Published on:

by

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

Published on:

by

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

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

Published on:

by

On July 11, 2011, the Global Hospitality Group® at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP announced the formation of the Chinese Investment Group™, a dedicated team of hotel and real estate lawyers that provides a gateway for Chinese investment in the United States.

Using experience gained from more than $60 billion in hotel transactions, involving more than 1,300 properties worldwide, together with substantial experience in general real estate transactions, the Group provides Chinese investors with legal and business advice to make prudent and economically successful hotel and real estate investments in the United States.

The Group and its network of reliable professional resources help Chinese investors identify, analyze, evaluate, validate, acquire, finance and manage hotel and real estate opportunities. The Group does not receive any finder’s fees, incentive fees, commissions or payments from any promoters, and provides independent advice to Chinese investors regarding all hotel and real estate opportunities. The Group also represents selected hotel, restaurant and other real property owners and developers in structuring investments for foreign investors — particularly Chinese investors — using the EB 5 immigrant investor visa program.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Sheri Bonstelle
JMBM’s land use attorneys partnered with the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, including its developer members, to draft amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000 et al) that will provide developers more certainty and protection from frivolous lawsuits that have threatened Hollywood development in a time of economic turmoil. Hollywood Chamber president, Leron Gubler, stated that thousands of construction and permanent jobs were lost in Hollywood, because CEQA lawsuits against eight key projects delayed the developments for one year to eighteen months. As a result, owners decided to put their projects on hold or abandon construction, because either the project lost financing backing or the onset of the recession eliminated the anticipated market. JMBM and the Hollywood Chamber met with State Senator Curren Price in January 2011 to discuss the serious implications of the lawsuits that threaten Hollywood’s growth, even when the developer ultimately prevails. Senator Price lauded these amendments as changes that would strengthen CEQA, and agreed to sponsor the bill in the 2011 Senate term.

CEQA is the foundation for environmental law in California, and its primary objective is to require disclosure of any significant environmental effects of proposed projects and mitigation of these effects to the extent feasible. CEQA also provides strict timelines and expedited litigation schedules for cases involving a challenge to such environmental reviews. However, the law allows for lenient extensions by judges, and the one-year time limit to proceed to hearing is often extended to over two years. In recent years the State legislature considered numerous amendments to CEQA to further expedite the litigation schedule and eliminate frivolous claims to allow more certainty for owners and developers in the process. However, the amendments did not ultimately provide a timely resolution of pending lawsuits. As a result, owners decided to put their projects on hold or abandon construction, because either the project lost financing backing or the onset of the recession eliminated the anticipated market.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Neill Brower
A recent court decision has already changed the way many public agencies evaluate traffic impacts in analysis reports prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). On December 16, 2010, the Sixth District of the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale, invalidating an environmental impact report (EIR) for a major roadway extension project. Sunnyvale should be considered as a logical extension of case law regarding the proper baseline for CEQA analysis and the end of the future baseline scenario as the only basis of a traffic impact analysis.

Prior to Sunnyvale, an accepted practice for traffic impact analysis involved crafting a future baseline scenario, usually based on the anticipated year of project build-out, and evaluating project impacts based on the difference between future conditions with and without project-related traffic. This approach makes intuitive sense, as under very few circumstances would traffic levels and street configurations plus project traffic represent an accurate picture of the project’s ultimate effect on local and regional roadways. The Sunnyvale decision even recognized this.

However, CEQA Guidelines require an evaluation of the effects of a project on “the environment.” Generally, “the environment” means the physical conditions that exist in an area during publication of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) or, if no NOP is published, the time that environmental review began.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Ben Reznik
We are getting older and living longer. The statistics for the growth of the elderly are compelling. In the past few years we have seen several types of new private eldercare facilities, such as independent living and assisted living pop up in the LA area, mostly in more affluent neighborhoods. But make no mistake: neither LA nor the rest of the nation is prepared to properly care for and house the emerging elderly population.

When I speak with people who now must find some level of assisted housing for their elderly parents, their frustration is all too common and similar: there are too few choices and none that are located in their neighborhood. What an interesting concept – siting eldercare facilities “in our neighborhood.” This notion is not just for the convenience of the adult child, who wants to remain close enough to the parent for visitation purposes, it is also important for the elder parent, who should not be relegated to living out the rest of his/her life in institutional facilities along major commercial corridors. There must be a way to integrate eldercare housing into residential neighborhoods, including single-family areas.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Ben Reznik
From Robert Stein, President Gambol Industries, Inc.

For more than three years, JMBM’s client, Gambol Industries, Inc. has been negotiating with the Port of Los Angeles to develop a ship repair and ship building facility in an unused portion of the port. Gambol proposes to invest approximately $75 million in private capital, which will create more than 1,000 direct and indirect jobs. The Port of Los Angeles however, continues to resist Gambol’s efforts, prompting the company’s president, Robert Stein, to circulate an open letter to members of the Los Angeles City Council. The following is an edited version of his letter:

We thought we had a good idea three years ago when we proposed re-opening the historical former Southwest Marine (SWM), site for use as a ship building and repair yard. The site has been a shipyard since the 1920s, but in recent years, has been unused and in decay. Believe it or not, neither the ports of Los Angeles nor Long Beach currently house such a facility. This necessitates those needing these services to sail down to San Diego or up to San Francisco. This is unacceptable for the nation’s largest port complex!

For reasons best known to its staff, the Port of Los Angeles continues to resist our efforts. Initially their reasoning related to the Main Channel Deepening Project (MCDP) which the port is undertaking with the assistance of the Army Corp of Engineers. They claim they need the Southwest Marine facility to store the dredged materials which they want to relocate behind a rock dike to be installed across the face of the SMW site. Once this process is undertaken it will preclude the ability to develop a world class ship building and repair facility in San Pedro Bay.
Continue reading