Best Best & Krieger News Feed

AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Avoidance Training

16 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, pursuant to AB 1825, requires that employers with fifty or more employees in California provide at least two hours of Sexual Harassment Avoidance Training every two years to any employee that has a supervisory role in operations. This presentation is designed to satisfy those requirements.

Joseph Ortiz will be presenting the training from the Riverside office. All other BB&K offices will participate in the training via state-of-the-art video conferencing. The video conference is interactive, allowing attendees to ask questions and participate in other ways.

What will be covered:

What constitutes sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace
How to recognize and avoid it
What procedures to follow if you witness harassment or are harassed yourself
The potential consequences - including personal liability - of sexual harassment

Who should attend:

Supervisors
Human Resources Professionals
Public Officials
Managers & Private Business Professionals with 50 or More Employees

When:
Thursday, May 16
3:00pm - 5:00pm

Registration:
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

The training will be also be held via video conference at the following BB&K Offices throughout CA. When you register you will select which office you will select where you plan to participate in the training.

Indian Wells
Irvine
Los Angeles
Ontario
Riverside – Joseph Ortiz will be presenting from the Riverside office
Sacramento
San Diego
Walnut Creek

Cost is $75 per person. *Payment by check must be received before or on the day of the session.

BB&K Presenter:
Joseph Ortiz, Partner, Labor & Employment Practice Group in Riverside office

QUESTIONS:
Contact Katey Lamke if you have any questions about this event and/or about BB&K upcoming seminars/events.

If you are not currently receiving our Legal Alerts and would like to be added to our email distribution list, please visit our subscription page.

The Risks of Sustainable Construction

23 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

By Scott W. Ditfurth

Sustainability and “green” building are becoming commonplace in the construction industry. And why not? Aside from an obvious benefit to the environment, sustainable building provides for potential financial benefits, higher property values and preferential marketability.

While the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, commonly referred to as LEED, certification guidelines are not currently required for new construction, it is not uncommon for certain LEED standards to be incorporated into local codes and state regulations such as CALGreen. Despite the prominence of green building, there remains undefined risks in constructing these kinds of structures, insuring their performance and assigning liability to the parties for any failures.

While the benefits of sustainable construction are well documented, the risks associated with it remain somewhat undefined. Generally speaking, the risks include defects in green materials used on a project, the ability to attain LEED certification or comply with local building codes, and whether or not the buildings will qualify for various financial incentive programs.

Thus, developers and insurance companies face potential exposure regarding how the building was constructed and how it will perform long after construction.

Click here to read the complete article on The Press-Enterprise website.

California's High-Speed Rail Authority Sues Everybody

28 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0800

SACRAMENTO -- If you're reading this, consider yourself served.

The state of California has filed a civil case against everyone -- literally, the whole world -- seeking to validate $8.6 billion in voter-approved bonds for its $69 billion high-speed rail project.

The lawsuit, titled "High-Speed Rail Authority v. All Persons Interested," is meant as a pre-emptive strike so the state can confirm that it's definitely legal to issue some of the bonds needed to begin bullet train construction this summer. By citing a somewhat obscure California civil code, the state can use the "sue now or forever hold your peace" strategy to prevent a string of future lawsuits and, instead, deal with the legal issues in one fell swoop.

Anyone interested in trying to block the project can sign up with the court, put their endless hours of "Law & Order" watching to use, wear their best suit and show up at a hearing to argue their case. They would join lawyers who are already suing the rail authority in other cases and go toe-to-toe with the state Attorney General's Office, which is representing the rail authority.

The state's biggest-ever project is also one of its most controversial, which has led the rail authority to swat away lawsuit after lawsuit since California voters approved the bullet train in November 2008.

. . .

Lawyers say this "validation" process, while not well known, isn't necessarily uncommon among public agencies that want to create a legal shield against future lawsuits to calm investors interested in their bonds.

The city of San Jose did it in 2009, for example, before issuing bonds to expand its convention center. Even then, that case ended up being tied up for a year because a gadfly signed up to challenge it, before the city won, said City Attorney Rick Doyle.

"You never know what you're going to get," he said. "You could get a crazy person filing something."

Riverside attorney Danielle Sakai, who has represented clients in several similar cases for the law firm Best Best & Krieger, said, "It could take years to work its way through the courts, but once that's done, it's done, and it can't be challenged."

Click here to read the entire article on the San Jose Mercury News website.

Best Best & Krieger Hires Five Attorneys Across Southern California

05 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0800

For Immediate Release: March 5, 2013
Media Contact: Jennifer Bowles • 951.826.8480 • jennifer.bowles@BBKlaw.com

RIVERSIDE, Calif. _ Best Best & Krieger LLP recently hired five entry-level attorneys across Southern California who were summer interns at the firm during law school.

The new associates graduated from law school last year, and were interns at BB&K in the summer of 2011.

“We are glad to bring aboard such well-rounded associates. For several of the new attorneys, law is a second career, allowing us to offer that added depth of experience to our clients,” said Danielle Sakai, a Riverside-based partner at BB&K who specializes in environmental law and chairs the firm’s recruiting committee.

The new associates in the Riverside office are:

Jennifer J. Kunz, who focuses on environmental, natural resources and land use law as a member of the firm’s environmental law and natural resources practice group. Prior to law school, she worked for several years as a land use and environmental planning consultant, serving both public and private sector clients throughout California. Kunz is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and a LEED-accredited professional. She holds a master’s degree in urban and regional planning from the University of California at Irvine. Kunz received her law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.

Jeremiah J. Lee, a member of the firm’s business services practice group who concentrates on mergers and acquisitions, corporate reorganizations, non-profit law and business litigation. Lee graduated from Pepperdine University School of Law where he was the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law. While in law school, he served as an extern to U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II in Los Angeles and interned in London under the local general counsel for an international investment management firm. Prior to beginning his legal career, Lee worked with a global management consulting firm and earned his undergraduate degree from the University of California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. Lee is a third-generation native of Riverside where he continues to live.

The new associate in Ontario is:

Thomas A. Rice, a member of the firm’s municipal law practice group who provides transactional advice for cities, counties, water districts and joint powers authorities on a wide range of issues. Prior to joining BB&K, Rice worked as a finance office and special projects specialist at Groundwork Manchester, a charity in England that is engaged in the sustainable redevelopment of communities through joint environmental action. He is a LEED-accredited professional. Rice was recently appointed to a three-year term on the board of the Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County, a non-profit that works with communities to empower low-income residents to achieve self-sufficiency. During law school, Rice interned for the County of Riverside Office of Legal Counsel, where he worked on a variety of matters including numerous code enforcement cases. Rice received his law degree from the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, Ill.

The new attorneys in San Diego are:

Richard L. Hyde, whose practice focuses on real property litigation, title insurance litigation, commercial litigation, municipal and public entity representation, and civil code enforcement and litigation. He is a member of the firm’s municipal law practice group. He received his law degree from Brigham Young University's J. Reuben Clark Law School. Prior to joining BB&K, Hyde interned with the California Attorney General's correctional law section. He also externed with U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner in Utah.

Marco A. Verdugo, who joined the special districts practice and is working on water quality issues, eminent domain and election law for various public agency clients. Licensed in California as a general engineering contractor, Verdugo helped oil companies, cities and utilities comply with air quality and water quality regulations relating to underground and aboveground storage tanks before he turned to a legal career. During law school, Verdugo interned at the Chula Vista City Attorney's Office where he assisted on various municipal law and California Environmental Quality Act issues. He also volunteered at the University of San Diego Legal Clinic where he assisted low-income individuals with landlord/tenant and contract issues. Verdugo received his law degree from the University of San Diego School of Law.

CEQA: Reforming California's Landmark Environmental Law

05 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0800

By Michelle Ouellette

California has always been on the cutting edge when it comes to environmental protection. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the adoption and implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, frequently referred to as CEQA. Passed in 1970, CEQA’s basic purpose is to require state and local public agencies to analyze, and if possible mitigate, significant environmental impacts for both public and private projects such as housing developments, mass transit and renewable energy.

But this landmark law has come under fire in recent years, and there is a move afoot to reform it. In a recession-weary state, CEQA is seen by many as a statute that is not only hindering economic recovery by delaying well-meaning public projects but also being misused by parties for financial gain such as unions and business competitors. However, little legislation has been passed in recent years to amend CEQA to make it more workable. In the last year, though, a growing coalition of public agencies as well as the private sector have made it a priority to implement CEQA reform. And, in just the last couple of weeks, the head of the California Senate was among the legislators who introduced a flurry of bills to reform CEQA. In fact, state Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg has made updating CEQA a top priority of the current legislative session so there is certainly the political will to make something happen in the near future.

CEQA was originally modeled after the National Environmental Policy Act, the federal act that requires federal agencies to analyze the impacts of their projects or certain private projects that require federal permits or funding. In its 43-year history, however, CEQA has far exceeded the more procedural requirements of NEPA and thus, has been both praised as a vital law to protect California’s natural resources and attacked as a mechanism for some unions, NIMBYs and other groups to stop growth and consequently economic recovery.

There is no dispute that CEQA has imposed important protections and standards across the state. Prior to considering public and private projects that could have a potentially significant environmental impact, public agencies must determine whether a project is exempt from CEQA or requires an environmental analysis, usually in the form of a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report. Each of these documents requires an analysis of an array of potential impacts of the proposed project, ranging from biological resources to greenhouse gases. Potentially significant environmental impacts must be mitigated to below a level of significance, if feasible. Projects analyzed in an environmental impact report also require the analysis of alternatives to reduce significant project impacts. The opportunity for public review and comment on these documents is required and often the public agencies schedule a public hearing to obtain further comments.

Neighbors and environmental groups praise CEQA for requiring public transparency in decision-making and looking at alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. On the other hand, developers and increasingly public agencies see CEQA as a statute abused by labor unions, NIMBYs, litigators and others who they allege have largely a financial interest in project labor agreements or attorney fee payouts, rather than actual concern about the environment. Additionally, CEQA lawsuits are easy and relatively inexpensive to bring. Therefore, many CEQA lawsuits are filed each year, which can take two years or more to resolve through the appellate courts. CEQA litigation then can significantly slow or even stop projects from going forward. Additionally, state and federal funding can be jeopardized due to such delays, often for important projects such as public transportation. Finally, given the lack of legislative action in recent years to clarify CEQA, the courts are left to make CEQA policy, often in inconsistent ways. Legislation that has been approved in past years has largely focused not on general reform but on CEQA exemptions, often either project specific _ such as an exemption for a downtown Los Angeles sports stadium _ or with significant restrictions in their use. Assembly Bill 900, known as the Jobs and Economic Improvement through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011, allows certain projects with identified public benefits to skip the trial court and go directly to a state appellate court for review. Even this legislation has been challenged by an environmental group. Thus, CEQA has primarily evolved through the court system in recent years.

With the recession, state decision makers have been looking for ways to get the economy back on track. Increasingly, their attention is focusing on CEQA reform that would allow important projects to get through the entitlement process and be built. Gov. Jerry Brown has been quite vocal about his desire for CEQA reform, recently referring to it as a “land mine.” Last year, then state Sen. Michael Rubio, D-Shafter, introduced the short-lived SB 317 that proposed certain CEQA reforms but was quickly withdrawn. This year Rubio and other legislators have again been considering CEQA reform. However, Rubio announced on Feb. 22 that he was resigning from the senate effective immediately due to family issues. That day, twenty nine CEQA bills were introduced, including SB 731 by Steinberg, D-Sacramento. Steinberg’s bill states that it provides “the framework to encourage smart, environmentally sound growth by streamlining the environmental review process without compromising the quality of life Californians deserve and expect in our communities.” Although lacking specific details, SB 731 states that it is the intent of the Legislature to revise CEQA to, among other things, provide greater certainty for certain infill projects, streamline the law for certain projects and provide thresholds of significance for certain types of environmental impacts. Some of the introduced bills would impose even greater CEQA requirements such as repealing certain existing CEQA exemptions and requiring CEQA documents and notices be translated when the impacted community has a substantial number of non-English speakers. Many of the bills are spot bills and thus, it is not yet clear what specifics will be added.

There is no doubt that some CEQA reform will occur over the next several years. The only question is how far that reform will go, especially given that the Democrats have a majority and may in fact have a super majority again later this year.

Michelle Ouellette is a partner at Best Best & Krieger LLP in Riverside and a member of the law firm’s environmental law & natural resources practice group. She represents cities, counties, special districts and private clients in environmental issues arising under the California Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, and wetlands regulations. She also is known for her legal work on renewable energy projects and habitat conservation plans that protect endangered species while allowing development to move forward. She can be reached at michelle.ouellette@bbklaw.com.

Associate Attorney - Education Law - Riverside Office

22 Feb 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Riverside office has immediate associate opening in its Education Law Group requiring 2 to 3 years of special education law experience with some general education law experience preferred. Qualified applicants are invited to submit by email or mail a cover letter, resume and law school transcript to:

Jill N. Willis
Chief Talent Officer
Best Best & Krieger LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Email: Jill.Willis@bbklaw.com
Fax: (213) 617-7480

BB&K Water Attorney Appointed to Bloomberg BNA Advisory Board

19 Feb 2013 00:00:00 -0800

For Immediate Release: Feb. 19, 2013
Media Contact: Jennifer Bowles • 951.826.8480 • jennifer.bowles@BBKlaw.com

LOS ANGELES _ Eric Garner, a water rights attorney and managing partner at Best Best & Krieger LLP who wrote a well-known book on California water law and policy, was appointed to the board advising Bloomberg BNA on its new online publication examining water resources issues.

Garner is one of six experts in the United States and abroad who sit on the advisory board for the Water Law & Policy Monitor, which debuted last Wednesday.

“We are honored to have someone as accomplished as Eric providing guidance and insight as we move forward on our new publication, which tracks a critical sector of the U.S. and global economy,” said John Sullivan, the publication’s managing editor based in Washington, D.C. “Eric’s depth of knowledge and experience in the United States and international water law and policy make him a leader in the field, and we are proud to have him join the board.”

The Water Law & Policy Monitor will publish online weekly with daily updates. Featuring breaking news and special reports, its coverage will focus on state water issues across the country, laws, regulations, legislations, court decisions, and cover such topics as conservation, water management, water efficiency, climate change, water rights and desalination. In addition, the website will feature international coverage and legal and policy analysis authored by experts in the field.

“It is very exciting to be involved from the beginning of this major effort and given Bloomberg BNA’s reputation I’m sure it will become a must-read publication for lawyers, water suppliers and anyone interested in this important natural resource,” Garner said.

Garner is a leading water rights attorney in California who is often tapped to speak on the topic and chair conferences examining cutting-edge issues in the water field. Earlier this month, he was the program chair for Investing in California’s Water, a conference held in Santa Monica, Calif., that examined how public and private investment will help the state meet its present and future water challenges.

Recently, Garner helped the city of Santa Maria win an appellate ruling upholding a court-ordered groundwater management plan ensuring a long-term water supply for a large portion of the state’s Central Coast. In addition, the decision substantially strengthened the right of cities and public agencies in the state to use groundwater for people in times of shortage.

Outside of the courtroom, Garner helped to craft water laws in South Africa, Trinidad and Pakistan. He was the first American to chair the International Bar Association’s Water Law Committee.

The Daily Journal, citing Garner’s expertise in water law and his role in the International Bar Association, named him in 2009 as one of California’s Top 100 lawyers.

As an author, Garner co-wrote California Water and the 2nd edition, California Water II– widely considered to be the leading text on the history, law and policy of the state’s most precious natural resource.

BB&K Seminar: AB 1825 - How To Avoid Sexual Harassment Claims

19 Feb 2013 00:00:00 -0800

What will be covered:

What constitutes sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace
How to recognize and avoid it
What procedures to follow if you witness harassment or are harassed yourself
The potential consequences - including personal liability - of sexual harassment

Who should attend:

Supervisors
Human Resources Professionals
Public Officials
Managers & Private business professionals with 50 or more employees

When/Where and Registration:

AB 1825 is being offered at four BB&K locations:

BB&K Riverside office - REGISTRATION IS CLOSED
Wednesday, March 20th
2:00pm - 4:00pm

BB&K Indian Wells office - REGISTRATION IS CLOSED
Thursday, March 21st
2:00pm - 4:00pm

BB&K San Diego office - REGISTRATION IS CLOSED
Wednesday, April 3rd
9:00am - 11:00am

BB&K Sacramento office - CANCELED
Thursday, April 18th
9:00am - 11:00am

Cost is $50 per person. *Payment by check must be received before or on the day of the session.

BB&K Presenters:
Joseph T. Ortiz, Partner, Labor & Employment Practice Group in Riverside office
Stacey Sheston, Partner, Labor & Employment Practice Group in Sacramento office
Joey Sanchez, Partner, Labor & Employment Practice Group in San Diego office

QUESTIONS:
Contact Katey Lamke if you have any questions about this event and/or about BB&K upcoming seminars/events.

If you are not currently receiving our Legal Alerts and would like to be added to our email distribution list, please visit our subscription page.

BB&K Welcomes Ten Attorneys Across Southern California Into the Partnership

30 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0800

For Immediate Release: Jan. 30, 2013
Media Contact: Jennifer Bowles • 951.826.8480 • jennifer.bowles@BBKlaw.com

RIVERSIDE, Calif. _ Best Best & Krieger LLP promoted ten attorneys based in Southern California to partner for 2013, the law firm announced.

“We are pleased to welcome into the partnership a group of attorneys with diverse legal expertise, which will continue to provide a strong foundation of legal knowledge for our clients,” said Eric Garner, BB&K’s managing partner.

The new partners are based in Riverside, Los Angeles, San Diego, Ontario and Indian Wells, and focus on a wide range of legal fields including environmental, labor, municipal and business law.

In all, BB&K has nearly 200 attorneys based at nine offices in California and Washington, D.C., who work with public agencies and private clients.

In the Riverside office, the new partners are:

Charity B. Schiller, whose environmental law practice focuses on helping public and private clients navigate through the maze of state and federal environmental laws that apply to transportation, infrastructure and other development projects as they undergo the proposal and approval processes. With expertise in the California Environmental Quality Act, Schiller is a member of the firm’s environmental and natural resources practice group. She is currently the chair of the Riverside Downtown Partnership, a not-for-profit organization that partners with the city’s businesses and others to sponsor or organize summer concerts, festivals, book signings and outdoor movies designed to attract visitors to downtown Riverside. Schiller joined BB&K in 2004 after receiving her law degree from Pepperdine University.

Mona M. Nemat, an eminent domain attorney who advises public entity clients on project planning and right-of-way acquisition through the various stages of complex, high-stakes litigation. Although her practice largely involves the public sector, she also represents individuals and businesses as a member of BB&K’s eminent domain and business services practice groups. Nemat is a founding member of Project Graduate, a pilot program comprised of members of the Riverside County legal community that helps foster kids in local high schools to graduate. She received her law degree from the University of California, Davis, in 2004, and has been with BB&K since 2007.

Joseph T. Ortiz, who provides advice to private and public agency employers on such issues as wrongful termination, discrimination and harassment, and related claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. As part of the firm’s labor and employment practice, Ortiz also litigates employment matters before state and federal courts, administrative agencies and arbitration tribunals. Ortiz is chair of the Downtown Business Council, which is part of the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce in Riverside; president of the Greater Riverside Dollars for Scholars; and a commissioner on the Riverside Community Police Review Commission. Ortiz received his law degree from the University of Minnesota in 2001, and joined BB&K in 2008.

In Los Angeles, the new partners are:

Scott H. Campbell, who serves as city attorney to Avalon on Catalina Island and as general counsel to the Lake Arrowhead Community Services District in the San Bernardino mountains. A member of the firm’s municipal law and litigation practice groups, Campbell’s work concentrates on municipal and public entity representation, construction management and litigation, and business and commercial litigation. Campbell is the former president of the City Attorneys Association of Los Angeles County and currently sits on the board of directors for St. Anne’s Maternity Home, which provides a home for pregnant or parenting teen-agers in Los Angeles County. Campbell received his law degree from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1987, and joined BB&K in 2005.

John H. Holloway, a litigator and transactional attorney who represents public agencies and businesses in real estate, eminent domain, environmental and land use matters. His experience includes acquisition of property for several public projects, including the right of way property for construction of the Los Angeles to Pasadena Gold Line, and representation of clients in environmental matters, including Los Angeles County in negotiations with regulators and potentially responsible parties in the investigation and clean-up of the former BKK Main Landfill in Carson. Holloway also is currently working with the Los Angeles Community College District on a number of projects, including development of a new satellite college campus and a major telecommunications initiative aimed at connecting the district’s nine campuses and its headquarters through a fiber optic ring and wireless transmission network to improve the district's data security and communication abilities. Holloway received his law degree in 1995 from Tulane University in New Orleans, and joined BB&K in 2005.

In San Diego, the new partners are:

Shannon M. Erickson, who represents a variety of clients in business and general civil litigation matters, with a focus on real property and title insurance issues. Her clients include title insurance and escrow companies, banks, religious organizations, public and private entities, and individuals. Erickson provides pro bono legal services as a volunteer for the Casa Cornelia Law Center, a San Diego-based nonprofit that assists victims of human and civil rights violations. Last year, she and another BB&K attorney won a significant victory when they helped secure political asylum for a young African woman seeking protection from religious persecution in her native country of Eritrea. Erickson received her law degree from the University of San Diego School of Law in 2004 and joined BB&K in 2006.

Lindsay D. Puckett, whose practice focuses on environmental and land use law. She represents public and private clients in transactional and litigation matters involving the California Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, state and federal endangered species laws, coastal development, alternative energy, water issues and American Indian law issues. She served for four years on the board of the Solana Center for Environmental Innovation, a nonprofit in Encinitas that provides educational outreach on recycling, composting, pollution prevention, sustainable living, conservation and habitat protection to businesses, schools and others in San Diego County. Puckett received her law degree in 2004 from the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. She joined BB&K in 2006.

In Ontario, the new partner is:

G. Ross Trindle, III, who works on police-related legal issues and assists cities in developing consolidated, shared services and regionalization agreements for public safety services. His public safety litigation experience involves Pitchess motion defense, sex offender registration issues, and state and federal civil rights defense. As part of the firm’s municipal law practice and as leader of its police services team, Trindle serves as deputy city attorney for Arcadia, Azusa, Claremont, Covina, Colton and Shafter for public safety and public liability issues. In addition, his practice focuses on municipal defense litigation. Trindle volunteers with California high school mock trial, including as an attorney coach for Claremont High School in Los Angeles County, and previously with Upland High School in San Bernardino County. He earned his law degree in 2003 from Santa Clara University School of Law and joined BB&K in 2007.

In Indian Wells, the new partners are:

Kira L. Klatchko, who chairs the firm’s appellate practice and handles civil appeals in state and federal courts for cities, businesses and families. Klatchko is the only appellate law specialist in Riverside County certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. Among other notable cases, Klatchko is handling a high-profile case before the California Supreme Court on behalf of a city client involving the use of red-light cameras at traffic intersections. Klatchko is acting chair of the State Bar of California’s Standing Committee on Appellate Courts, and she sits on the Riverside County Bar Association’s executive board. She is a board member of Angel View, a nonprofit based in the Coachella Valley that is dedicated to serving disabled children and adults throughout the Inland region. Klatchko received her law degree from the University of California, Davis in 2004, and joined BB&K the following year. She also holds an executive master's degree in business administration from the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito School of Management at Claremont Graduate University.

Carlos L. Campos, who serves as city attorney for Coachella and represents Palm Desert and Indian Wells in various capacities. He is also general counsel to the Desert Healthcare District and the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone. A member of the firm’s municipal and special district practice groups, Campos' practice focuses on open meeting laws, conflicts of interest, land use and planning, and the Public Records Act. Campos serves as a trustee of the Desert Bar Association and sits on the board of directors of the Dr. Carreon Foundation, which seeks to increase educational opportunities for Mexican-American youth in the Coachella Valley. Fluent in Spanish, Campos earned his law degree in 2002 from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. He joined the firm in 2002.

Four BB&K Attorneys Named 2013 Southern California "Super Lawyers"

22 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Four attorneys at Best Best & Krieger LLP were named as Southern California Super Lawyers for 2013 for their expertise in environmental and municipal law. The attorneys are Eric L. Garner, Michelle Ouellette and Gregory K. Wilkinson for environmental law, and Scott H. Campbell for government/municipal law. The selection is significant because only five percent of Southern California lawyers, excluding San Diego (which has its own list), received this honor.

Garner is managing partner of Best Best & Krieger, overseeing the firm’s nine offices and nearly 200 attorneys. He is one of the leading experts on water law in California and has litigated cases and negotiated key agreements involving major water bodies across the state. Garner also works with renewable energy firms to obtain water supplies for solar plants in the California desert. He is a member of the International Bar Association council that oversees the Section on Energy, Environment, Natural Resources and Infrastructure Law.

Ouellette is known for her expertise in federal and state endangered species laws, the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. She steered two of the nation’s largest habitat conservation plans through a maze of environmental requirements, protecting dozens of endangered species in Southern California while allowing development to move forward.

Wilkinson works on key cases in California involving water rights, water quality, endangered species and environmental impact reporting issues. He successfully argued before the United States Supreme Court in Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997), a case involving endangered species and an irrigation project that straddles the California/Oregon border. He also serves as counsel to the State Water Contractors in litigation and administrative proceedings relating to the San Francisco Bay-Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Estuary.

Campbell, a municipal lawyer and litigator with extensive trial experience, represents public entities as both general counsel and public works construction counsel. He has supervised public works projects involving more than $450 million in public funding and serves as city attorney for Avalon and general counsel for the Lake Arrowhead Community Services District.

About Super Lawyers

Super Lawyers rates outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. In the United States, Super Lawyers Magazine is published in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., reaching more than 13 million readers. Super Lawyers is published by Thomson Reuters.

Fourteen Best Best & Krieger Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America for 2013

01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Fourteen attorneys from Best Best & Krieger LLP offices throughout California were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2013. (Copyright 2012 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken, S.C.).

In addition, two attorneys were also named 2013 “Lawyers of the Year” for specific practices and geographic areas.

Best Lawyers, established in 1983, is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey in which more than 39,000 attorneys cast nearly 3.1 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

BB&K attorneys based in Riverside who were ranked as leaders in their fields include Eric Garner, a water rights attorney and managing partner of the nine-office law firm, for environmental litigation and water law; Michelle Ouellette for energy, environmental, environmental litigation and natural resources law; Gregory K. Wilkinson and Arthur L. Littleworth for energy, environmental litigation, natural resources and water law; and George M. Reyes for corporate law. Best Lawyers also named Littleworth a 2013 "Lawyer of the Year" for Riverside in environmental litigation.

In the firm’s Ontario office, Stephen P. Deitsch, who serves as city attorney to Indian Wells, Arcadia, Big Bear Lake and Shafter, was named for municipal, land use and zoning law. Also named in the municipal law category was John E. Brown, who serves as city attorney to Ontario and as town attorney for Apple Valley.

In San Diego, Robert J. Hanna, a real estate attorney, was named for commercial litigation.

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

The attorneys honored in the Sacramento office were Edward J. Quinn Jr. and Joseph E. Coomes, Jr. for municipal, land use and zoning law; T. Brent Hawkins for municipal law; Harriet Steiner, the city attorney of Davis, for municipal law and municipal litigation; and Iris P. Yang, city attorney of Paso Robles, for municipal, land use and zoning law, and municipal litigation. Best Lawyers also named Coomes a 2013 "Lawyer of the Year" for Sacramento in municipal law.

In Walnut Creek, environmental attorney and former member of the California Attorney General’s office, Roderick E. Walston, was named for natural resources and water law.

Next Wave of Green Building Requirements in California is Closing In

09 Nov 2012 00:00:00 -0800

By Michael Grant

In a move that will impact thousands of owners and operators of commercial, industrial and retail buildings in the Inland region and the rest of the state, the California Energy Commission is about to require that they start tracking and disclosing the energy consumption of their properties.

The so-called benchmarking of energy data will come into play when a non-residential building is sold, refinanced or leased in whole.

The latest wave in green building practices stems from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as mandated by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The following year, the state Legislature passed AB 1103, and gave the Energy Commission the task of crafting regulations to implement the energy disclosure law. The commission was to have released final regulations later this month, with compliance deadlines expected to begin July 1.

In all, commercial buildings account for 36 percent of electricity consumption in the state, according to a study by Collaborative Economics and touted by the Energy Commission. Given that figure, such buildings are significant contributors to the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Along with the typical financial and transaction disclosures during a lease or sale, building owners will soon need to provide the latest 12 months of energy-use information using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s online ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. The disclosures only have to be provided to a prospective buyer or tenant of the entire building or to a lender financing the entire building; they are not required for individual leases within a building or the sale of individual commercial condominium units or the financing of those units. The disclosure requirements do not apply to residential buildings.

So what does this mean if you own a non-residential building?

Along with the typical financial and transaction disclosures during a lease or sale, building owners will soon need to provide the latest 12 months of energy-use information using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s online ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. The disclosures only have to be provided to a prospective buyer or tenant of the entire building or to a lender financing the entire building; they are not required for individual leases within a building or the sale of individual commercial condominium units or the financing of those units. The disclosure requirements do not apply to residential buildings.

Click here to read the entire article in The Press-Enterprise.

Pension Reform: Delving into the Ambiguities of the New California Law

31 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0800

By Isabel C. Safie

At a time when many public agencies in California are vulnerable to significant budget cuts and even bankruptcy, the pension reform measures in AB 340 are perceived by many to be too little, too late. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the recent adoption of AB 340, meant to quell skyrocketing pension costs and save taxpayers billions of dollars, will significantly change the status quo in California.

By now, most people are familiar with the pension reform measures contained in AB 340, which includes the California Public Employees Pension Reform Act, otherwise known as PEPRA. Among other things, the 10-point plan raises the retirement age and decreases the benefit factors for new members, requires new members to pay for a portion of their retirement benefits and includes a cap on the salary used to calculate pensions. Nonetheless, questions remain regarding how the measures contained in AB 340 will be interpreted and applied when the law goes into effect on January 1, 2013.

PEPRA prohibits public employers from providing certain employees with a health benefit vesting schedule that is more advantageous than that provided to other employees. This provision in the law has generated a lot of confusion resulting from the lack of specificity in the statute and statements made by legislators leading up to the adoption of AB 340 that the bill did not address retirement health benefits. Further uncertainty may have been inadvertently created by a preliminary summary of AB 340 issued by CalPERS, the state’s public employee pension system. That summary states that the provision in question eliminates a public employer’s ability to provide not only a better health benefit vesting schedule but also better health benefits to unrepresented employees than it does to represented employees. Thus, public employers have questioned whether the restriction applies to all employees or only those defined as new members under PEPRA, and whether it applies to health benefits received while employed or only to those received during retirement.

Any suggestion that PEPRA’s restriction applies to health benefits received during employment is incorrect as the bill’s language strictly refers to a health benefit vesting schedule, a term that is commonly understood to refer to retirement health benefits. Further, the restriction applies to all employees, not just new members, but only to the extent that it does not impair a vested right to retirement health benefits. Though PEPRA does not directly acknowledge a 2011 decision by the California Supreme Court, the justices ruled in Retired Employees Association of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange that a vested right to retirement health benefits can be created by an agreement, whether explicit or implied, between an employer and its employees.

Regardless of how the restriction in the new law is eventually interpreted, it would be wise for public employers to evaluate their current health benefit program to determine to what extent, if any, their program may be affected by this provision. The task may be easier for public employers participating in the CalPERS health benefit program as they are bound by the rules codified in the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act. That means, however, that such employers are subject to CalPERS’ interpretation of the health benefit vesting schedule restriction.

The requirement that new members pay a certain percentage of their pensionable compensation toward the cost of their retirement benefits has also generated confusion. This provision is compulsory for new members, as defined in PEPRA. However, AB 340 also amended the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL), administered by CalPERS, and the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (1937 Act), administered by the various county retirement systems, to allow participating employers to require that current employees also contribute a percentage of their salary toward the cost of their retirement benefits beginning on January 1, 2018. This authority, as it relates to existing employees, is not compulsory. Rather, it can be imposed at the discretion of the employer, subject to collective bargaining rights. However, CalPERS employers need not wait until January 1, 2018 to pass on some of the cost of retirement benefits to existing employees; they can do so now by reducing or eliminating the employer-paid member contribution, subject to collective bargaining.

Neither PEPRA nor the broader provisions of AB 340 provide similar authority to public employers not participating in CalPERS or a 1937 Act plan. Thus, whether these public employers may require that current employees pay a share of the cost for their retirement benefits will depend on the terms of the retirement plan they sponsor. For example, CalSTRS allows an employer to pay all or a portion of the employee contribution but permits the employer to eliminate this benefit. Thus, a CalSTRS employer can transfer the full share of the employee contribution back to the employee, subject to collective bargaining rights.

Over the course of less than a year, the Legislature has amended PERL twice to clarify, and in some ways modify, the rules on the employment of CalPERS retirees by CalPERS employers. While CalPERS employers awaited further clarification from CalPERS on its interpretation of certain provisions within those bills, the Legislature adopted PEPRA, which contains restrictions on the employment of retirees by any employer subject to PEPRA. However, these restrictions apply only when a public employer employs a retiree receiving retirement benefits from the retirement system in which the employer participates. Further, they apply to all retirees irrespective of when they were first employed or when they retired. The PEPRA rules on employing retirees are similar to the CalPERS rules with one significant difference – PEPRA requires a 180-day, sit-out period between retirement and commencement of employment with some exceptions, including a blanket exception for safety retirees. However, many question whether this 180-day rule applies to non-safety retirees commencing employment within 180 days prior to January 1, 2013. While not explicitly stated in PEPRA, a reasonable interpretation of the statute suggests that it only applies to retirees commencing employment on or after January 1, 2013.

In the almost two months since AB 340 was signed into law by Gov. Brown, it has become clear that there are far more ambiguities than were apparent at first blush. As a result, further clarification of AB 340 is expected in the form of future legislative or regulatory action.

–--

Isabel C. Safie is an attorney at Best Best & Krieger LLP in Riverside and is a member of the law firm’s Employee Benefits practice group. Her practice primarily focuses on issues relating to employee benefits, pensions and other post-employment benefits. Ms. Safie can be reached at Isabel.Safie@bbklaw.com

CEQA Streamlining: Geography and Addressing Climate Change Can Help

03 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0800

By Charity B. Schiller

As environmental regulations continue to evolve in California, cities, counties and other public agencies have an opportunity to streamline environmental review for key infrastructure, transit and other projects. Although recent court decisions may bring changes to the guidelines that must be followed when bringing a project in line with the California Environmental Quality Act, the state’s overarching environmental law known widely as CEQA gives public agencies options that may simplify the approval process for their proposed projects.

Another law, firmly entrenched in California and already tested with the voters when a 2010 proposition aimed at delaying its implementation failed, requires that public agencies reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. That goal can be used to a public agency’s advantage: Cities and counties can integrate greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts into their general plans by adopting climate action plans. Other public agencies can integrate greenhouse gas reducing measures into systemwide facilities planning. Both efforts can help streamline the environmental approval process for projects, and agencies can look no further than the geography of their jurisdictions to help find answers.

Climate Action Plans
As most public agency representatives are aware, several recent laws mandate reducing greenhouse gas emissions through land use, transportation and environmental planning. Assembly Bill 32, known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, charged the California Air Resources Board with reducing statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This statewide goal now extends to all public agencies by virtue of the recently amended CEQA guidelines, which require public agencies to consider greenhouse gas emissions as part of their environmental review for new projects.

One of these specific amendments was a provision giving local agencies the option of preparing and adopting a climate action plan, or CAP. Such plans quantify greenhouse gas emissions over time within a particular geographic area, establish thresholds below which those emissions will be less than significant, and implement specific actions to ensure that projects reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Although climate action plans streamline greenhouse gas analysis for later projects, the adoption of the climate action plan requires up-front environmental review.

A more recent law, Senate Bill 375 (2008), requires land use jurisdictions to update their general plans consistent with housing allocations that are designed to co-locate housing with transportation corridors. Essentially, this law aims to reduce sprawl and encourage public transportation use by forcing local land use jurisdictions to consider the regional implications of their transportation and housing projects. Through this law, the state has sought to take cars off the road and cut commute times, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.

The Practical Side of Climate Control
Overall, these climate change laws have drawn a mix of praise and criticism. Although many support the overall idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and associated climate change impacts, that support is tempered by several “real life” difficulties.

For example, limitations on public agency conditioning powers means that a larger share of greenhouse gas reduction responsibilities falls to new projects, while existing development (often older and less energy-efficient) is left alone. Similarly, SB 375’s mandate to reduce “sprawl” – which strongly encourages reuse and infill projects within existing developed areas – unfairly deprives many cities and counties of the growth and economic development already enjoyed by the Bay Area, coastal Southern California and other highly developed areas. Likewise, the eastern areas of the state may be able to utilize California’s sunny deserts and windy passes to cultivate renewable solar and wind projects that offset greenhouse gas emissions – resources that are often unavailable in coastal areas.

Added to these geographical differences are the time delays, cost increases and political pressures that CEQA litigation places on projects crucial for meeting the mandates of AB 32 and SB 375. Many environmental and community groups continue to challenge the renewable energy, public transportation and infill projects that are vital to achieving statewide greenhouse gas emissions. Recent legislation has sought to streamline the litigation process for certain qualifying “leadership” projects through Assembly Bill 900 (2011), but very little has been done to actually eliminate the filing of lawsuits that challenge local agency approvals under CEQA.

In sum, state law does not level the playing field with regard to the ease or difficulty of meeting AB 32’s GHG reduction mandates or SB 375’s anti-sprawl policies. So, are local agencies completely stymied in their ability to meet state mandates regarding climate change? Not necessarily. In fact, it is these differences among circumstances, geographic regions, and legal authority that may help local agencies meet California climate change demands and streamline the CEQA process.

A city or county may start with its land use powers by amending their zoning ordinances to allow denser residential or multiple-use development near transportation corridors, consistent with SB 375. Cities and counties with desert or windy areas might also designate renewable energy zones through their general plan processes to encourage the development of solar and wind projects. Similarly, cities and counties could consider developing a suite of greenhouse gas reducing measures that apply to particular types of development, including compliance with green building standards, integration of purple-pipe reclaimed water systems, or the addition of small-scale solar arrays to particular types of developments. In addition, cities and counties should consider their status insofar as buildout is concerned. Those cities and counties that are largely built out may need to dig deeper in terms of recycling efforts and energy conservation than jurisdictions that currently have large undeveloped areas. Conversely, areas that are not yet built out will likely need to increase their attention on meeting SB 375’s anti-sprawl policy goals.

If you are a public agency without general land use powers, such as a special district, a different group of challenges will likely be the focus. Although special districts may lack the authority to broadly condition new projects, special districts may nonetheless adopt standards requiring new developments to meet water usage or energy efficiency demands. Similarly, and unlike those agencies with general land use powers, special districts often have the benefit of controlling all of their own facilities. This benefit may simplify the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures. Similarly, most special districts have the authority to modify their own operations to reduce energy usage through the use of reclaimed water, the installation of artificial turf, the placement of small solar arrays, or the decision to upgrade transportation fleets or other mechanical equipment to be energy efficient.

Certainly all of these strategies come with a monetary cost. But remember that the ultimate goal of adopting a climate action plan or approving other greenhouse gas reducing measures is to earn your agency long-term planning and speedier environmental review, which may reduce costs overall. For example, where a project is consistent with a climate action plan and implements the measures called for by the plan, the local agency may be able to conclude that a site-specific project’s greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts are less than significant – thus reducing and streamlining the scope of CEQA review. Similarly, projects that are consistent with the requirements of SB 375 (something that a climate action plan can help to document) may be exempt from certain CEQA requirements, again reducing the level of environmental review. Likewise, where an agency has adopted a threshold of significance for greenhouse gases through a climate action plan, the agency’s later application of that threshold to site-specific development may be beyond challenge in court.

In sum, the more planning that is done up front to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the easier and faster it should be to get key projects through the environmental approval process.

Charity B. Schiller is a senior associate in the Environmental Law & Natural Resources practice group of Best Best & Krieger LLP in Riverside. Known for working on infrastructure and transportation projects, her practice focuses on helping public and private clients to comply with all aspects of the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act. She can be reached at Charity.Schiller@bbklaw.com

Handling the Federal Family Medical Leave Act and Its State Counterpart

30 Sep 2012 00:00:00 -0800

By Howard B. Golds

If you employ more than 50 workers, you probably have experienced the intricacies of the Family Medical Leave Act, widely known as FMLA, and its state counterpart, the California Family Rights Act. Both laws require that employers generally provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a 12-month period to employees so they can deal with their own health issues as well as the health issues of their immediate family.

As simple as this sounds, family leave presents a variety of challenges for employers as they try to navigate these complicated statutes and deal with the seemingly infinite number of factual scenarios that can arise.

Certainly one of the most difficult issues for employers is the employee who has used up the leave under the Family Medical Leave Act but continues to suffer from a health condition that renders him or her unable to work.Click here for the entire article in The Press-Enterprise.

Employers Face New Requirements Under the Federal Health Care Law

27 Aug 2012 00:00:00 -0800

By John D. Wahlin

With the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers must continue to implement the law as its provisions go into effect.

Perhaps surprising to some employers are the new rebates being issued to them by health insurance carriers. These annual rebates are payable when the insurance carrier fails to spend a sufficient portion of premium revenue on direct medical care and activities that improve the quality of health care. Insurance carriers paid these rebates on Aug. 1, and employers who received them must determine how to apply them.

If both the employer and employees pay a portion of the premium, according to the Department of Labor, it is likely that the rebate should be shared with employees. A cash payment, however, is not required and a credit against future premiums is an acceptable method of sharing the rebate. In many cases, the rebate will be so small that it is not practical to distribute it. In that event, it can simply be applied to some type of employee benefit on a group basis.

Several other provisions of the federal health care law are about to go into effect.

Click here to read the entire column on The Press-Enterprise website.

Binding Arbitration Can Be Made More Appealing

19 Jun 2012 00:00:00 -0800

By Victor L. Wolf

In the past few decades, arbitration has become an accepted and widely used alternative to traditional litigation.

For businesses, arbitration generally enters into the picture in construction, real estate, commercial or employment contracts where the parties agree ahead of time to seek arbitration instead of litigation should a dispute occur. On other occasions, even when arbitration is not required under contract, parties may contemplate referring an existing legal dispute to binding arbitration instead of going to court.

The involved parties, rather than having their dispute decided by a judge or jury, refer the case to an arbitrator, a neutral third party who hears evidence and renders a decision. Like a judge, the arbitrator hears opening arguments, closing statements and testimony, but it’s usually behind closed doors in a conference room where everyone is sitting down. The arbitrator makes a written decision that is typically binding.

There are a number of potential advantages to drafting contracts that require disputes to be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation:

Click here to read the entire article on The Press-Enterprise website.

Best Best & Krieger Among Nation’s Most Diverse Law Firms

18 Jun 2012 00:00:00 -0800

For Immediate Release: June 18, 2012
Media Contact: Jennifer Bowles • 951.826.8480 • jennifer.bowles@BBKlaw.com

RIVERSIDE, Calif. _ Best Best & Krieger LLP ranked 15th among the nation's most racially diverse law firms, with nearly 20 percent of its attorneys hailing from minority backgrounds, according to The American Lawyer's annual Diversity Scorecard, published in the magazine’s June issue.

BB&K, with 200 attorneys in nine offices in California and Washington D.C., placed in the Top 20 for the fifth year straight. In all, 233 of the nation’s largest and highest-grossing firms responded to this year’s survey, placing BB&K’s No. 15 ranking in the top 6.5 percent.

Eric Garner, BB&K’s managing partner, said he was very pleased with the results of the Diversity Scorecard, which also placed the firm ninth overall for the highest percentage of minority partners.

“We believe that our continued presence in the Top 20, and our highest ranking yet, reflects the firm’s longstanding commitment to diversity, which we believe is essential to foster the kind of creative solutions our clients need in 2012,” Garner said.

BB&K clients includes cities, counties, public agencies, water and school districts, companies and individuals.

The survey showed:

- BB&K’s percentage of minority attorneys, at 18.5 percent, or 35 attorneys, is nearly five percent higher than the national average of 13.6 percent.

- Of the 195 attorneys at BB&K, 15 are Hispanic-American, 15 are Asian-American, four are African-American and one is of mixed race.

- The percentage of BB&K’s minority attorneys who are partners, at 14.4 percent, rose more than 2 percent from the year before and was the ninth highest overall.

One of those partners, Gene Tanaka, sits on the firm’s executive committee and is managing partner of the Walnut Creek office. Another partner, Marco Martinez, is managing partner of the firm’s Irvine office.

Tanaka, who is Japanese-American, said the firm has always been welcoming to attorneys from diverse backgrounds.

“In my 27 years at BB&K, I can honestly say that my race has never been a consideration or issue,” he said. “I frankly do not think anyone really thought about it professionally or socially. I cannot imagine any better treatment by a group of people.”

Tanaka said shortly after he arrived at the firm, BB&K’s partners appointed him to lead an ad hoc committee to consider diversity and, as a result, the firm adopted a policy in the early 1990s to encourage diversity based on race, ethnicity and sexual orientation before many other firms.

In 2008 and 2009, BB&K ranked 19th in the Diversity Scorecard; 17th in 2010; and 19th last year.

Last year, BB&K launched a scholarship/fellowship program for a law student from a diverse background. The program offers the recipient a paid summer associate position for two summers during law school in addition to a $7,500 scholarship once the program is completed. The program’s current recipient, Leo Li from Loyola Law School, will be working in the firm’s Riverside and Ontario offices for his second summer this year. Fluent in Mandarin Chinese, Li is on track to graduate in 2013.

According to American Lawyer, large firms slightly reduced their percentage of minority attorneys to 13.6 percent. The magazine editors said they weren’t too worried about the slight dip from 13.9 percent from the year before because the editors tweaked the methodology for the latest survey to include full-time equivalent numbers for the entire calendar year. That meant that part-time attorneys were prorated in their statistics.

Employer Advice: Injury Prevention Program is a Cure for Employee Safety Hazards

20 May 2012 00:00:00 -0800

By Joseph T. Ortiz

Every year, hundreds of work-related fatalities are reported across California. In 2009 alone, there were 409 deaths, with the majority at 342 occurring in the private sector. In addition, there are several hundred thousand disabling, non-fatal work injuries and illnesses reported statewide.

To help reduce these startling numbers, California requires employers to implement and maintain what’s known as an injury and illness prevention program. Except for a fairly limited category of small employers, private businesses and public agencies must write one of these plans. State regulators can lodge stiff fines if employers don’t document their programs as being actively and effectively administered.

The key components required of every program are:

Person in charge of implementation: The plan must identify the person with authority and responsibility for implementing the program. The person must have sufficient management clout to assure that the program is effectively administered.

System of ensuring employee compliance: The program must include a system of rewarding and disciplining employees with regard to the goal of safe work practices.

Click here to read the entire column.

Developing a Municipal Real Estate Management Strategy

17 May 2012 00:00:00 -0800

This legal alert is the second in a two-part series on the disposition of former redevelopment agency assets and the management of municipal real estate assets going forward. The concepts covered will be discussed in greater detail at in-person seminars to be held on June 5 in Sacramento and on June 13 in Riverside.

As successor agencies begin the process of disposing of the assets of their former redevelopment agencies, they should develop a strategy and orderly process that will best serve their community and the agencies that will benefit from this process. To develop a disposition strategy, the successor agency should start with a few basic steps:

Make an Inventory of the Property

While this may seem obvious, it is an essential first step and the foundation on which the remainder of the process is based. Many redevelopment agencies accumulated properties, easements and covenants on property over the course of several decades. The county assessor's office, title companies and independent third party databases such as CoStar, LoopNet and Realquest all can serve as resources to develop a complete inventory. In addition, various city departments that previously oversaw components of the redevelopment agency’s responsibilities may have evidence of property interests. Each property should have a basic property profile with key information collected.

Value the Assets

Once the successor agency has determined the inventory, it should start the process of valuing the property. This includes determining which properties are the most marketable, which have the most economic development potential, which are being used or are needed for public purposes, and which are not likely to generate interest in the private market. Redevelopment agencies often held lands that suffered from contamination, remnant parcels that may not have independent development potential, and other properties encumbered by various covenants and deed restrictions. There may be agency owned properties that are currently being used for public purposes, which the successor agency will transfer to the city pursuant to the processes provided in the existing law. Further, redevelopment agency properties acquired with low and moderate income funds would be "housing assets" not retained by the successor agency, and properties acquired with tax exempt bond proceeds may be subject to other restrictions. With all of its properties, however, the successor agency should solicit input from a wide range of resources to determine the appropriate value. Properties must be analyzed on a current basis as well as on a highest and best use basis. Appraisers, real estate brokers, local real estate developers and investors, as well as city and county staff, can all offer insight into the likely value of the properties.

Maximizing the Value

In order to maximize the value of the properties, the successor agency should consider more than the value of the property today. The timing of sales, how properties are marketed and how they are packaged for sale will all play a role in getting the best value for the properties that are to be sold.

In addition, successor agencies should evaluate both the sales price and the future tax revenues to be generated if properties are developed and put into productive use. This approach was used to finance redevelopment projects for over half a century, and is a factor that should be part of the successor agency's strategy. Successor agencies that use this approach should document the benefit to both their oversight board and the State Department of Finance. This disposition strategy could be affected by pending or future legislation, which will be discussed in greater detail at our seminars in June.

The process outlined above can benefit the successor agency and taxing entities in the short term and fulfill the goals of AB 1X 26. This process could also be adjusted and used to provide long term benefit for a city or county as a comprehensive approach to real estate asset management. The process is part of portfolio management best practices used by institutional real estate investors for many years. On a practical level, it results in a summary of information which can be used as a powerful decision-making tool today and, if regularly updated, for years to come.

For more information on successor agency real estate asset management, contact BB&K attorneys Ethan Walsh or Nancy Park, or your Municipal & Redevelopment Law attorney. For more information on the upcoming seminars, contact Katey Lamke at katey.lamke@bbklaw.com.

Disclaimer: BB&K Legal Alerts are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information in this communiqué.

Related Legal Alert:
Managing Municipal Real Estate Assets Post-Redevelopment, Part 1: A Strategic Approach to the Sale of Former Redevelopment Agency Assets