New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board
July 01, 2019 —
Kristen E. Andreoli - White and William's Taking Care of Business BlogOn April 10, 2019, the New York City Council adopted Intro No. 1253 – the largest effort in a series of bills known as the Climate Mobilization Act. Intro No. 1253 enacts new regulations to reduce the city’s current largest source of carbon emissions – the operation of buildings.
Jared Brey, in his April 25, 2019 article in U.S. News and World Report, “How an Evolving Movement Pushed NYC to Address the Climate Crisis,” states that “[i]n the city, around 70% of carbon emissions are produced by buildings, and around half of all building emissions are produced by just 2% of structures larger than 25,000 square feet that are covered by the bill.”
The level of development, population density and relative economic power of a city such as New York have made this bill particularly interesting to other jurisdictions around the globe which may be considering their own similar legislation. In his article, Brey cites David Miller, a former mayor of Toronto and the North American regional director for C40, a group of cities coordinating strategies to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement:
“I think what New York has done is globally significant … It’s really a huge step forward, using the city’s powers and influence to directly address a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions without waiting for the national government or the international community to act.”
Several other jurisdictions have already begun to approach this issue, generally either by passing bills or creating task forces to further investigate how to meet stated emissions reduction goals. In 2018, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed an executive order with a stated goal of net-zero carbon emissions within the state by the year 2045. The California State Assembly subsequently passed a bill creating a task force to investigate the potential to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses by both commercial and residential buildings by 2030, although their plan is not due until January 1, 2021. The city of San Jose has implemented new building standards for all new residential buildings to be net-carbon neutral by 2020, and all new commercial buildings must be so by 2030.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kristen E. Andreoli, White and Williams LLPMs. Andreoli may be contacted at
andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com
Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?
March 05, 2015 —
William L. Porter – Porter Law Group, Inc.The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Completion will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien.
The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property.
The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property.
What commonly occurs however is that early in the process the owner authorizes or even requires its tenant to perform beneficial tenant improvements on the property. This authorization is often set forth in a tenant lease or other written document. The dispositive factor for determining whether the Notice of Non-Responsibility will be enforceable though is that the owner knows that these improvements will be made to the property and intends that they be made, usually long before the work begins. Indeed, the owner has usually negotiated these very terms into the lease contract. The owner then mistakenly believes that once work on the property commences it has 10 days to post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility and thereby protect itself from a mechanics lien.
The usual error is two-fold. First, the statute states that the Notice is available when the owner “did not contract for the work of improvement”. The fact though is that the owner did contract for the work of improvement. It did so through the lease contract. This is true even though the owner’s contract was not with the contractor or supplier directly. Secondly, the 10 day period to post and record the Notice begins when the owner first “has knowledge” of the work of improvement. This knowledge was of course gained when the lease was negotiated and signed, providing knowledge typically many days before the work has begun. Thus, the 10 day period can also seldom be met. The Notice of Non-Responsibility will therefore fail both rules because the owner has in fact contracted for the improvement and because he does not act within 10 days of gaining this knowledge.
The next event in the typical scenario occurs when the tenant does not pay its contractor. The contractor then has nothing to pay its subcontractors. Material suppliers also go unpaid. Mechanics liens are then recorded by the unpaid claimants, followed by foreclosure actions within ninety days thereafter. Owners will typically point to the Notice of Non-Responsibility they posted and recorded, claiming its protection. Claimants then in turn point to the lease or other evidence that the owner knew of the pending improvements and contracted in some way that the improvements be performed, often also more than 10 days before they posted the Notice. Judges generally agree with the unpaid mechanics lien claimants and the Notice of Non-Responsibility is deemed ineffective.
The fact that the Court does not enforce the Notice of Non-Responsibility under these circumstances is not an unfair result. Since the owner authorized the work to be performed and it received a substantial benefit in the form of those improvements, it is not unfair that the owner should pay for those benefits. It would be inequitable for the owner to obtain the benefit of the improvements which it authorized but for which it did not pay, while allowing those who provided the benefit to go unpaid. Moreover, without such a system in place the door would be open to owners setting up sham “tenants” who would enter into contracts to have work performed, only to disappear when the work is completed, leaving the contractor without a source of payment. The system in place as described above prevents such duplicity. Owners would do well to arm themselves with proper knowledge of when the Notice of Non-Responsibility will and will not protect them and then responsibly use the Notice of Non-Responsibility.
For the legal eagles among you, the following cases illustrate the view of the courts, consistent with the above: Baker v. Hubbard (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 226; Ott Hardware v. Yost (1945) 69 Cal. App.2d 593 (lease terms); Los Banos Gravel Co. v. Freeman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 785 (common interest); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003); 106 Cal.App.4th 314 (participating owner).
William L. Porter of
Porter Law Group, Inc. located in Sacramento, California may be contacted at (916) 381-7868 or bporter@porterlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Update: New VOSH Maximum Penalties as of July 1
July 26, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs those who read Construction Law Musings know, as a construction attorney, I want to assure that not only are my clients successful in their litigation/dispute resolution endeavors, but that they stay out of trouble. I take my problem solving and advising roles quite seriously.
As part of this role as advisor, I want to let those that read Musings know that as of July 1, 2017 the Virginia Occupational Safety and Health Administration increased their maximum penalties for safety violations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Top 10 Lessons Learned from a Construction Attorney
February 18, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorI have had the pleasure of working with
Cordell Parvin, who in his earlier career was a preeminent construction attorney, and now,
coaches attorneys. Cordell has shared countless construction guides and presentations with me over the years, for which I am extremely grateful. Below is Cordell’s Lesson’s Learned list, that is as true today as when he drafted it years ago.
1. Contracts and owners are not all alike. Some are fairer than others. Some create greater risks of making the budget if we encounter changes, delays and impacts. We should appreciate the risks before bidding and not underestimate indirect costs of staff to deal with these situations.
2. It is important to have a thorough understanding of the Contract Administration requirements of complex contracts. Identifying specifically what must be done when changes, delays and differing site conditions are encountered is one way to establish the understanding.
3. If a project ever ends up in court, every letter, note, e-mail and memo is evidence and will be taken out of context by the opposing lawyer. Recording every mistake, miscalculation, problem or lesson learned during construction of the project will come back to haunt you.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Just Because You Allege There Was an Oral Contract Doesn’t Mean You’re Off the Hook for Attorneys’ Fees if you Lose
March 28, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThere’s certain things in life you shouldn’t mix. Like drinking and driving. Bleach and ammonia. Triple dog dares and frozen poles. And angry lawyers and litigation.
In Spahn v. Richards, Case No. A159495 (November 30, 2021), angry lawyer Jeffrey Spahn sued general contractor Dan Richards claiming that Richards orally agreed to build Spahn’s million dollar plus house for $515,000. Not only did Spahn not recover anything from Richards, he ended up owing Richards $239,171 in attorney’s fees and costs, after he denied a request for admission asking that he admit that there was no oral contract.
The Spahn Case
In 2017, Spahn filed suit against Richards for breach of oral contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. According to Spahn, he met Richards in June 2015 and the two reached an agreement whereby Richards agreed to demolish Spahn’s house for $12,500 and build a new one for $515,000. Further according to Spahn, Richards agreed to this “fixed price” “oral contract” in June 2015, and then, on July 1, 2015, Richards “confirmed and agreed that he would perform the construction project” for $515,000 and would complete construction by May 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
GSA Releases Updated Standards to Accelerate Federal Buildings Toward Zero Emissions
August 12, 2024 —
The U.S. General Services AdministrationWASHINGTON — The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) is advancing progress toward the Biden-Harris Administration's federal sustainability goals by releasing updated standards for federal buildings. P100 Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service establish mandatory design and construction standards and performance criteria for 300,000 federal buildings nationwide. The updated standards will help advance the adoption of cleaner, more efficient technologies for buildings; lead the way towards realizing the goals of the Federal Sustainability Plan to achieve net-zero emissions from all federal buildings by 2045; and promote the use of American-made, low carbon construction materials.
P100 requires that facilities adopt advanced energy conservation strategies and eliminate on-site fossil fuel use, directives that align with federal sustainability goals and will accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy. The industry-leading standard calls for grid-interactive efficient buildings, leverages innovative technologies through GSA's Green Proving Ground, requires the use of low-embodied carbon materials, and directs potable water reuse. These comprehensive measures ensure that new and renovated federal facilities achieve peak performance while minimizing environmental impact.
The 2024 P100 establishes exceptional benchmarks for:
- Electrification: New standards for building equipment and systems to be powered by clean energy sources.
- Embodied Carbon: Requirement to utilize low-embodied carbon materials, including salvaged, reused, regenerative, and biomimetic options.
- Energy Efficiency: Enhanced building envelope performance to minimize energy loss and improve overall efficiency.
- Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings: New measures to support a more resilient, responsive grid.
- Water Reuse: Mandating that buildings have a 15% potable water reuse rate.
- Construction Decarbonization: Ground breaking new low-carbon methods for constructing federal buildings including clean energy operations, material salvage, and offsite assemblage.
- Labor Practices: New standards protecting workers from unfair or unsafe labor practices, ensuring supply chains are free from child and forced labor and that workers are protected from the impacts of extreme heat.
P100 is updated and published every three years. For more detailed information on the 2024 P100 and other GSA initiatives, visit www.gsa.gov/p100.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
San Francisco International Airport Reaches New Heights in Sustainable Project Delivery
November 21, 2022 —
Aileen Cho - Engineering News-RecordTen years ago, Geoff Neumayr decided he was tired of “doing design and construction by combat.” San Francisco International Airport had completed a master plan for the complex and the front of the airport facilities doing things the traditional way.
Reprinted courtesy of
Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lease-Leaseback Fight Continues
June 01, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s like the rematch between Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed.
In the right corner we have the California Taxpayers Action Network. In the left corner, Taber Construction, Inc. The title in contention: Construction of California’s Lease-Leaseback Program and, specifically, whether a construction firm can provide both pre-construction services as well as perform construction or, whether doing so, would be an impermissible conflict of interest under the Lease-Leaseback Law.
In their first appellate court match, California Taxpayers Action Network argued that a lease-leaseback arrangement between Taber Construction and the Mount Diablo Unified School District, whereby the District agreed to lease the site to Taber Construction one dollar (which is permissible) and to pay Taber a “guaranteed project cost” of $14,743,395 comprised of “tenant improvement payments” totaling $13,269,057 prior to the District taking delivery of the project (which was the issue in dispute) and six “lease payment amount[s]” of $345,723 plus interest paid in 30-day intervals, violated the Lease-Leaseback Law because the bulk of the payments by the District to Taber Construction occurred during construction rather than during the lease-term which could only “truly” occur after the District took delivery of the project. The 1st District Court of Appeal sided with Taber Construction, and in doing so created an appellate court split with the 5th District Court of Appeal’s decision in Davis v. Fresno Unified School District, 237 Cal.App.4th 261 (2015), which held that contractor who received all payments prior to turnover of the project to the district violated the Lease-Leaseback Law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
