2013 Real Estate Law Update

Real Estate Development Law Update

Presented by:
John Condas
Bill Devine
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

February 27, 2013

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.

Overview
O 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


RIP, RDA
RIP 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


RIP, RDA
RIP 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


RIP, RDA
RIP RDAs (cont.) 5

Chapter 3
• AB 1484 “Clean Up”
Chapter 4
• Real World Applications and Future of Redevelopment


Chapter
Ch 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)


Chapter
“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”


Chapter
“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”


Chapter
Ch 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


Chapter
“Cl Up” 10

• 56 lawsuits filed
• 18 lawsuits filed in December 2012
• 5 lawsuits f
filed in January 2013
• 3 lawsuits on appeal


Chapter
Ch 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


Chapter
Ch 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


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


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


SANDAG Liti ti
Litigation 15

• Scope and purpose of SB 375

• AG' effort to include E.O. S-3005
AG's ff t t i l d E O S 3005

• Role of CEQA v. Role of MPO's
Q

• State v. local control of land use authority


SCAG's
SCAG' SCS 16

• Land Use Growth Patterns

• T
Transportation Network
t ti N t k

• Transportation Demand Management
p g

• Transportation Systems Management


Regional and Local Climate Change 17

Regulatory 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



Regulatory 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



Regulatory Trends

• PR 2301 Resuscitated
– Similar to San Joaquin, APCD Program
Joaquin
– Payment of Air Quality Impact Fee; payment
required or significant unavoidable impact



Regulatory Trends

– Local Trends
– County of San Bernardino Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plan
– City of Chino Climate Action Plan
– CEQA Litigation


CEQA Update
U d t 21

• CEQA Reform

• SB 226 G id li
Guidelines

• CEQA and SB 50
Q

• Exemptions

• Baseline


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


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


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


Other N t
Oth Noteworthy Updates
th U d t 25

Part I - WATER
• Draft Water Quality Control Policy

• Consistency between WSA and EIR

• Discharge Under CWA L A County Flood Control
CWA-L.A.
case


Other N t
Oth Noteworthy Updates
th U d t 26

Part 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


Housing Production Tools Refresher
H 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


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


Contact
C 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


2013 Real Estate Law Update

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (19)

Similar a 2013 Real Estate Law Update

Similar a 2013 Real Estate Law Update (20)

Más de Allen Matkins

Más de Allen Matkins (20)

Último

Último (20)

2013 Real Estate Law Update