Latest 2 Cases This Week: Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (Cal. Ct. App.), Save Our Heritage Org. v. City of San Diego (Cal. Ct. App.)
Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Associate Degree in Architecture, LACCBachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED-GREEN Certificate The Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners Since 1984*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 CellWebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/rESUME2011.pdf Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://commercialappraiser.typepad.com/blog/ IT'S THE LAW-Designation Discrimination is Illegal [FIRREA, Sec. 564.6]: Professional Association Membership: "A State Certified General Appraiser may not be excluded from consideration for an assignment for a federally related transaction by virtue of membership or lack of membership in any particular appraisal organization," including the appraisal institute. http://www.ofi.state.la.us/re-otspart565.pdf CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal.
From: Zoning, Planning & Land Use - Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zoning, Planning & Land Use - Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries
Sent: Friday, 28 April, 2017 7:03 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Latest 2 Cases This Week: Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (Cal. Ct. App.), Save Our Heritage Org. v. City of San Diego (Cal. Ct. App.)
Free Zoning, Planning & Land Use case summaries from Justia.
If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.Zoning, Planning & Land Use
April 28, 2017
Table of ContentsSierra Club v. County of SonomaAgriculture Law, Environmental Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use California Courts of AppealSave Our Heritage Org. v. City of San DiegoCivil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use California Courts of Appeal
New on VerdictLegal Analysis and CommentaryMr. No-Government President Discovers the Government MARCI A. HAMILTON Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, describes how the separation of powers built into U.S. democracy is working as it should to prevent abuses of power by, at this time, the executive.Read More
Zoning, Planning & Land Use OpinionsSierra Club v. County of Sonoma Court: California Courts of AppealDocket: A147340 (First Appellate District) Opinion Date: April 21, 2017Judge: Jim Humes Areas of Law: Agriculture Law, Environmental Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Until 2000, Sonoma County grape growers could plant or replant a vineyard “as a matter of right” without governmental approval. A 2000 ordinance, governing “grading, drainage improvement, and vineyard and orchard site development within the unincorporated area of the county” requires growers, other than hobbyists, to obtain an erosion-control permit from the Agricultural Commissioner before establishing or replanting a vineyard. An applicant must submit plans demonstrating compliance with certain directives and must accept certain ongoing agricultural practices. The Commissioner issued the Ohlsons a permit to establish a vineyard on land they own that was being used for grazing, finding that issuing the permit was a ministerial act, exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code 21000 (CEQA). The trial court agreed. The court of appeal affirmed. Although the ordinance may allow the Commissioner to exercise discretion when issuing erosion-control permits in some circumstances, the objectors did not show that the Commissioner improperly determined that issuing the Ohlsons’ permit was ministerial. Most of the ordinance’s provisions that potentially confer discretion did not apply to their project, and the objectors failed to show that the few that might apply conferred the ability to mitigate potential environmental impacts to any meaningful degree.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.Save Our Heritage Org. v. City of San Diego Court: California Courts of AppealDocket: D070006 (Fourth Appellate District) Opinion Date: April 27, 2017Judge: Judith McConnell Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Plaza de Panama Committee (the Committee) appealed the denial of its motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The Committee filed the motion after it successfully appealed a judgment granting a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Save Our Heritage Organisation (SOHO), in which SOHO challenged the approval by the City of San Diego (City) of a site development permit for a revitalization project in Balboa Park (the project). This appeal presented two related issues for the Court of Appeal’s review: whether the Committee, as a project proponent, could obtain a section 1021.5 attorney fees award and, if so, whether the court could impose such an award against SOHO. After review, the Court concluded a project proponent may obtain a section 1021.5 attorney fees award if the project proponent satisfies the award's requirements. Furthermore, the Court concluded while SOHO did not dispute the Committee satisfied the award's requirements, SOHO was not the type of party against whom the court may impose such an award because SOHO did nothing to compromise public rights. The Court, therefore, affirmed the order.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.
About Justia Opinion SummariesJustia Weekly Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 63 different newsletters, each covering a different practice area.Justia also provides 68 daily jurisdictional newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all U.S. states.All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.You may freely redistribute this email in whole.About JustiaJustia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.
Contact Us| Privacy Policy
Unsubscribe From This Newsletter
or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.
Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043
Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Associate Degree in Architecture, LACCBachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED-GREEN Certificate The Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners Since 1984*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 CellWebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/rESUME2011.pdf Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://commercialappraiser.typepad.com/blog/ IT'S THE LAW-Designation Discrimination is Illegal [FIRREA, Sec. 564.6]: Professional Association Membership: "A State Certified General Appraiser may not be excluded from consideration for an assignment for a federally related transaction by virtue of membership or lack of membership in any particular appraisal organization," including the appraisal institute. http://www.ofi.state.la.us/re-otspart565.pdf CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal.
From: Zoning, Planning & Land Use - Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zoning, Planning & Land Use - Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries
Sent: Friday, 28 April, 2017 7:03 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Latest 2 Cases This Week: Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (Cal. Ct. App.), Save Our Heritage Org. v. City of San Diego (Cal. Ct. App.)
Free Zoning, Planning & Land Use case summaries from Justia.
If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.Zoning, Planning & Land Use
April 28, 2017
Table of ContentsSierra Club v. County of SonomaAgriculture Law, Environmental Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use California Courts of AppealSave Our Heritage Org. v. City of San DiegoCivil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use California Courts of Appeal
New on VerdictLegal Analysis and CommentaryMr. No-Government President Discovers the Government MARCI A. HAMILTON Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, describes how the separation of powers built into U.S. democracy is working as it should to prevent abuses of power by, at this time, the executive.Read More
Zoning, Planning & Land Use OpinionsSierra Club v. County of Sonoma Court: California Courts of AppealDocket: A147340 (First Appellate District) Opinion Date: April 21, 2017Judge: Jim Humes Areas of Law: Agriculture Law, Environmental Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Until 2000, Sonoma County grape growers could plant or replant a vineyard “as a matter of right” without governmental approval. A 2000 ordinance, governing “grading, drainage improvement, and vineyard and orchard site development within the unincorporated area of the county” requires growers, other than hobbyists, to obtain an erosion-control permit from the Agricultural Commissioner before establishing or replanting a vineyard. An applicant must submit plans demonstrating compliance with certain directives and must accept certain ongoing agricultural practices. The Commissioner issued the Ohlsons a permit to establish a vineyard on land they own that was being used for grazing, finding that issuing the permit was a ministerial act, exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code 21000 (CEQA). The trial court agreed. The court of appeal affirmed. Although the ordinance may allow the Commissioner to exercise discretion when issuing erosion-control permits in some circumstances, the objectors did not show that the Commissioner improperly determined that issuing the Ohlsons’ permit was ministerial. Most of the ordinance’s provisions that potentially confer discretion did not apply to their project, and the objectors failed to show that the few that might apply conferred the ability to mitigate potential environmental impacts to any meaningful degree.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.Save Our Heritage Org. v. City of San Diego Court: California Courts of AppealDocket: D070006 (Fourth Appellate District) Opinion Date: April 27, 2017Judge: Judith McConnell Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Plaza de Panama Committee (the Committee) appealed the denial of its motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The Committee filed the motion after it successfully appealed a judgment granting a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Save Our Heritage Organisation (SOHO), in which SOHO challenged the approval by the City of San Diego (City) of a site development permit for a revitalization project in Balboa Park (the project). This appeal presented two related issues for the Court of Appeal’s review: whether the Committee, as a project proponent, could obtain a section 1021.5 attorney fees award and, if so, whether the court could impose such an award against SOHO. After review, the Court concluded a project proponent may obtain a section 1021.5 attorney fees award if the project proponent satisfies the award's requirements. Furthermore, the Court concluded while SOHO did not dispute the Committee satisfied the award's requirements, SOHO was not the type of party against whom the court may impose such an award because SOHO did nothing to compromise public rights. The Court, therefore, affirmed the order.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.
About Justia Opinion SummariesJustia Weekly Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 63 different newsletters, each covering a different practice area.Justia also provides 68 daily jurisdictional newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all U.S. states.All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.You may freely redistribute this email in whole.About JustiaJustia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.
Contact Us| Privacy Policy
Unsubscribe From This Newsletter
or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.
Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043
commercial appraiser, commercial appraisal, commercial appraiser la
Comments