Abbott & Kindermann Land Use Law Blog : California Land Use, Environmental & Real Estate Lawyer & Attorney : Abbott & Kindermann Law Firm : Sacramento, CA

The House of Representatives voted on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, known as the Waxman-Markey or Cap and Trade bill. The House passed the bill by a vote of 219 to 212. The bill now moves to the Senate.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Z. Walker

The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), known as the Waxman-Markey or Cap and Trade bill, today.  Under the bill, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would be required to promulgate regulations to cap and reduce Green House Gas emissions (“GHG”) annually, so that GHG emissions from capped sources are reduced by 3 percent (from 2005 levels) by 2012, 17 percent by 2020, and 42 percent by 2030.  (H.R. 2454, § 703.) Sources able to meet and surpass their reduction requirements will be allowed to sell their excess reduction credits while sources unable to meet their targets may purchase offsets in order to obtain compliance. Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will keep you posted on the status of the bill.

Leslie Z. Walker is an associate at Abbott & Kindermann, LLP.  For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, real estate, environmental and/or planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann, LLP at (916) 456-9595.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

• Email This
• Print

By Cori Badgley

The Attorney General’s Office declared in a press release on June 24, 2009 that it intervened in a suit against the City of Pleasanton to remove the City’s “draconian and illegal” housing cap.  The housing cap, which was instituted in 1996 through Measure GG, limits housing to 29,000 units throughout the City.  The City can only accommodate another 2,000 units, if the housing cap remains in place.  According to the Attorney General, the job growth over the past 10 years has nearly doubled from 31,683 to more than 58,000, while the available housing has only increased by 7,000 units.  The draft General Plan Update predicts the creation of 45,000 more jobs over the next 15 years.  In addition to not meeting the City’s fair share regional housing needs, the Attorney General asserts that the housing cap will lead to increased traffic congestion, urban sprawl, greenhouse gas emissions and an increased dependence on foreign oil.  As the case progresses, Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will provide further updates.

Cori M. Badgley is an associate at Abbott & Kindermann, LLP.  For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, real estate, environmental and/or planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann, LLP at (916) 456-9595.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Z. Walker

Two months ahead of the deadline mandated by SB 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes 2007; Public Resources Code section 21083.05), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (“Proposed Guidelines”) and transmitted them to the Resources Agency for rulemaking on Monday, April 13, 2009.

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Z. Walker

On April 17, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released a proposed finding under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1)) that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare. (See Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act.)

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Z. Walker

Six months after releasing its Technical Advisory CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act Review (see OPR on CEQA and Climate Change: Local Agencies Continue to Bear the Heat), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research issued Preliminary Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions on January 8, 2009.The Guideline amendments were developed in response to Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes 2007; Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05) which directs OPR to develop draft CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions by July 1, 2009.

• Email This
• Print

By William Abbott

Not one to shy away from controversy, the Air Resources Board (“ARB” or “Board”), finally launched California into a new era of thinking by adopting the Climate Change Scoping Plan (“Plan”). The sacred cows were not spared as the Board took swift action to push forward the implementation of Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) reduction strategies called for in AB 32.

• Email This
• Print

By Michelle Engel

The Air Resources Board (“ARB” or “Board”) has their hands full. A question and answer session, with more questions than answers, commenced on December 9, when the ARB Staff Project Team held their second public meeting to discuss the development of recommended approaches for setting thresholds for greenhouse gases (“GHG”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).   The task assigned to ARB has been criticized as being “impossible to achieve” given the lack of experience the ARB Staff has with local government and in dealing with CEQA.

• Email This
• Print

By Michelle Engel

The Air Resources Board (“ARB” or “Board”) finds itself at ground zero of California’s strategy to address climate change. The Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan (“Plan”), dated October 2008, has been praised and panned and with the guiding philosophy that you haven’t done your job unless you make everyone unhappy, perhaps the Plan is close to the mark.

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Z. Walker and Cori M. Badgley

California’s land use planning structure has long been governed by a philosophy of home rule. Periodically, the legislature has identified specific typical areas for state intrusion: housing policy and airport land use planning are two examples. Among other provisions, SB 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes 2008) reflects a new area of state intervention, brought on by the rising concern over global warming. This time, it is through the regional transportation planning process, with the apparent thinking that once you control the purse strings, local governments will fall into line. SB 375’s major elements are:

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Z. Walker

For the two years following passage of Assembly Bill 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes 2006), practitioners have wrestled with establishing the level at which a project’s contribution to global climate change is considered to be significant for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

• Email This
• Print

The Public Law Journal, Summer 2008 issue, Vol. 31 No. 3, features an article on Global Climate Change from Abbott & Kindermann’s own Leslie Z. Walker. The article, Warming Up to Global Climate Change, can be viewed here. Members of the Public Law Journal can view the entire periodical by logging onto the State Bar of California Public Law Section website.

Ms. Walker, an associate at the firm, primarily practices in the areas of land use and environmental law with a particular focus on climate change. She is a member of the State Bar of California, the Environmental and Real Property Sections of the Sacramento County Bar Association, and admitted to practice before the state courts in California and the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.

Ms. Walker is a Building Industry Association, BUILD (Building Universal Industry Leadership & Development) Recruit and a member of the American Planning Association Sacramento Chapter, and the Urban Land Institute.

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Walker

For the general public, the most exciting events so far this year on the climate change front have been at the national level. The Secretary of the Interior announced that the Polar Bear is a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) because reduced sea ice coverage threatens its habitat; and Congress hotly debated, and then rejected, a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 66% below 2005 levels by 2050.

• Email This
• Print

On June 26, 2008, the California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) released a draft of the scoping plan required under Assembly Bill 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes 2006), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (“AB 32”). AB 32 requires greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. (Health & Saf. Code, § 38550.) In order to accomplish this, ARB had to determine, by January 1, 2008, what the statewide greenhouse gas emission level was in 1990. (Id.) By January 1, 2009, ARB must prepare and adopt a scoping plan which achieves required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. (Health & Saf. Code, § 38561.) A draft of this scoping plan was released on June 26, 2006.

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Z. Walker

CEQA practitioners have spent the last year anxiously anticipating the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) advice to local agencies on the evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their effect on climate change in the CEQA process. On June 19, 2008, OPR offered a peek at its perspective by issuing the Technical Advisory CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act Review.

• Email This
• Print

Attorney General Jerry Brown has “1,100 lawyers standing by and they’re looking for someone to sue,” according to the Sacramento Bee. A March 31, 2008 article quoted the Attorney General discussing “his determination to go to court to enforce California laws to cut pollutants blamed for global warming.”

See Abbott & Kindermann’s review of the first of the Attorney General’s five conferences entitled CEQA and Climate Change: Partnering with Local Agencies to Combat Global Warming.

Leslie Walker is an associate with Abbott & Kindermann, LLP.  For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, environmental and planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann, LLP at (916) 456-9595.

The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Z. Walker

The California Attorney General and the Local Government Commission hosted the first of five statewide workshops, CEQA and Climate Change: Partnering with Local Agencies to Combat Global Warming, on Thursday, March 20, 2008. In his invitation to cities and counties across the state, the Attorney General explained that planning for Climate Change should not await the 2012 implementation of binding Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) emission limits and emission reduction measures required by AB 32. At the workshop, the Attorney General reiterated his position that CEQA requires GHG analysis. The line-up of morning speakers, who discussed thresholds, modeling emissions and mitigation measures, suggested that since tools exist to measure and mitigate GHGs, agencies are required to do so.

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Z. Walker

On January 29, 2008, Judge Thomas Cahraman of the Riverside Superior Court ruled that CEQA did not require the Banning City Council to consider the Global Warming impacts of a project approved prior to the enactment of AB 32.

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Z. Walker

On November 30, 2007 the San Diego Association of Governments (“SANDAG”) adopted its 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (“RTP”) over Attorney General Jerry Brown’s criticism that the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the RTP “does not fully address the impacts on global warming of the project.” 

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Z. Walker

Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes 2007) Senator Dutton’s CEQA and greenhouse gas emission bill, into law on August 24.  The legislation provides partial guidance on how greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) should be addressed in certain CEQA documents.

• Email This
• Print

By Leslie Z. Walker

Attorney General Jerry Brown and the County of San Bernardino have reached a landmark settlement in the state’s global warming suit against the County. 

• Email This
• Print