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

The authors of the Solano Press publication Exactions and Impact Fees in California are currently revising the 2001 version of the book and welcome suggestions for material to include in this updated edition.  Suggestions may be emailed to wabbott@aklandlaw.com.

Additionally, the 2007 supplement for the book is available for free here.

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. 

Get to the Bottom Line: Development Economics for Real Estate Attorneys will be presented on Thursday, September 27  at 2:15 – 4:15.  Joining Mr. Ellinwood on the panel will be Michael Kvarme, an attorney specializing in real estate finance;  Aaron Gruen, a development economics and market research consultant and Jim Hurley, who has experience as both a developer and a major investment fund manager.  The presentation is aimed at helping real estate attorneys gain a better understanding of how developers make a profit (or lose their shirts). Public and private sector attorneys will leave with insight into how to better service their clients.

Hidden Land Use Fees will be the topic of a provocative dialogue between Mr. Ellinwood and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney for the City of Rancho Cordova and co-author and editor of the CEB Publication, California Land Use Practice.  The focus will be on how to best protect clients’ interests in coping with California’s chaotic and inefficient regulation of land use that drives up development time lines, costs and risk. The presentation will by on Sunday, September 30 from 10 am – noon.

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.  More information about the meeting can be found at the CCAPA website. 

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

By Leslie Z. Walker

Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes 2007) Senator Dutton’s CEQA and greenhouse gas emission bill, into law on August 24.  The legislation provides partial guidance on how greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) should be addressed in certain CEQA documents.

Continue Reading SB 97 Provides CEQA Guidance

By Cori Badgley and Kate Hart

“When is a project consistent with a general plan?” continues to be a question faced by local governments, developers, environmental advocates, and of course, the courts.  A recent case out of Solano County, Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (August 28, 2007) 2007 Cal.App.LEXIS 1424, illustrates the important role the drafters of the general plan play in establishing the consistency parameters for the projects that follow.

Continue Reading Flexible General Plan Leads to Flexible Consistency

By Janell M. Bogue

In development, as in life, plans change. From a CEQA standpoint, problems emerge as projects are modified, as the triggers requiring new environmental review are less than precise. The recent case of Mani Brothers Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385 (“Mani Brothers”) demonstrates that even the courts are unclear on the issue, as two appellate courts have come to two different conclusions. The court in Mani Brothers emphasized that the question is not whether the changes amount to a new project, but whether there is substantial evidence that the changes in the project would create new and significant environmental impacts.

Continue Reading Second Appellate District Clarifies Test for SEIR Preparation When Project is Modified