Recently in Legislation Category

Developers of single- and multi-family density bonus projects should submit their applications now

December 5, 2014

By Neill Brower and Sheri Bonstelle

AB2222: Significant Changes to California's Density Bonus Law Occur on January 1, 2015

On January 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 2222 (Nazarian) goes into effect and modifies the State's Density Bonus Law by establishing significant additional constraints on density bonus projects. Key measures of this bill include:


  • Mandatory replacement of all existing affordable units on a site for the density bonus to apply. Affordable units will include, among others:

  • Affordable units;

  • Rent-stabilized units;

  • Units subject to any City ordinance or policy regarding affordability; and

  • Any units owned or occupied by low- or very-low income households, even if no ordinance or policy applies.

  • Inclusion of affordable units occupied or demolished within the previous five years within the provisions above; and

  • Increasing the term of affordable housing covenants from 30 years to 55 years.

  • AB 2222 exempts your project if you submit an application or the application is processed by December 31, 2014. Therefore, a small window still exists to submit your application for a density bonus project and avoid these new provisions.

    JMBM's experts in the State's existing and proposed density bonus laws are ready to assist you.

    Continue reading "Developers of single- and multi-family density bonus projects should submit their applications now" »

    CEQA Bill to Protect Native American Cultural Resources Creates New Challenges and Opportunities for Project Applicants

    November 10, 2014

    By Garrett Colli

    On September 25, 2014, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 52 ("AB 52"), which modifies the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to add new protections for Native American cultural resources and enhances the role of Native American tribes in the environmental review process. AB 52 is a significant amendment to CEQA that poses both challenges and opportunities for project applicants. A brief summary of the new law, which takes effect July 1, 2015, is provided below.

    AB 52 Creates a New Category of Potentially-Significant Environmental Impacts

    Under current CEQA law, lead agencies typically evaluate whether a project would impact historic or archaeological resources. Although impacts to Native Americans may be evaluated, AB 52 specifically mandates evaluation of whether a project will impact "tribal cultural resources" which include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to tribes. If the potential for impacts to such resources exists, as with other environmental impacts, increasing levels of CEQA analysis, mitigation measures, and the consideration of alternatives is required. Input from a tribe as to what is culturally significant to that tribe will drive the analysis for a given project. These changes take effect on July 1, 2015.

    Continue reading "CEQA Bill to Protect Native American Cultural Resources Creates New Challenges and Opportunities for Project Applicants" »

    New Law Allows Mining Operators to Remedy Compliance Issues and Retain AB 3098 List Status

    April 9, 2014

    by Kerry Shapiro and Garrett Colli

    This article was first published in The Conveyor, a publication of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association.

    Mining companies are subject to myriad requirements under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and implementing regulations that can trip up even the most diligent of operators from time to time. When a potential violation occurs, SMARA holds that either the lead agency or the Department of Conservation (read OMR) may initiate enforcement proceedings by issuing a notice of violation (NOV). All too often, the process results in an order to comply issued against the operator, which in turn can jeopardize the operator's AB 3098 List eligibility. Removal from the AB 3098 List forecloses an operator's ability to sell materials to State and/or local agencies, often a major component of many operators' customer bases.

    Enter SB 447. Under this new CalCIMA-driven legislation operators can maintain AB 3098 List eligibility while working to resolve enforcement issues required by an order to comply, and may now also negotiate the terms of, and stipulate to, such an order. These are called stipulated orders to comply.

    Continue reading "New Law Allows Mining Operators to Remedy Compliance Issues and Retain AB 3098 List Status" »

    SB 1270 Proposes Significant California Mining Reform

    March 7, 2014

    by Kerry Shapiro, Esq. and Scott Castro, Esq.

    The recent submittal of significant proposed revisions to California's mining law, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act ("SMARA"), signals potentially broad-reaching changes to the statute. On February 21, 2014, Senator Fran Pavely (D) introduced SB 1270, a bill proposing to overhaul various sections of SMARA. SB 1270 proposes fundamental changes to SMARA. Click here for a copy of SB 1270.

    If these changes go through, mine owners and operators will be subject to a new regulatory system under which the State will assume a far greater and centralized role in various aspects of SMARA, including mine inspections, enforcement, and establishment of financial assurance mechanisms. The mining industry also faces the likely prospect of increased carrying costs, arising from such proposals as changes to the annual reporting fee structure (proposed at a minimum of $1,000/year on a per-acre basis, and with no maximum cap), to increased ability to appeal decisions relating to the State's "3098" list.

    Continue reading "SB 1270 Proposes Significant California Mining Reform" »

    Last-Minute CEQA Bill Brings Significant Changes for Major Infrastructure Projects and Projects within Transit Priority Areas

    September 24, 2013

    By Garrett Colli

    This session's California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") reform bill, Senate Bill 743 ("SB 743") packs a potentially large punch, but only for a narrow group of projects. SB 743 is the brainchild of Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), who made CEQA reform a top political priority for 2013. While Senator Steinberg's primary objective was to deliver on a promise to NBA Commissioner David Stern to streamline approval of the Sacramento Kings arena project, SB 743 also provides new rules of general applicability that significantly benefit select projects. First, with regard to projects in transit priority areas, SB 743 reduces the scope of CEQA's impact analysis and may also change the standard traffic evaluation. Second, SB 743 substantially expedites judicial review of so-called "environmental leadership development projects." Thus, while many will be disappointed that SB 743 does not completely overhaul CEQA, certain project proponents will benefit tremendously from the new rules.

    Continue reading "Last-Minute CEQA Bill Brings Significant Changes for Major Infrastructure Projects and Projects within Transit Priority Areas" »

    State Law Preemption of Local Land Use Regulations and the Supreme Court's Recent Decision Upholding Citywide Ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

    June 19, 2013

    by Matthew Hinks

    The recent spate of court cases dealing with local regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries ("MMDs") offers an interesting illustration of the interplay between federal, state and local laws that regulate the same subject matter, and the impact that dynamic has upon local land use regulation. Each of the three levels of government regulate the use and sale of marijuana, albeit for different purposes and in vastly different ways. Federal law continues to classify marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act. With the passage by voter initiative of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 ("CUA") and the legislatively-adopted Medical Marijuana Program of 2003 ("MMP"), the State of California chose to remove certain state law obstacles from the ability of qualified patients to obtain and use marijuana for legitimate medical purposes. On the local level, many municipalities have taken steps to either outright ban MMDs or otherwise heavily regulate them through their zoning laws.

    Continue reading "State Law Preemption of Local Land Use Regulations and the Supreme Court's Recent Decision Upholding Citywide Ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries" »

    The Williamson Act: A Growing Obstacle for Solar and Wind Development In California

    March 5, 2012

    by Jon Welner

    California's rural landscapes are some of the most productive farmlands in the world. However, some of the qualities that make these lands suitable for farming--sunshine and wide open spaces--also make them attractive for another kind of "farming": solar and wind farms. In recent years, the conflict between farming and renewable energy production has grown more pronounced in California. Central to this conflict is the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, generally known as the Williamson Act (Gov't Code §§ 51200-51297.4).

    Continue reading "The Williamson Act: A Growing Obstacle for Solar and Wind Development In California" »

    California Supreme Court Decision Eradicates Redevelopment Agencies

    December 29, 2011

    Ben Reznik and Sheri Bonstelle

    In a blow to the more than 400 redevelopment agencies in California, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion today upholding the constitutionality of AB1X26, the Dissolution Bill and finding AB1X27, the Pay for Continuation Bill, unconstitutional in the California Redevelopment Agencies v. Matosantos case.

    Continue reading "California Supreme Court Decision Eradicates Redevelopment Agencies" »

    Current Flux of California Redevelopment Law

    December 1, 2011

    Legislative Elimination of Redevelopment Agencies
    As part of its 2011 - 2012 budget proposal, the California Governor's Office proposed permanently shutting down local redevelopment agencies to free up $1.7 billion of tax increments to apply to the State's budget deficit. The monies were slated to help fund schools, public safety and transit districts. On June 28, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB1X26 (the "Dissolution Bill") and AB1X27 (the "Pay for Continuation Bill") into law. The Dissolution Bill would permanently eliminate redevelopment agencies by October 1, 2011. The Pay for Continuation Bill allows redevelopment agencies to continue their existence and operation if the city or county that created the redevelopment agency commits to making annual payments to special funds administered by the county auditor controller by November 1, 2011.

    Ensuing Litigation
    In response to the passage of the Dissolution Bill and the Pay for Continuation Bill (the "Bills"), on July 15, 2011, the California Redevelopment Association, League of California Cities, City of Union City and the City of San Jose (collectively, "CRA") filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate to the California Supreme Court challenging the Legislature's adoption of the Bills and seeking an immediate stay of the Bills pending the outcome of the litigation.

    Continue reading "Current Flux of California Redevelopment Law " »

    Mining Lawyer: SB 108, A first step in solving the interim management plan problem (Part 3)

    October 19, 2011

    Kerry Shapiro

    This three-part blog series on California SB 108, a bill which changes provisions in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) pertaining to "idle" mines, is based on a paper I first presented at the CalCIMA Conference in October 2011. If you have not yet read part one which gives background on the Interim Management Plan problem, or part two which discusses what SB 108 does and who it affects, you will want read those first.

    SB 108: Unresolved Problems and Ideas to Address Them

    1. Application to Active Mines. It is arguably inappropriate to designate as "idle" an operation that is generating returns that seem adequate to support continuing operation and defray ultimate reclamation costs. One solution might be to establish a minimum annual quantity of production as a so-called "safe harbor" to qualify a mine as "active" without regard to changes in historical production level. After all, why should a mine be classified as "idle" simply because it now produces less than it used to? Future legislation could establish a minimum quantity of annual production as a "safe harbor" from classifications of "idle" or "abandoned."

    Continue reading "Mining Lawyer: SB 108, A first step in solving the interim management plan problem (Part 3)" »

    Mining Lawyer: SB 108, A first step in solving the interim management plan problem (Part 2)

    October 17, 2011

    Kerry Shapiro

    This three-part blog series on California SB 108, a bill which changes provisions in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) pertaining to "idle" mines, is based on a paper I first presented at the CalCIMA Conference in October 2011. If you have not yet read part one of this three-part series, which gives background on the Interim Management Plan problem, you will want read that first.

    SB 108: What it Does

    Revised Definition of "Idle": SB 108 addresses only one of the substantive issues discussed above, by changing the current definition of "Idle" in SMARA Section 2727.1 to look at the curtailment of production by more than 90 percent of the maximum annual production within any of the last five years, rather than by more than 90 percent of the previous historical maximum annual production. See SB 108 (a copy is attached to this paper). This avoids some of the record problems discussed above and likely limits the
    number of operations falling within the definition of idle.

    Additional Renewals of IMPs: Currently SMARA allows for renewal of an IMP for an additional 5-year period. SB 108 clarifies that an IMP may be renewed for additional 5-year periods at the expiration of each 5-year period. SMARA Section 2770(h)(2)(A)

    Limited Window to Change Mine Status: Although not a substantive change to address the overall IMP problem, perhaps the most significant and practical benefit of SB 108 is the change of status provision. SB 108 adds new SMARA Section 2777.5, to authorize operators to file amended annual reports for prior years in order to revise mineral production or to change mine status from active to idle. One impact of this is to allow mine operators that may have failed to timely file an IMP in prior years (and thus could be subject to claims by OMR of abandonment notwithstanding resumption of production in subsequent years) to either correct production numbers for prior years (thereby avoiding claims of past idleness and failure to prepare a timely IMP) or to properly identify, i.e., change the status of the mine as having been idle in prior years and allow for the filing of a "retrospective" or "late" IMP (thereby avoiding potential claims of abandonment).

    Continue reading "Mining Lawyer: SB 108, A first step in solving the interim management plan problem (Part 2)" »

    Mining Lawyer: SB 108, A first step in solving the interim management plan problem (Part 1)

    October 14, 2011

    Kerry Shapiro

    This three-part blog series on California SB 108, a bill which changes provisions in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) pertaining to "idle" mines, is based on a paper I first presented at the CalCIMA Conference in October 2011.

    Background: What is the Interim Management Plan Problem?

    SB 108 is designed to address some (but not all) of the problems existing in the current SMARA statutory scheme regulating so-called "idle" mines through the requirement of submitting an interim management plan ("IMP"). Having passed though the legislature without a single no vote, the bill was signed by Governor' Jerry Brown on October 5, 2011 will be effective on January 1, 2012. This presentation identifies the problems with the current regulation of idle mines though IMP requirements, explains SB 108, including its key terms and the limited window for mine operators to take advantages of SB 108's "change of status" provisions, and finally identifies IMP problems not addressed by SB 108 and proposes ideas for addressing such problems.

    Continue reading "Mining Lawyer: SB 108, A first step in solving the interim management plan problem (Part 1)" »