By Glen C. Hansen

In Linthicum v. Butterfield (April 2, 2009) 2009 Cal.App. LEXIS 473 (as modified on April 9, 2009, 2009 Cal.App.LEXIS 496), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed a trial court’s creation of an equitable easement. In that case, Plaintiffs bought a parcel of land in a mountainous area near Los Padres National Forest in Santa Barbara County. A 60-year old roadway existed over that parcel. Defendant owners of neighboring parcels used that roadway as the only access to their land.  Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent Defendants from using the roadway.  Defendants cross-complained to quiet title to an easement for the roadway.  The primary issue in that case was whether the trial court abused its discretion in creating an “equitable easement” over the roadway in favor of the Defendants.

Continue Reading Through Equity, A Court Can Create a Roadway Easement

By William W. Abbott

Adjudicating old subdivision maps is becoming more and more like driving the last nail into a coffin: the patient is dead and we are simply down to the final details.  Blog readers may remember Revisiting History: When is a Recorded 1915 Map Not a Subdivision Map?, which reviewed the holding in Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 543, a case in which the First Appellate District concluded, relying on Gardner v. County of Sonoma (2003) 29 Cal.App.4th 990, that a 1915 subdivision map did not meet the grandfather test for prior subdivisions found in Government Code section 66499.30.

Continue Reading Revisiting History Part II: When is a Recorded 1909 Map Not a Subdivision Map?

By Leslie Z. Walker

Two months ahead of the deadline mandated by SB 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes 2007; Public Resources Code section 21083.05), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (“Proposed Guidelines”) and transmitted them to the Resources Agency for rulemaking on Monday, April 13, 2009.

Continue Reading OPR Finalizes Proposed CEQA Guidelines and Transmits Them to Resources Agency

By Leslie Z. Walker

On April 17, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released a proposed finding under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1)) that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare. (See Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act.)

Continue Reading EPA Issues Proposed Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Cori Badgley, associate at Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be speaking at the following seminar on April 29, 2009.

Smart Ways to Stay ON TRACK and not get DE-RAILED

  • Current Real Estate statistics & how to survive the Market
  • 1031 Exchange and Structured Sales
  • Short Sales, late house payments, danger of Foreclosure
  • Refinancing to a safer and better loan
  • Legal advice about Short Sales and tax breaks for homeowners
  • Loan Modifications
  • Rescuing your 401K

Learn how to help your personal situation and get solid advice from leading professionals in 6 different fields.

  • On Track Workshop
  • Wednesday, April 29, 2009 – 6:30 PM – 9:00 PM
  • Holiday Inn Express Grand Ballroom
  • 121 Bank Street, Grass Valley, California
  • Refreshments will be served

The Workshop is FREE and Seating is Limited

Please RSVP to reserve your spot in the workshop. Call (530) 268-2488 or register on the website: www.ontrackworkshop.com

By Cori Badgley

In interpreting the provision of a development agreement imposing an in-lieu affordable housing fee, the court in Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 886 enunciated two important rulings: 1) development agreements are interpreted under contract law, and 2) an in-lieu affordable housing fee is not reasonably justified if the fee is simply based on the amount of housing allocated to the jurisdiction under the regional housing need assessment.

Continue Reading Simple Math Does Not Amount to Reasonable Justification for Fee Amount

By Katherine J. Hart

In California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1026, the California Native Plant Society (“Society”) filed a CEQA lawsuit against El Dorado County (“County”) after the County approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Congregate Care Project (“Project”).  The Project consists of two care units, cottages, and a clubhouse on 20 acres, and was part of a larger development area including a local medical center, a senior assisted living facility, medical office buildings and a local retail shopping center.

Continue Reading Are the Days of Mitigating a Project’s Significant Impacts with Impact Fees Gone?

Have you participated in an outstanding planning project in the last year?  Do you know someone who should be recognized for their leadership in planning? Nominate a project or person for one of the award categories below by Monday, April 6, 2009. The Sacramento Valley Section uses the State award application form. Section winners for all categories except the Local Vision Awards are submitted to the state for statewide awards.

Questions?

Call Leslie Walker at (916) 456-9595 or email lwalker@aklandlaw.com.

For More Information

Please consult the California APA Award Program Policy, the Sacramento Valley Application Form, last year’s winners for the Sacramento Valley Section, and the Local Vision Awards.

By William W. Abbott

In 2006, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (“District”) adopted higher rates for groundwater pumping. These charges were imposed on water districts and utilities which pumped their own groundwater, including the Great Oaks Water Company (“Great Oaks”). Great Oaks subsequently filed suit seeking to set aside the increases claiming that the District had failed to comply with CEQA by not specifying the factual or evidentiary basis for the rate increases and that exemptions from CEQA are invalid because the District’s budget included monies dedicated to system expansion.

Continue Reading District Offered Sufficient Justification to Apply CEQA Exemption to Rate Setting for Groundwater Extraction Charges

For those of you that missed the Sacramento and Modesto seminars last month, you can now reserve a seat for the first ever Abbott & Kindermann, LLP seminar in Redding, California.

On April 7, 2009, Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present it’s annual complimentary educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, real estate acquisition, easements, leasing and property acquisition, and mining.  

First Ever – Redding Conference

  • Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009
  • Location: Hilton Garden Inn Redding , 5050 Bechelli Lane
  • Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
  • Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

There is no charge for the programs and MCLE credits are available.

An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve a spot now, call our office at (916) 456-9595. When calling, please specify which conference you will be attending.