Photo of Diane G. Kindermann

Diane G. Kindermann Henderson is a shareholder in Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. Ms. Kindermann represents numerous private and public agency clients, development, agricultural, industrial, mining and other landowner interests in matters concerning environmental, land use, planning and zoning laws, CEQA, Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, wetlands, water rights and water quality, mineral rights, timber and forestry resources, NEPA and hazardous waste matters, including CERCLA.

Ms. Kindermann is an Executive Committee Chairperson on the Sacramento Regional Transit Authority, Friends of Light Rail Board. She is also on the Council of Counsel and Environment Committee for the Construction Materials Association of California. Ms. Kindermann is a member of the American Planning Association and has also served on the Legal Affairs Committee, and the Wetlands/ Endangered Species Task Force for the Association of California Water Agencies.

Practice Areas:

  • Land use and planning law
  • Real estate law
  • Environmental law
  • Municipal law
  • Hazardous waste
  • Mining
  • Endangered species
  • Wetlands protection

Education:

  • J.D., University of Northern California, 1988
  • Certificate, Sorbonne Law School, Paris, France, 1985
  • B.A., University of San Diego, 1977

Colyear v. Rolling Hills Community Assn. of Rancho Palos Verdes (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 110

In Colyear v. Rolling Hills Community Assn. of Rancho Palos Verdes (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 110, the Court of Appeal for the Second District held that the Rolling Hills Community Association of Rancho Palos Verdes (“Association”) could not enforce a

Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 456

In Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 456, the Court of Appeal for the First District held that the City of Fremont holding hearings for appeals of determinations related to building code violations in front of a single

City of Norwalk v. City of Cerritos (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 977

In City of Norwalk v. City of Cerritos (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 977, the Court of Appeal for the Second District addressed the appeal of a public nuisance action brought by the City of Norwalk (“Norwalk”) against the City of Cerritos (“Cerritos”

Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of the University of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 43

In response to a proposed development that would increase student housing, Make UC a Good Neighbor and People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group (“Good Neighbor”) brought a lawsuit against the Regents, the President, and the Chancellor of

Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 726

In Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 726, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the Department of Water Resources’ (“Department”) approval of amendments to existing water supply contracts under the State Water Project

Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. v. City of Ukiah (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 46.

In Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. v. City of Ukiah (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 46, the First District Court of Appeal held completion of a project did not render claims against a city alleging CEQA violations moot because effective relief was still possible. Additionally, the

In AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Bonta (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 73, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld the power of local governments to override housing density caps, including caps adopted by voter initiative.

Legal Background

Under Senate Bill 10 (“SB 10”), passed in 2021, the Legislature granted counties and cities discretion on

In Move Eden Housing v. City of Livermore (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 263, the First District Court of Appeal held the Livermore City Council’s adoption of a resolution approving a development agreement was a legislative act subject to the referendum power.  This case is the latest iteration of a multi-year litigation battle targeting an affordable

In Discovery Builders, Inc. v. City of Oakland (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 799, the First District Court of Appeal held an agreement between a developer and the City of Oakland was unenforceable to the extent it prevented the city from imposing new impact fees in the future. The court reasoned such a provision constituted an

First District Holds Neighbor is Not Eligible for Anti-SLAAP Relief Because His Conduct, Though Central to the Dispute, Did Not Form Basis For Writ of Mandate Petition
Continue Reading First District Holds Neighbor is Not Eligible for Anti-SLAAP Relief Because His Conduct, Though Central to the Dispute, Did Not Form Basis For Writ of Mandate Petition