Articles Posted in Legislation

Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

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