• President Signs Tax Reform Bill

    On December 17, 2010, the President signed into law the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which extends the “Bush-era tax cuts” on earned income and certain investment income, and makes substantial changes in the estate, gift, and generation skipping transfer (“GST”) taxes for transfers in 2010 – 2012.

    Click here to read the full update.

  • Real Estate Update: New Inclusionary Housing Exemption for Qualified Student Housing Projects

    On December 14, 2010, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors amended its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to exempt “Qualified Student Housing Projects” from inclusionary housing requirements.  Qualified Student Housing is housing that is owned or leased for a period of 20 or more years by an accredited post-secondary educational institution in which at least 30% of the beds are occupied by students who receive or are eligible to receive certain types of need-based financial aid.  To qualify for the exemption, the project must also meet the following requirements: (1) the project will not result in the loss or conversion of existing housing, including rental housing and dwelling units; (2) an Institutional Master Plan (IMP) is on file for the educational institution which contains the required additional information related to student housing; and (3) a Notice of Special Restrictions is recorded against the property.

    Click here for the full update

  • Real Estate Update: San Francisco Amends Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    On December 14, 2010, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors amended its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in response to a California appellate court’s decision in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles.  The Palmer case held that an affordable housing program that restricted the rental rates an apartment owner could charge at the beginning of a tenancy was in violation of the state’s rent control laws (Costa-Hawkins Act).  Because of similar rent restriction features in San Francisco’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors adopted interim controls in February, 2010, to address the Palmer decision.  The newly adopted Ordinance (now renamed the “Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance”) makes most of the interim controls permanent.

    Click here for the full update.

  • Real Estate Update: What Do the New Air Quality Guidelines Mean for Urban Infill Projects in the Bay Area?

    On June 2, 2010 the Bay Area Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted stringent new guidelines for analyzing air quality impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  Advocates for urban infill development are concerned about the timing, cost and risk implications of the guidelines.  Although BAAQMD purports to support smart growth and infill development, many fear that the guidelines will make urban infill projects more difficult to process and defend against challenge.

    This alert answers frequently asked questions about how the guidelines impact urban infill projects.

    Click here to read more.

  • Real Estate Update: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Palmer Case Regarding Inclusionary Housing Requirements for Residential Rental Projects

    In September, we issued an alert about a recent California Court of Appeal case (Palmer) which struck down an affordable (inclusionary) housing requirement for a market rate residential rental project on the basis that it violated state rental control laws by mandating rent-restricted affordable units or an in lieu fee.  On October 22, 2009, the California Supreme Court declined review of the Court of Appeal's decision, which means that Palmer remains as precedent, calling into question inclusionary housing requirements for residential rental projects throughout the state.

    Click here to read the full updated alert.

  • Real Estate Alert: Recent Court Ruling Threatens Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Rental Projects

    A recent California Court of Appeal case struck down an affordable (inclusionary) housing requirement for a market rate residential rental project on the basis that it violated state rental control laws by mandating the provision of rent-restricted affordable units or an in lieu fee. This decision is a major setback for affordable housing advocates and has significant implications for inclusionary programs throughout the state.