Ben Reznik
In an attempt to appease a well-heeled group of neighbors in Benedict Canyon who want to stop one particular project, the City of Los Angeles has adopted a new interpretation of its municipal code which will result in more than $1 billion worth of construction being delayed into 2013. This equates to the loss of several thousand jobs this year.
For the particulars, read my op-ed column from this week’s Los Angeles Business Journal, reprinted with permission below.
Continue reading
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
Neill Brower
The Fourth District of the California Court of Appeal recently ruled that the California State University system could not use budgetary uncertainty as a basis for determining the feasibility of mitigation for off-campus impacts. In City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, 2011 DJDAR 17803, filed on December 13, the court upheld a broad-based challenge to the EIR for the San Diego State University Master Plan.
Among other things, the EIR claimed that the University could not feasibly mitigate project-related traffic impacts that would occur off-campus. Consistent with mitigation measures in the EIR, the resolution approving the project and certifying the EIR required the University to request from the State legislature the necessary funding for the University’s fair share of off-campus traffic- and transit-related improvements. The resolution also stated that because the University ultimately relied on funding from the State legislature, the University could not guarantee the allocation of sufficient funds or the timing of that allocation, nor could the University guarantee that the local agencies would fund the measures for which those agencies were responsible. Nevertheless, the resolution directed the Chancellor of the University to proceed with the project even if the legislature allocated insufficient funds for mitigation, finding that due to the various funding uncertainties, the off-campus traffic impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, but “are necessarily outweighed by the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by [the University].”
Continue reading
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
Neill Brower
A recent court decision upheld the use of multiple scenarios in a traffic analysis in an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for a redevelopment project. On November 22, 2011, the Sixth District of the California Court of Appeal certified for publication its decision in Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (“Pfeiffer“), Case No. H036310, which rejected, among other claims, a challenge to an EIR traffic analysis that used future baseline scenarios to evaluate impacts. The decision highlights and reinforces (1) the necessity of discussing existing conditions in addition to other scenarios that may provide more useful information regarding project impacts; and (2) the importance of substantiating a decision to deviate from existing conditions as the analytical baseline.
Continue reading
Ben Reznik
Why is the City of Los Angeles singling out the Deputy Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia and forcing him to follow procedures never before imposed on others in order to allow him to build his home in the Benedict Canyon neighborhood of Los Angeles?
That’s a question being raised following the recent Vanity Fair article written by Michael Shnayerson, There Goes the Neighborhood, about my client Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, the current Deputy Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia.
For some inexplicable reason, the City of Los Angeles Planning Department is erroneously maintaining and insisting that the Prince’s entity developing the project, Tower Lane Properties, Inc., must undergo additional, unnecessary and inapplicable steps in the plan check review process, before the project is cleared for construction. However, other similarly-sized residential projects in Benedict Canyon and nearby neighborhoods were built without being subjected to any such additional review whatsoever. A 35,046 square-foot home on North Carolwood Drive, a 45,891 square-foot home on Bel Air Road, and a 52,503 square-foot home on S. Mapleton Drive, to name a few, were all built without the City of Los Angeles subjecting them to this procedure. It’s not even the largest residential project in the area. [SOURCE: City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office]
Continue reading
Ben Reznik
Vanity Fair reporter Michael Shnayerson recently visited the Los Angeles hillside neighborhood of Benedict Canyon to report on a proposed residential project by JMBM client Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, Deputy Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. Shnayerson’s article, There Goes the Neighborhood, includes interviews with some of the property’s high profile neighbors and sheds light on what is really driving the opposition.
Tower Lane Properties, Inc., the prince’s entity seeking to build the project, has reached out to the surrounding community, heard the community’s issues and concerns, and has come forward with new, revised plans that reduce the project’s size and significantly reduce project-related truck traffic. Tower Lane Properties, Inc. is committed to maintaining an open and ongoing dialogue with area neighbors to ensure that this residential development on private property can move forward.
Continue reading
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (JMBM) is pleased to announce its land use practice has been selected for inclusion in the U.S. News & World Report / Best Lawyers® list of Best Law Firms. JMBM achieved a National First-Tier Ranking and a Metropolitan First-Tier Ranking (Los Angeles) in the area of Land Use and Zoning Law.
“Land use is where the law, politics and community all intersect and navigating a client’s project through this intersection can be quite treacherous,” said Benjamin M. Reznik, Chair of JMBM’s Government, Land Use, Environment and Energy Department. “My colleagues and I are honored to have our work recognized by inclusion in the list of Best Law Firms,” he said.
The Best Law Firms designation is based on client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and a formal submission process. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.”
Continue reading
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
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
