The California Surveyor - CLSA

•
ment as he had just processed an
identical one three months earlier. He
had also been processing similar
adjustments on a regular basis since
1983. Nonetheless as a result of the
pending litigation, Pallamary's adjustment
was denied.
In the course of his inquiries into
the basis for the denial, Pallamary
learned of the Partnership project and
the pending litigation. Like Worley,
Pallamary argued that his application
must be viewed independent
from the pending matter.
In a subsequent communication
with Conrad, Pallamary continued
his discussions of five years earlier.
Conrad opined that the existing legislation
was "flawed" and was a very
poorly written piece of legislation.
He also stated that one could not
adjust a boundary line if the parcels
to be adjusted were only in contact
at one point. Because a point had no
dimension, he argued, it could not
be adjusted.
In response to Conrad's opinion,
On December 6,1991, Pallamary sent
Conrad a lengthy letter outlining the
history of the legislation as well as
his roll, that of CCCE&LS and CLSA
in sponsoring, reviewing and lobbying
for the legislation.
Two weeks later, Conrad responded
to Pallamary, informing
him that as used in the context of the
SMA, "adjacent" meant "contiguous".
"While it may be argued that
my position is unduly conservative
or restrictive", wrote Conrad, "I
believe my position is consistent
with the present wording of the
section in question."
One week later Pallamary responded
by submitting a series of
lot line adjustments that had been
processed and approved over the
five years since the amendment to
the SMA. In each selected case,
"points", "lines" and "major" lot
adjustments had all been approved,
all in contradiction with Conrad's
ever changing arguments. Meanwhile,
faced with financial hardship,
§ Pallamary's client abandoned her
adjustment application and proceeded
to sell off her oddly shaped
lots at a loss. Conrad meantime never
responded to Pallamary's concerns.
In the process of debating the subject
with the city, Pallamary
reinitiated his past communications
on the matter and sought out the
assistance of CLSA. As a past chapter
representative and chapter president,
Pallamary began to contact
members across the state. He also
contacted the partnership attorney,
Don Worley to inquire about assisting
in the lawsuit. Between the two
it was determined that the only
avenue available before the court
was to file an AMICUS CURIAE]
or a "Friend of the Court" on behalf
of any surveyor interested in
the outcome of the matter.
Because of a conflict of interest,
Worley was unable to assist in the
matter. Instead the well known and
respected law firm of McDonald,
Hecht & Solberg was consulted and
they agreed to represent the surveyors
in the lawsuit.
Amicus Curiae
With all parties cognizant of the
importance of the lawsuit, it was
decided that the best approach was
to see if the California Land Surveyors
Association could be persuaded
to file the lawsuit on behalf of the
Surveyors of the state of California.
Armed with a stack of legal papers
and ordinances, Pallamary flew to
Fresno to the January meeting of the
Board of Directors of CLSA where
he sought the approval and support.
Because of the extremely short time
frame of the appeal, a decision had
to be made immediately and the
lawsuit had to be filed within a scant
four weeks time. A lot of work
needed to be crammed in over the
next 28 days.
Pallamary presented his ideas to
the Legislative Committee of CLSA.
He argued that because this was legislation
CLSA had reviewed and
played a role in, the organization
had an "obligation" to defend its
position and understanding of the
legislation. After spirited debate, the
committee endorsed the idea and
agreed to speak in favor of filing the
lawsuit in the board meeting which
was to follow that afternoon.
Before a crowded room of anxious
surveyors, the proposed lawsuit
was discussed and again debate
followed. The decision had to be
made that afternoon and a procedure
had to be adopted that would
ensure a successful continuance of
the board's decision through the
filing of the lawsuit.
Upon preparation of the legal papers,
the Executive Officers would
reserve the decision to proceed with
the filing of the lawsuit. A unanimous
vote was logged and the work
began. It was agreed that the draft
would be reviewed by the Executive
Committee and that Pallamary
would serve as the funnel for information.
Over the following week, in
an unprecedented act of statewide
participation, members from San
Diego to Humboldt County crafted
the draft language for the lawsuit.
Over 500 pages of material were
faxed across the state and before the
initial paperwork was completed,
twenty members and advisors were
consulted. Each and every revision
was faxed to the advisory committee
and each and every member's
concerns were addressed, inserted,
modified and reworded in order to
accommodate everyone's interpretation
of section 66412 (d) as well as
their desire to comment on the
tenure of the lawsuit. Such an
extraordinary endeavor proved to
be an exemplary example of the
Association's ability to respond to a
crisis and its phenomenal ability to
work together to tackle such a diverse
issue. Perhaps more importantly
was the universal understanding
of the subject and the unwavering
opinion of the professional surveying
community in understanding
the subject.
With just hours to spare, the
Association's draft was forwarded
to the attorneys and over the next
five days, they redrafted the paper.
Within hours of the court imposed
deadline, the brief was filed.
The Association's arguments relied
heavily on the legislative history
of the SMA revision. Additionally,
Jim Corn and CCCE&LS lent their
support in providing historical
information on the subject as the bill
had been originally sponsored by
that organization.
Fall 1992 The California Surveyor 33