Despite strenuous opposition from both the state’s real estate and business communities,1 near the end of the 2024 Legislative cycle, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 98 (“AB 98”) – a bill that, among other things, creates buffer zones and imposes other statewide design and build standards around new warehouse development.2 The bill, which overrides local land use programs, segregates these standards based on warehouse sizes and location within the state. Purportedly, AB 98 is intended to mitigate the negative health impacts associated with warehouse and logistics facility uses have on nearby communities, namely in the Inland…
Continue Reading A Deep Dive into AB 98’s Restrictions on the Logistics Industry: What the Bill Does and Does Not Do

In Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network v. City of Los Angeles, the Second District Court of Appeals considered and upheld the City of Los Angeles’s (“City”) actions associated with the approval of the Westside Mobility Plan. Specifically, the court upheld: (i) the Los Angeles City Planning Commission’s (“CPC”) certification of the Westside Mobility Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”); (ii) the determination that the Streetscape Plan was categorically exempt from CEQA; (iii) the finding that Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network (“Network”) failed to show that the EIR was deficient in its analysis of growth inducing impacts or the imposition of certain…
Continue Reading Westside Mobility Plan Clears the Road of CEQA Challenges

Louise Dyble’s article “Realizing the Potential of Brownfields” was recently featured in the in the Fall 2024 issue of NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development magazine. The article explores the emergence of brownfields in the mid-20th century and government legislation since enacted to address their contamination. The article also examines two current federal programs that support redevelopment of brownfield sites: Environmental Protection Agency-administered competitive brownfields grants and tax incentives and credits. The article also discusses challenges that lie ahead for these properties.
Continue Reading Realizing the Potential of Brownfields

This article was first published by Law360 on August 28, 2024.
Continue Reading Assessing The Practicality of Harris’ Affordable Housing Plan

To address the housing crisis in California, Senate Bill 684 (SB 684), passed in 2023 but effective as of July 1, 2024, aims to simplify the approval process for small-scale for-sale housing projects, facilitate a quicker development process, and help to alleviate the state’s housing shortage. Specifically, SB 684 mandates local agencies to ministerially approve proposed subdivisions for housing projects that result in 10 or fewer parcels, provided they meet specific criteria.[1] Applications for up to 10 units as part of a housing development on lots subdivided using this process and for building permits for construction of the units…
Continue Reading Big Streamlining for Small Subdivision Developers

Until recently, local policies on homelessness have been guided by two controversial rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Martin v. Boise (9th Cir. 2019) 920 F.3d 584 and Johnson v. City of Grants Pass (9th Cir. 2022) 50 F.4th 787.[1] However, the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024) 603 U.S. ____, is likely to transform local jurisdictions’ policy approaches to managing homelessness. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the city’s ban on camping and parking overnight on public property.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds That the Eighth Amendment Does Not Prevent Enforcement of Local Camping Bans, Authorizing a Significant Shift in Local Policies on Homelessness

In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court took an important step toward conscribing the power of federal agencies, abandoning the “Chevron doctrine” and its requirement that federal courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Court’s much-anticipated decision in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, Sec’y of Commerce and Relentless Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), requires federal courts to exercise independent judgement to interpret statutory language without deference to the agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the law. The Court’s opinion continues a trend toward less deferential judicial review of agency decision making and…
Continue Reading Loper Bright and Relentless 101: What Regulated Businesses Need to Know at the Dawn of the Post-Chevron Era

The New York City Council voted to approve a modified version of the City of Yes for Economic Opportunity (“COYEO”) text amendment, the second in a trio of City of Yes initiatives which aim to: (1) promote sustainability (the City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality, which passed on December 6, 2023); (2) update the City’s zoning tools to support economic growth and resiliency (City of Yes for Economic Opportunity, which passed on June 6, 2024); and (3) spur the development of affordable housing (the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, which entered public review on April…
Continue Reading City Council Approves City of Yes for Economic Opportunity, with Modifications

It seems like year-after-year, attempts are made to reform or repeal California’s rent control regulations, namely the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civ. Code §§ 1954.50 et seq.) (Costa-Hawkins Act). 2024 has proven to be no different.
Continue Reading Status of California Rent Control Reform

Undoubtedly, development impact fees (DIFs)[1] can make or break the pro forma of any development project. Until this month, developers hoping to challenge the assessment of project-related DIFs were often limited in the causes of action that could be brought. For instance, in California, a DIF may be challenged under the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code §§ 66000 et seq.), and only DIFs that were “imposed neither generally nor ministerially, but on an individual and discretionary basis” could invoke the Takings Clause embedded in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.[2] This limitation on developers’ ability to…
Continue Reading What the Sheetz: Where California Development Impact Fees Stand Following Recent Supreme Court Decision

Creating certainty in the inherent uncertainty of the future is the name of the game when it comes to drafting commercial leases. When courts overrule provisions that the parties to the lease have agreed upon, however, that supposed certainty goes out the window. This fact pattern played out recently in Epochal Enterprises, Inc. v. LF Encinitas Properties, LLC (4th Dist., Case No. D079905) (“Epochal”), when the California Court of Appeal ruled that a limitation of liability clause in a lease that purported to release the landlord from liability for failing to disclose asbestos was against public policy and not enforceable.
Continue Reading New Court Ruling Pokes Holes in Contractual Limitation of Liability Language in Commercial Leases

New York City’s rent-related laws have once again survived judicial scrutiny, and evaded Supreme Court review. In 74 Pinehurst LLC v. New York, a group of New York City landlords (“Petitioners”) filed suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the City and State of New York, the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board, and multiple state and New York City officials (“Respondents”), seeking a declaration that New York City’s Rent Stabilization Law, as amended in 2019 (“RSL”), violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United…
Continue Reading SCOTUS Declines to Review New York City’s Rent Stabilization Law

The California State Legislature is considering Assembly Bill (AB) 2216, a measure introduced by Assemblymember Matt Haney, that would force landlords to permit pets in residential rental properties. Specifically, the proposed legislation restricts a landlord from barring a tenant from owning or keeping a common household pet without valid justification. The bill also prevents landlords from charging tenants extra rent or security deposits for owning or keeping a common household pet. However, these restrictions do not apply to rental agreements signed before January 1, 2025.
Continue Reading Unleashing AB 2216: Will Fido Have a Leg Up on Landlords?