal Upholds Level Of Detail In Programmatic EIR for Rail Corridor
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:
Continue Reading NEW CLASS – Update on Easement Law and Boundary Disputes
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 California Courts of Appeal Issue Several Decisions Clarifying Disclosure Duties Of Real Estate Sellers And Their Brokers/Agents
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.
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 The Third DCA Turns Off The Lights and Directs A More Thorough Energy Analysis Be Prepared For Regional Shopping Center Project
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 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
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 One Hundred Years Later Hiram Johnson Dances on His Grave: California Supreme Court Upholds Initiative Rights Against CEQA Based Challenge
