Effective January 1, 2015, California law requires real estate brokers and agents to provide their clients and prospective clients with specific new disclosures, including (1) an initial disclosure form regarding the nature of agency relationships, which is typically provided at the time a listing agreement is entered into; and (2) an additional disclosure form to be presented in connection with a specific lease or purchase transaction. Owners/landlords may elect at their option not to execute the initial disclosure form. Continue Reading
Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (12/15/14, 2d Civil No. B254120)
The Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California has ruled that (i) a 20% increase in the actual height of a building over the stated height in the certified EIR required Ventura County to prepare a supplemental EIR rather than an addendum; and (ii) the County’s failure to prepare a supplemental EIR including the taller height of the building made the County susceptible to a valid claim beyond the standard 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA claims. The court’s conclusion highlights the need for EIRs and notices of decision (“NODs”) to more completely describe a project, with all its details, to avoid potential claims.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division, has issued its “Final 2015 Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines.”
The Guidelines will apply in the Corps’ San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Albuquerque districts, which together cover California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and parts of Colorado and Texas.
Effective January 1, 2015, commercial landlords are prohibited from entering into leases or other occupancy agreements that include any unreasonable restriction or prohibition on the installation or use of an electric vehicle charging station (“EV Station”) in a parking space associated with the commercial property. AB 2265 was enacted in an effort to promote, encourage and remove obstacles to the use of EV Stations, and effective January 1, 2015, the bill became law with the addition of Section 1952.7 to the California Civil Code. This new law invalidates any term in a commercial lease or lease amendment which adversely affects the installation of EV Stations.
On December 16, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously authorized the City Attorney to establish a Land Use/CEQA Panel, which will consist of five municipal law firms, to defend the City in CEQA and land use lawsuits that challenge the entitlements for private development projects, and to require that the project applicant reimburse the City for its legal costs and fees.
Capping a year-long partnership between the City of Los Angeles and Dr. Lucy Jones, a well-known seismologist with the United States Geological Survey, Mayor Eric Garcetti released “Resilience by Design” last week, a plan that includes an ambitious set of proposed seismic regulations. The plan proposes a series of ordinances to be reviewed by the City Council in the coming months, requiring, among other things, mandatory seismic retrofitting of soft-first-story buildings within five years and non-ductile concrete buildings within thirty years. These buildings have been identified in the plan as the buildings most at risk of collapse or structural failure in a large earthquake. In the past, the inability to identify funding for large scale retrofitting has scuppered any efforts address the danger. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the proposal is short on details about assistance to building owners for the costs of retrofitting. Below is a brief summary of what you need to know.
In the case of Lynch v. California Coastal Commission (D064120; Cal.App.4th 658; San Diego Superior Court; 37-2011-00058666-CU-WM-NC), the California Supreme Court has granted a petition for review of the decision by the Fourth Appellate District (Division One) upholding a prior decision in which the California Coastal Commission denied bluff-top homeowners’ petition for a coastal development permit to reconstruct a seawall and access stairs that would provide the homeowners with private beach access. On review, the California Supreme Court will address the following issues:
The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) now appears set to expire as of December 31, 2014, barring further action from Congress. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2014 would have extended the existing terrorism insurance coverage under TRIA. Although the House of Representatives previously passed a bill reauthorizing TRIA on December 10, 2014, the Senate failed to pass the measure prior to the end of the 113th Congressional legislative session. The original insurance program was enacted in 2002 (and subsequently extended in 2005 and 2007) after the 9/11 attacks as a backstop to the shortage of terrorism insurance in the private market.
Starting in January 2015, the City will not issue demolition permits for structures more than 45 years old until the applicant has conspicuously posted a demolition notice on the property, sent letters to abutting neighbors and notified the applicable City Council District Office at least 30 days in advance of demolition. This 30-day delay gives community groups and elected officials additional time to seek the designation of structures or districts as historic resources, in particular as a City “Historic-Cultural Monuments”, before they are razed.
Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (10/29/14, D064243)
On October 29, 2014, the Fourth District California Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the trial court’s decision in favor of Sierra Club, agreeing that the County of San Diego’s adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) violated CEQA. First, the court held the County’s adopted CAP failed to provide sufficiently detailed deadlines and enforceable measures to ensure specified greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions by 2020 or to put the County on a trajectory to achieve 2050 GHG emission reductions identified in Executive Order S-3-05 as required by the County’s General Plan Update. Second, it held the County failed to analyze the environmental impacts of the CAP itself or to incorporate mitigation measures directly into the CAP as required by CEQA Guidelines 15183.5(b)(1)(D) and Public Resources Code 21081.6(b). Accordingly, the court granted the Sierra Club’s petition to require enforceable mitigation and ordered the County to prepare a supplemental EIR.