Source: https://gdandb.com/publications/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 19:00:05+00:00

Document:
In South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco, a decision filed February 22, 2019 and published on March 25, 2019, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, affirmed a trial court decision upholding the City and County of San Francisco’s certification of an EIR and approval of a mixed-use business and residential project on four acres in downtown San Francisco.
Kurt Whitman, Senior Associate at Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP, has been selected to the 2019 San Diego Rising Stars list by Super Lawyers.
On December 18, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Informing Citizens Against Runway Airport Expansion v. Federal Aviation Administration, 2018 WL 6649605, denying a Petition for Review of the FAA’s Order approving the construction of a 5,200-foot runway at the Ravalli County Airport in Hamilton, Montana.
On December 24, 2018, the Supreme Court of California published its decision in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, Case No. S219783, affirming the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the air quality analysis within a project’s environmental impact report (EIR) was inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it failed to correlate the emission of project-related pollutants to specific adverse human health impacts.
On March 26, 2018, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, issued a decision affirming the dismissal of a premature challenge to a proposed master-planned community located in unincorporated San Diego County (County) and known as the Newland Sierra project.
On January 10, 2018, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One published a decision upholding the City of San Diego’s adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a private school project next to a designated historical resource and adjacent to the Carmel Valley River Enhancement Program area. Mr. Sullivan represented the operator of the private school.
On September 26, 2017, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One issued a currently unpublished decision of significant interest to Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs) throughout California.
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, opinion upheld a supplemental environmental assessment prepared for Hillsboro Airport. Hillsboro Airport is a general aviation airport located near Portland, Oregon, and is the busiest airport in Oregon in terms of airport operations.
The California legislature continues to introduce more and more increasingly restrictive gun laws in the form of Assembly Bills (ABs) or Senate Bills (SBs). Recently, three ABs have been introduced, that if passed, will drastically change gun ownership in California.
The Fifth Appellate District ruled SB800 (California's "Right to Repair Act" [the "Act"]) provides the sole remedy for homeowners in construction defect actions. The court found "no other cause of action is allowed to recover for repair of the defect itself or for repair of any damage caused by the defect."
On December 18, 2014, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released revised draft guidance for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
On June 30, 2014, in a partially published decision, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Environment v. County of Kern (2014) __ Cal.App.4th __, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 2014 WL 3696543. At issue was whether the County of Kern violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting a mitigation measure requiring project applicants to obtain a “no hazard” determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for a proposed wind farm near a private airport in Kern County.
On June 6, 2014, California’s Sixth Appellate District issued its decision in Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (H038781; 2014 WL2987959). At issue in the case was whether the City of San Jose violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by approving an addendum to the certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Jose International Airport Master Plan.
On July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court, in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (Jul. 3, 2014, S208173) __Cal.4th__ [2014 WL 2988058], held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners of residential buildings, particularly if they act as principal architects on a project, and are not subordinate to any other design professional. Until now, design professionals were rarely held liable, if at all, for third-party claims for design deficiencies.
The applicability of pre-litigation procedures has come under scrutiny lately, as witnessed in the recent Second Appellate District opinions of Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Premier Homes LLC) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 and KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Allstate Insurance Co.) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1471.
The California Court of Appeal, Second District has issued two opinions with ramifications to California's "Right to Repair Act" (Civil Code § 8965, et seq.).
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three, recently determined that a homeowner, or its subrogee, need not comply with the "Right to Repair Act" (also, "the Act") [Civ. Code, §§ 895 to 945.5]) where actual property damage has occurred.
On Friday, February 22, 2013, Senate Pro Tem Daryl Steinberg introduced SB 731. While not earth shattering in its present form, some concepts identified in the bill may prove to be beneficial to California’s airports if the concepts are favorably fleshed out and enacted.
In December 2012, the Court of Appeal reversed more than 50 years of existing law in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, et al. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1301; and, in November 2012, the California Court of Appeal, in Darling v. Superior Court (Western Pacific Housing, Inc.) (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 69, resolved the interplay between two sections of SB 800.
The California Supreme Court ruled in Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, that arbitration provisions within the covenants, conditions, and restrictions ("CC&Rs") for condominium projects are enforceable against their homeowner associations. The ruling – two years in the making – was based on legislative history of laws governing common interest developments, and decades of decisional authority involving contracts and arbitration provisions.
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, ruled in Oak Springs Villas Homeowners Association v. Advanced Truss Systems, Inc., et al. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1304, that a non-settling defendant cannot appeal a trial court's good faith settlement determination.
On April 11, 2012, in Axis Surplus Insurance Company v. Glencoe Insurance LTD. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1214, the Court of Appeal examined whether an insurance carrier, with full notice of a claim and admitted coverage, can disclaim coverage because a self-insured retention ("SIR") was not satisfied until the very end of a case. The Court declined to allow such "gamesmanship," and required a non-participating carrier to participate regardless of when the SIR was satisfied.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8965
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.