2014 Real Estate Development Law Update

760 views

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.

Published in: Real Estate
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
760
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
297
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2014 Real Estate Development Law Update

  1. 1. Real Estate Development Law Update Presented by: John Condas Bill Devine Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP February 26, 2014 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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. 2. Overview O i • RDAs • Affordable Housing • Subdivision Map Act • Impact Fees and Exactions • CEQA • Noteworthy Updates 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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
  3. 3. RDAs 3 • ABs 26 and 1484: dissolution and winding down of RDAs • AB 1484 established clearer procedures for disposition of unencumbered RDA assets • SB 341 provides some clarity regarding operation of p y g g p Successor Agencies of Affordable Housing Functions and Assets 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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. 4. RDAs 4 • AB 471 (signed by Governor Brown on February 19, 2014): Somewhat Loosens the Requirements for Using Infrastructure Financing Districts o IFDs can divert property tax increment revenues for 30 years to finance infrastructure and public facilities o Cit must develop an i f t t City td l infrastructure plan and send t all l d d to ll affected landowners and hold a public hearing o Every local agency which would contribute its property tax increment revenue must approve the IFD; Schools cannot contribute its tax increment revenue o Voters must approve, with 2/3 vote, formation of the IFD, issuance of bonds and set the IFD’s appropriation limit (via majority vote) 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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. 5. RDAs o AB 471 now allows RDA project areas to be included in IFD areas, assuming the city • has received a “finding of completion” from Dept. of Finance • has complied with all State Controller office RDA audit findings • Has no outstanding lawsuits pending against the state regarding RDA wind-down • RDA Property now is in play; transactions have been occurring • Still uncertainty regarding compliance with Redevelopment Law affordable housing requirements 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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
  6. 6. Affordable Ho sing Housing 6 • Governor Brown Vetoed AB 1129 which would have 1129, overruled the Palmer case, and allowed local governments to impose affordable housing requirements on rental projects • Latinos United case: The California Density Bonus Law (Government Code section 65915) trumps local ordinances which are contrary to the DBL •Latinos U it d and L L ti United d Lagoon V ll ( hi h upheld Valley (which h ld density bonuses in excess of DBL) greatly facilitate use of the DBL 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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. 7. Subdivision S bdi ision Map Act • AB 116: another two year automatic mandatory two-year extension of valid tentative maps; this extension, like all previous extensions, covers “related state permits”, e.g. Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreements • Vesting Map Protection: to insulate against subsequently adopted moratoria, rezones, etc. 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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
  8. 8. School Fees 8 •Cresta Bella case clarifies that burden is on School Districts to support imposition of impact fees •Need for School Bond, or Tier 3 School Fees 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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. 9. Exactions, Impact Fees, New Standards E ti I tF N St d d •CBIA v San Jose v. o Inclusionary affordable housing program o T i l court invalidates – l k of nexus Trial ti lid t lack f o Appellate court upholds – Police Power o Reasonable relationship standard does not apply according to court oN Now b f before state Supreme Court t t S C t 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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
  10. 10. Exactions, Impact Fees, New Standards E ti I tF N St d d •Koontz v St Johns River v. St. o Background/Facts oG Government exaction of money governed by t ti f db Nollan/Dolan o “Essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” Essential nexus rough proportionality o Ad hoc v. legislative application oR Reasonable relationship v. N ll /D l bl l ti hi Nollan/Dolan o Uncertainty 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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
  11. 11. CEQA Update U d t •SB 743 oN New E Exemption i o Aesthetics and Parking impacts – not significant o New approach to traffic analysis and impacts 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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
  12. 12. SB 743 – N New E Exemption Requirements ti R i t •Residential, •Residential employment center mixed use center, development within transit priority area •What is transit priority area? •Consistent with SP which has EIR •Consistent with approved SCS or APS 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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
  13. 13. Other CEQA Streamlining 13 •SB 375 o Transit priority projects o Consistent with SCS or APS o Meet 8 environmental criteria o Meet 7 land use criteria g p o One other criteria – Affordable Housing or Open Space o Exemption o st ea e pt o or streamlining g 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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. 14. Other CEQA Streamlining •SB 226 – Streamlining o Location o Performance standards o Consistent with approved SCS or APS 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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
  15. 15. CEQA Update •Neighbors for Smart Growth o Background o Baseline traffic analysis o Current conditions o Future conditions o Do both 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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
  16. 16. CEQA 16 • Concerned Dublin Citizens case: upholds use of CEQA exemption when project o Is a residential project (mixed use projects can qualify, as long as project is “residential in character”) o Is consistent with a Specific Plan o Complies with Public Resources Code section 21166: • There are not substantial changes in the project, requiring major revisions t th EIR j i i to the • There are no changed circumstances which require major revisions to the EIR • There is no new information now available, which was not available when the EIR was certified 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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. 17. Noteworthy Note orth Updates •Prevailing Wages – SB 7 and South Gate Senior Villas Case •Mingo Logan Case o EPA may terminate 404 permits post-issuance •EPA/Corps Draft Rule – Jurisdictional Waters •State Water Quality Control Policy 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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
  18. 18. Contact C t t 18 John Condas Bill Devine (949) 851.5551 jcondas@allenmatkins.com (949) 851.5412 wdevine@allenmatkins.com Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP 1900 Main Street, 5th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 www.allenmatkins.com 02.2014 | © Copyright, 2014 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.

×