January 2008

Diane Kindermann Henderson, a partner with the firm, along with Glen Hansen, a senior associate with Abbott & Kindermann, will be speaking at the Sacramento Legal Secretaries Association regarding CEQA Part II: Litigation, on March 5, 2008.  This “lunch lesson” seminar will be held at Downey Brand, 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor, in

By Joel Ellinwood, AICP

A July 1, 2005 article posted on this blog termed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528 a “sea change” in 5th Amendment regulatory takings claim analysis by striking the “substantially advances a legitimate state interest” test. Now the fallout from Lingle from the Ninth Circuit makes it clear that the test survives to form the basis for 14th Amendment substantive due process challenges to land use regulations. However, the ultimate viability of such claims remains to be seen.
Continue Reading A Dim Light at the End of a Long Tunnel: Municipal Land Use Decisions and Substantive Due Process

January 29, 2008

This seminar addresses integrated issues in storm water, wetlands, and associated water quality regulations. Compliance guidance for both the storm water and wetlands programs will be provided while underscoring the relationship between the two programs.

You will hear the latest trends, case studies and policies related to storm water, wetlands and associated water

By Janell M. Bogue

A recent opinion from the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two discusses two important CEQA topics: certainty in project descriptions and an EIR’s discussion of alternatives. Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (December 17, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.LEXIS 2045.
Continue Reading Of Granny Flats and Land Swaps: Project Descriptions and Alternatives Analysis Under CEQA

By Cori M. Badgley

On January 3, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Resource Development v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, No. 07-35506 addressed alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that USACE unlawfully granted a Section 404 permit to the Alaska Gold Company allowing AGC to fill or dredge wetlands and that there were legal deficiencies in the accompanying environmental assessment.
Continue Reading The Gold Rush is Back on in Alaska: Ninth Circuit Upholds USACE Permit Allowing Mining Involving Significant Filling of Wetlands