Articles

Subscribe to Articles via RSS

By Glen Hansen

In Martin v. Van Bergen (September 6, 2012, B232570) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that a property owner who unknowingly had raised almond trees up to a common fence located on a neighboring parcel could not raise the doctrine of boundary by agreement as a defense to the neighbor’s quiet title action, because there was no evidence of an actual agreement to locate the fence as the boundary between the parcels.Continue Reading When Neighbors Fight Over Whether A Fence Is On The Property Line, The Doctrine Of Boundary By Agreement Requires … An Actual Agreement.

By William W. Abbott

City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362. Los Angeles Unified School District ("LAUSD") proposed construction of a new high school in the City of Maywood. LAUSD was interested in a two block site consisting of 8.37 acres, then bisected by a major street. The original concept, called for the street to be abandoned and incorporated into the overall campus design. In response to the Notice of Preparation for the EIR, LAUSD received comments including questions concerning the infeasibility of street abandonment. The District modified the design as part of the Draft EIR, leaving the road in place but adding a pedestrian overcrossing of the existing street to provide connectivity between the two project site areas. Following certification of the EIR, the District approved the project. The City filed a CEQA challenge, and the trial court agreed that the District had committed several CEQA errors, and in response to a subsequent motion filed by the City, awarded attorneys’ fees of $670,000 to the City under the authority of California’s private attorney general statute, Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5. The District appealed. In a lengthy and painstaking decision, the Second Appellate District largely agreed with LAUSD, reversing the trial court of 4 of 5 CEQA issues and reversing and remanding the award of attorneys’ fees for further consideration. The appellate decision provides guidance as to a number of key CEQA subjects: cumulative effects, alternatives, mitigation deferral and growth assumptions.Continue Reading Appellate Court Re-grades EIR Exam and Gives L.A.U.S.D. High Marks; Assigns More Homework to Address Pedestrian Safety for High School Project.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently found that the United States Environmental Protection Agency used the “good neighbor” provision between States in the Clean Act Air “to impose massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind States without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text.” The court held EPA’s “Transport Rule,” which implemented the good neighbor provision, violated the CAA in several respects. In striking down that rulemaking, the court noted EPA’s seeming reluctance “to acknowledge any textual limits on its authority under the good neighbor provision.”…
Continue Reading In Striking Down EPA’s “Transport Rule” Under The Clean Air Act, Federal Court Is Struck With EPA’s Refusal To Acknowledge Any Textual Limits On Its Authority

An arbitration provision that is contained in CC&Rs is enforceable against a plaintiff condominium association who sued the developer for construction defects, even though the association did not exist as a separate entity when the CC&Rs was drafted and recorded by the developer.
Continue Reading Arbitration Provision In A CC&Rs Applies To Condominium Association Construction Defects Claims Against Developer.

William W. Abbott, partner at Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be speaking on the following topic:

 Subdivision Map Act – Road Hazards for Real Estate Practitioners

 Date and Time:

            Monday September 10, 2012 at 11:35 a.m.

Location:

            The Firehouse Restaurant – Golden Eagle Room

            112 Second Street, Old Sacramento, …

Rewritten to address desperately needed CEQA reform, SB 317 (sponsored by Senator Rubio) proposes significant revisions to CEQA via a completely different statute – The Sustainable Environmental Protection Act. While environmentalists claim the changes are “last minute” and would completely “gut” CEQA, business interests contend the proposed changes have been in the works for at…

By Glen C. Hansen

In Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal. 4th 1206, the California Supreme Court examined the three requirements that litigants must prove in order to recover attorneys’ fees under California’s ‘private attorney general’ fee statute in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Those factors are “(1) plaintiffs’ action ‘has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest,’ (2) ‘a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons’ and (3) ‘the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate.’” (Id. at p. 1214 (citation omitted).)Continue Reading Only The Pecuniary Interests Of A Public Litigant May Be Considered When Awarding Attorneys’ Fees To The Public Litigant Under Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5

PLAN Sac Valley Mentoring Program

The award winning PLAN Sac Valley Mentoring Program provides the next generation of professional planners a challenging one-on-one and group mentoring forum for personal and professional growth and advancement. Applications are now available. For information on becoming a mentee or mentor go to: http://www.sacvalley-apa.org/ypgmenu/plan-sac-valley.html