Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
2013 Real Estate Law Update
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

2013 Real Estate Law Update

579

Published on

An overview of recent developments in land use, environmental and natural resources law and their impacts on you and doing business in California.

An overview of recent developments in land use, environmental and natural resources law and their impacts on you and doing business in California.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
579
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Real Estate Development Law Update Presented by: John Condas Bill Devine Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP February 27, 201302.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 2. OverviewO i 2 • Chapter 4 of RDA Dissolution • SB 375 Update • Climate Change Impacts on Regional and Local Regulations R l ti • CEQA Update • Other Noteworthy Updates • R f h on H Refresher Housing P d i T l i Production Tools 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 3. RIP, RDARIP RDAs 3 • Chapter 1: AB 26, AB 27 • Ch t 2 M t Chapter 2: Matosantos t • Chapter 3: “Clean Up” via AB 1484 p p • Chapter 4: After AB 1484 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 4. RIP, RDARIP RDAs (cont.) 4 Chapter 1 • AB 1X 26 and 27 were Approved in June 2011 • AB 26: Winding down and Dissolution of RDAs f • AB 27: RDAs could Continue Operating if they “Paid to Play” Chapter 2 • California Redevelopment Association and others Sued • In California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, the California Supreme Court Upheld AB 26 and Invalidated AB 27 • Due to the Litigation, AB 26 Deadlines were Delayed 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 5. RIP, RDARIP RDAs (cont.) 5 Chapter 3 • AB 1484 “Clean Up” Chapter 4 • Real World Applications and Future of Redevelopment 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 6. ChapterCh t 3 - AB 1484 “Clean U ” “Cl Up” 6 • AB 1484 to “Clean Up” AB 26 • Successor Agency to Undertake Due Diligence, Forensic Accounting of RDA to Determine “Unobligated Balances” • Unobligated Balances to be Transferred to the “Taxing Entities” • Due Diligence Report must be sent to Oversight Board, County Auditor Controller, Controller and Department of Finance by December 15 2012 (October 1 2012 for Low and Moderate 15, 1, Income Housing Fund) • Oversight Board to Review and Take Action on Due Diligence g g Report by January 15, 2013 (October 15, 2012 for Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund) 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 7. ChapterCh t 3 - AB 1484 “Clean U ” “Cl Up” 7 • Dept. of Finance to Approve Due Diligence Report by April 1, 2013 (November 9, 2012 for Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund) • Once Successor Agency Pays the Unobligated Balances, then DOF i issues a “Fi di of C “Finding f Completion” l ti ” • After Finding of Completion issued, all Former RDA Property is Transferred to the “Community Redevelopment Property Trust Community Fund” 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 8. ChapterCh t 3 - AB 1484 “Clean U ” “Cl Up” 8 • Withi 6 M th of R Within Months f Receipt of th Fi di of C i t f the Finding f Completion, l ti Successor Agency Shall Prepare a “Long Range Property Management Plan” g • Management Plan must be Submitted to DOF for Approval no later than 6 Months Following Issuance of the Finding of Completion • Management Plan Shall Include:  An Inventory of all Properties  Address the Use or Disposition of all Properties in the Trust  Proceeds of Disposition Sent to “Taxing Entities” 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 9. ChapterCh t 3 - R Results of DOF Review lt f R i 9 • DOF Denied Funding to Numerous Projects, Based Upon Appeals of 240 of the 400 Successor Agencies • Oxnard Lost $15.3 Million Loan • Santa Clara Suing Based Upon 49ers Stadium 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 10. ChapterCh t 3 - AB 1484 “Clean U ” “Cl Up” 10 • 56 lawsuits filed • 18 lawsuits filed in December 2012 • 5 lawsuits f filed in January 2013 • 3 lawsuits on appeal 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 11. ChapterCh t 4 - R l World Applications Real W ld A li ti 11• Developer – RDA in Negotiation but no Agreement by June 28 Negotiation, 28, 2011  Unlikely to be considered an “Enforceable Obligation”• Developer – RDA Entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement  Possibly P ibl an “E f “Enforceable Obli ti ” if ENA h d l specificity bl Obligation” has deal ifi it• Existing Agreement between Developer and RDA  Enforceable obligation, but subject to review by Oversight Board, Auditor Controller, State Department of Finance, or State Controller  Insure Agreement is on ROPS 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 12. ChapterCh t 4 - F t Future of Redevelopment fR d l t 12 • U lik l th t G Unlikely that Governor B Brown will allow cities and counties t ill ll iti d ti to divert new redevelopment-generated revenues from the taxing entities • Therefore, no more tax increment funding • Possible Use of Eminent Domain? • CFDs • Infrastructure Financing Districts 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 13. SB 375 U d t Update 13 • GHG Reduction Targets • S t i bl C Sustainable Communities St t iti Strategy • SANDAG Litigation g • SCAG SCS 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 14. SCS C t t Content 14 • ID locations of uses, densities and intensities within region • Areas to house population over 20 year period • Areas to house 8 year RHNA projections • ID transportation networks to serve region • Information re resource and agriculture land • Forecast of development pattern • Quantify GHG reductions 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 15. SANDAG Liti ti Litigation 15 • Scope and purpose of SB 375 • AG effort to include E.O. S-3005 AGs ff t t i l d E O S 3005 • Role of CEQA v. Role of MPOs Q • State v. local control of land use authority 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 16. SCAGsSCAG SCS 16 • Land Use Growth Patterns • T Transportation Network t ti N t k • Transportation Demand Management p g • Transportation Systems Management 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 17. Regional and Local Climate Change 17Regulatory Trends • SCAQMD Advocacy – Truck Trip Study • Background: ITE Land Use Code 152 for “High Cube Cube” Warehouses and Logistics Facilities • Land Use Code 152 results in lower ADTs and lower AM and PM peak hour truck trips resulting in trips, o Less transportation impacts o Concomitant decrease in air quality and greenhouse gas impacts 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 18. Regional and Local Climate Change 18Regulatory Trends • AQMD Responses: – Preparation of a “White Paper”, to attempt to White Paper , discredit Land Use Code 152 • White Paper based upon incorrect information and insistence that Land Use Code 152 assumptions be changed – Preparation of a truck trip study, to attempt to discredit Land Use Code 152 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 19. Regional and Local Climate Change 19Regulatory Trends • PR 2301 Resuscitated – Similar to San Joaquin, APCD Program Joaquin – Payment of Air Quality Impact Fee; payment required or significant unavoidable impact 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 20. Regional and Local Climate Change 20Regulatory Trends – Local Trends – County of San Bernardino Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan – City of Chino Climate Action Plan – CEQA Litigation 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 21. CEQA Update U d t 21 • CEQA Reform • SB 226 G id li Guidelines • CEQA and SB 50 Q • Exemptions • Baseline 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 22. CEQA Reform R f 22 • SB 317 (Rubio) – SB 731 (St i b ) (R bi ) (Steinberg) • Use of existing environmental laws g • Consistency with Plan and Plan EIR • Consistency with SB 375 • New Significance Thresholds • Litigation Reforms 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 23. SB 226 G id li Guidelines 23 • Located in urban area • S ti f performance standards Satisfy f t d d • Consistency with SCS or APS y • Falls within scope of Plan prepared with EIR • Uniformly applicable development standards 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 24. CEQA Trends T d 24 • Flood of lawsuits to get settlement payout • L b U i l Labor Union leverage suits it • School District leverage suits – Chewanakee case g • Challenge to exemptions – Berkeley Hillside and Tomlinson cases • Baseline issues re traffic – Neighbor For Smart Rail g Case 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 25. Other N tOth Noteworthy Updates th U d t 25Part I - WATER • Draft Water Quality Control Policy • Consistency between WSA and EIR • Discharge Under CWA L A County Flood Control CWA-L.A. case 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 26. Other N tOth Noteworthy Updates th U d t 26Part II - LAND • Serial lot line adjustments okay – Napa case • Avoiding Prevailing Wage Requirements in Charter Cities – City of Vista case • New Burrowing Owl Survey and Mitigation Guidelines 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 27. Housing Production Tools RefresherH i P d ti T l R f h 27 • Government Code § 65589.5(j) – Local Government Cannot Reject or Require a Reduction in Density of Housing Projects Unless Health and Safety Findings Can be Made (see Honchariw case) • Government Code § 65863 – Each Jurisdiction Must Ensure that its Housing Element Inventory or its Housing Element Program can Satisfy its RHNA N mbers Numbers 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 28. Housing Production Tools Refresher (cont.)H i P d ti T l R f h 28 – No Jurisdiction shall Reduce Require or Permit the Reduce, Reduction of the Residential Density, for any Parcels, or Allow Development of any Parcel at a Lower Residential Density Without these 2 Findings: • Reduction is Consistent with the Adopted General Plan d Housing El Pl and H i Element; and t d • Remaining Sites Identified in the Housing Element are Adequate to Meet the RHNA Numbers • Government Code § 65915 – Density Bonus Law – Especially Powerful Without RDA Assistance 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
  • 29. ContactC t t 29 John Condas Bill Devine (949) 851.5551 (949) 851.5412 jcondas@allenmatkins.com wdevine@allenmatkins.com Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP 1900 Main Street, 5th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 www.allenmatkins.com 02.2013 | © Copyright, 2013 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.

×