|
- Boundary Dispute -
A hearsay statement concerning the boundary of land is admissible under Evidence Code §1323 as long as it does not lack trustworthiness, even if the declarant had an interest in the disputed boundary.
McDermott Ranch v. Connolly Ranch - filed Dec. 17, 2019, Third District
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 4339
Full text click here >
- CEQA -
A city did not abuse its discretion in granting a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for a residential development project where the city expressly balanced the competing interests of its general plan and a community plan's policies and objectives of providing multifamily housing with a medium-high density at the project's site against the purpose of city's steep hillside regulations to protect such environmentally sensitive lands.
Holden v. City of San Diego (Idea Enterprise) - filed Dec. 13, 2019, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 4264
Full text click here >
- Clean Water Act -
Discharges composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture for purposes of 33 U.S.C. § 1342(l)(1) refers to discharges from activities related to crop production; a district court erred by interpreting entirely to mean majority; because §1342(l)(1) contains an exception to the Clean Water Act’s permitting requirement, a defendant has the burden of establishing that a project’s discharges were composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture.
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Glaser - filed Dec. 20, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-17130
Full text click here >
- EIR -
A regional air pollution control district was the proper lead agency to undertake the preparation of an environmental impact report for a project carried out by a nongovernmental entity on federal land where the only nonfederal agency with any permit authority over the project was the district; a lead agency must evaluate comments to a draft EIR and prepare written responses that describe the disposition of any significant environmental issue raised, so the district had to give a good faith, reasoned response to proposed mitigation measures indicating why such measures are not feasible.
Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (Orni 50) - filed Nov. 26, 2019, publication ordered Dec. 23, 2019, Third District
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 4448
Full text click here >
- EPA -
A constructive submission will be found where a state has failed over a long period of time to submit a temperature total maximum daily loads, and it has clearly and unambiguously decided not to submit any TMDL; a constructive submission of no TMDL triggers the Environmental Protection Agency’s mandatory duty to develop and issue its own TMDL within 30 days.
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Wheeler - filed Dec. 20, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 18-35982
Full text click here >
- General Plan -
The adoption of a general plan is a legislative act and is presumed valid. The Government Code requires the policies in a general plan as written to be integrated, internally consistent, and compatible; a finding or determination made separate and independent from the approval of a general plan and not included as part thereof cannot render the general plan internally inconsistent or noncorrelative.
Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento - filed Nov. 26, 2019, publication ordered Dec. 18, 2019, Third District
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 4376
Full text click here >
- Loan Modification -
For purposes of Civil Code §2953, a loan modification agreement is appropriately viewed as the making or renewal of a loan secured by a deed of trust; this agreement is therefore subject to the anti-waiver provisions of §2953 and §2954c, which gives the homeowners the opportunity to cure their precipitating default by making up those missed payments and paying the associated late charges and fees, and in that way to avoid the consequences of default on the modified loan.
Taniguchi v. Restoration Homes LLC - filed Dec. 16, 2019, First District, Div. Two
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 4312
Full text click here >
- Receivership -
Before appointing a receiver under Health and Safety Code §17980.7(c), a court must determine whether the owner of the property received constitutionally adequate notice and an opportunity to correct the health and safety violations within a reasonable amount of time, and whether the person nominated to be appointed as a receiver has the capacity and expertise to develop and supervise a viable financial and construction plan for the rehabilitation of the property.
City of Desert Hot Springs v. Valenti - filed Dec. 13, 2019, publication ordered Dec. 19, 2019, Fourth District, Div. Two
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 4436
Full text click here >
|