2007

By Leslie Z. Walker

In Muzzy Ranch v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission, 41 Cal.4th 372, decided on June 21, 2007 and modified on September 12, 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the common sense exemption as applied to an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”), but found that development displaced by density limits is not too speculative of an impact to require CEQA analysis.
Continue Reading Displaced Development Not Too Speculative, Common Sense Exemption Upheld

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…

By Janell M. Bogue

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova addressed the sufficiency of future water supplies for a long-term, large scale development. In the case of Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles, 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

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.
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. This year, the First Appellate District Court of Appeal heard the first case interpreting the amendments of SB 1818.
Continue Reading Density Bonus Law Update: An Overview of the Law and A Look at the First Case to Interpret the 2004 Amendments

Joel Ellinwood, AICP, senior associate at Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, will present two continuing legal education seminars at the Annual Meeting of the State Bar of California, September 27 – 30, 2007, in Anaheim, California.

Bill Abbott, a partner with the firm, will be speaking at the California Chapter of the American Planning Association Annual Meeting in San Jose. He will be involved in a session on Regional Transportation Mitigation Fees on Tuesday, October 2 at 1:30pm.
Continue Reading For the Record

By William W. Abbott

The California Attorney General was recently asked whether or not the grant of a conservation easement on a portion of a parcel constituted a “division” for purposes of the Subdivision Map Act. (Government Code, §§ 66410 et seq.) The AG concluded, as many surveyors, local officials and land use attorneys had already determined, that such a conveyance was in fact, not a subdivision. (California Attorney General Opinion 06-801, August 14, 2007.)…
Continue Reading Conservation Easements and the Subdivision Map Act