October 2007

Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update

Abbott & Kindermann, LLP again presents their annual program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, real estate acquisition, easements, leasing and property acquisition, vineyard and winery development, and mining. Water quality and wetlands issues will also be covered. The focus will be on recent developments in case law, statutes and administrative regulations, and how these changes impact your daily business practices. Handouts will be available and there will be ample opportunity for questions.

Date: Thursday, January 24, 2008

Registration:8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast

Program:9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon

Location:Sacramento Radisson, 500 Leisure Lane

There is no charge for this program and MCLE credit is available.

An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve a spot now, call our office at (916) 456-9595.

By Janell M. Bogue

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 addressed the sufficiency of future water supplies for a long-term, large scale development. (See the Vineyard blog article.) In the case of Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (November 26, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.LEXIS 1938 (“SCOPE”), the Second Appellate District determined that an EIR for a long-term project met the requirements discussed in the Vineyard case.

Continue Reading Paper Water Revisited: Second Appellate District Applies the Principles of Vineyard

By Cori Badgley

In the recent case City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern (August 10, 2007) 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62323, the United States District Court for the Central District of California held that an initiative ordinance in Kern County approved by the voters which had the effect of banning the land application of biosolids was unconstitutional. Biosolids or “sewage sludge” are defined as the “solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.” (40 C.F.R. § 503.9(w).) The EPA, under Part 503 of its regulations, distinguishes between biosolids based on “the concentration of pathogens, disease causing micro-organisms, remaining after treatment.” (Pg. 5.) Class A biosolids, which are biosolids that after treatment have no pathogens, can be recycled essentially as fertilizer.  This is called land application. Many localities, including the City of Los Angeles and the Orange County Sanitation District, choose to recycle their Class A biosolids through land application instead of incinerating them or using some other method of disposal.

Continue Reading The Sludge is Here to Stay: City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern

By Cori M. Badgley and William W. Abbott

In 2004, SB 1818 amended section 65915 of the Government Code, pertaining to the density bonus law. The purpose of SB 1818 was to encourage developers to build affordable housing by requiring local governments to provide incentives to do so. There was confusion in understanding the new provisions in Government Code section 65915 and the legislature clarified the density bonus law a year later with the enactment of SB 435. (See “Overview of the Density Bonus Law” below for a detailed look at the two amendments.)

Continue Reading Density Bonus Law Update: An Overview of the Law and A Look at the First Case to Interpret the 2004 Amendments