Source: https://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=01814cc8-e59b-4461-86b6-1b21a91402eb
Timestamp: 2018-01-23 02:41:54
Document Index: 300877311

Matched Legal Cases: ['§21000', '§21000', '§21000', '§38500', 'art 1', '§38500', '§1', '§1', '§134', '§65080', '§134', '§65080', '§65080', '§65080', '§134', '§65080', '§65080', '§65080', '§21061', '§65080', '§65080', '§65080', '§65080', '§65588', '§65080', '§65588', '§65080', '§65583', '§65080', '§65080', '§65583', '§21155', '§21159', '§1085', '§65583', '§65080', '§21159', '§21155', '§21159', '§21159', '§21155', '§21155', '§21155', '§21159', '§21155', '§21155', '§21155', '§21155', '§21155', '§65080', '§38562', '§38562', '§65080', '§65080', '§38562', '§38562', '§38562', '§65080', '§65080', '§65080', '§65080', '§65080', '§65080', '§65080', '§65080', '§134', '§134', '§65080']

SB 375: Lion or Mouse? By Judy Davidoff, Rafael Muilenburg, and Dan Bane | Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP - JDSupra
SB 375: Lion or Mouse? By Judy Davidoff, Rafael Muilenburg, and Dan Bane
The rules governing regional planning changed dramatically when Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) into law on September 30, 2008. See Stats 2008, ch 728. The amount of actual substantive change likely to result from SB 375 is difficult to quantify, given the aspirational language, vague standards, and conflicting requirements in the bill. Only time will tell how effective SB 375 will be in its effort to integrate land use with reductions in greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions, housing allocation requirements, regional transportation issues, and potential streamlining for certain project approvals under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub Res C §§21000–21177).
H E P P A R D M U L I N R I C H T E R & H O N L L P T O R N E Y S A T L A W MULLIN Real Property Law Reporter, 375: Lion or Mouse? Rafael Muilenburg, and Dan Bane rules governing regional planning changed Governor Schwarzenegger signed (SB law on September 30, 2008, ch of actual likely to result from SB is to quantify, given the aspirational language, and requirements the will tell how effective SB 375 will be in effort to integrate land use with reductions in housing regional transportation issues, and streamlining for certain project approvals Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §§21000–appears to be a best attempt to reach among the diverse interests of the Building Industry Association of and the affordable environmental lobbies that were active in its provisions. has something for everyone, while leaving several to interpretation and the will of the a minimum, SB 375 creates a laws that take the first step toward an overarching strategy for the pursuit of GhG emissions enumerated in the Global Solutions Act of & S C 38500–38598). SB could simply yet another level of regional planning costs everyone a great deal of but delivers little substantive change. As Real Property Law Reporter, copyright by of with of Continuing of – information CEB publications, toll free 1-800-CEB-Web site ceb.on point goals 375 sets for the future important changes seeks the ultimate outcome, interested parties California—from regional transportation to local governmental agencies to land will and make the best of it together. To that end, some the key elements of SB potential issues that will forward. Additionally, the article various opportunities presented to to interests an 375: The De Facto Implementation of AB 32 for understand SB must first be put into with another groundbreaking piece of legislation, the Global Warming 2006 (Health & S 38500–Warnke Deconstructed: 2006—RPLR 70 (May 2006, AB 32 the State of California to reduce its GhG to than 2020. See Stats During the passage to global climate change—with substantial percentage of GhG reductions to be SHEPPARD MULLIN A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W S H E P P A R D M U L L I N R I C H T E R & H A M P T O N L L P As published in Real Property Law Reporter, March 2009 SB 375: Lion or Mouse? Judy Davidoff, Rafael Muilenburg, and Dan Bane Introduction The rules governing regional planning changed advocates on all sides point out, the goals and policies dramatically when Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 375 sets for the future are just as important as the Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) into law on September 30, tangible changes it seeks to accomplish. 2008. See Stats 2008, ch 728. The amount of actual substantive change likely to result from SB 375 is Whatever the ultimate outcome, interested parties difficult to quantify, given the aspirational language, throughout California—from regional transportation vague standards, and conflicting requirements in the agencies to local governmental agencies to land bill. Only time will tell how effective SB 375 will be in developers—will need to work in this dramatically new its effort to integrate land use with reductions in world and make the best of it together. To that end, greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions, housing allocation this article highlights some of the key elements of SB requirements, regional transportation issues, and 375 and discusses potential issues that will need to be potential streamlining for certain project approvals addressed going forward. Additionally, the article under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) discusses the various opportunities presented to (Pub Res C §§21000-21177). interested parties and stakeholders to get involved in the process to protect their interests at an early stage. SB 375 appears to be a best attempt to reach compromise among the diverse interests of the SB 375: The De Facto Implementation of AB 32 for California Building Industry Association (CBIA), the Land Use League of California Cities, and the affordable housing and environmental lobbies that were active in To fully understand SB 375, it must first be put into developing and negotiating its provisions. The bill has context with another groundbreaking piece of a little something for everyone, while leaving several environmental legislation, the Global Warming issues open to interpretation and the will of the Solutions Act of 2006 (Health & S C §§38500-38598) (AB concerned parties. At a minimum, SB 375 creates a 32). (See Warnke and Ridgway, AB 32 Deconstructed: complex set of laws that take the first step toward The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006—Part 1, 31 creating an overarching strategy for the pursuit of CEB RPLR 70 (May 2008).) Enacted in 2006, AB 32 regional transportation-oriented development and the requires the State of California to reduce its GhG goals for GhG emissions enumerated in the Global emissions to 1990 levels no later than 2020. See Stats Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health & S C 2006, ch 488. During and after the passage of AB 32, §§38500-38598). Alternatively, SB 375 could simply there has been tremendous concern about the land-use create yet another level of regional planning sector’s contribution to global climate change—with considerations that costs everyone a great deal of some environmental advocates calling for substantial money but delivers little substantive change. As increase of the percentage of GhG reductions to be This material is reproduced from Real Property Law Reporter, March 2009, copyright 2009 by the Regents of the University of California. Reproduced with permission of Continuing Education of the Bar -California. (For information about CEB publications, telephone toll free 1-800-CEB-3444 or visit the Web site ceb.com.) Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=01814cc8-e59b-4461-86b6-1b21a91402ebH E P P A R D M U L I N R I C H T E R & H O N L L P T O R N E Y S A T L A W MULLIN use SB that the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GhGs of any sector, over 40 percent of the GhG emissions with automobiles and light trucks alone almost 30 percent. Stats 2008, ch 728, have taken the lead role as the component for AB 32 land use. Air Resources adopted Scoping Plan outlining how will achieve the GhG emissions reduction The inclusion of landuse the AB 32 Scoping Plan, and the in SB 375, underscore without rethinking how our cities are developed, through emissions standards, energy renewable energy, low standards, and industrial reductions would be in California. Thus, SB born from the realization that w]ithout improved land use and policy, California will achieve Stats 375 to by growth in high-density, mixed-use located around mass hubs, and thereby indirectly drive less. emphasis planning to urban metropolitan development and The message that SB sends to public agencies, stakeholders dense, transit-oriented, and is a critical GhG emissions Does SB Change? requires that all Metropolitan Planning (MPOs) in California update their Transportation Plans so that development patterns and supporting networks can reduce GhG by the amounts to be set by CARB. In California has 18 MPOs, all of which receive and federal funding to accomplish regional planning. (As shown on the map these MPOs vary greatly in size and most cover only a single county, those in the Bay Area and Los Angeles regions a regional transportation network covering counties.) SHEPPARD MULLIN A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W S H E P P A R D M U L L I N R I C H T E R & H A M P T O N L L P achieved by the land-use sector. In adopting SB 375, the What Does SB 375 Change? legislature found that the transportation sector is the single largest contributor of GhGs of any sector, SB 375 requires that all Metropolitan Planning contributing over 40 percent of the GhG emissions in Organizations (MPOs) in California update their California, with automobiles and light trucks alone Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) so that contributing almost 30 percent. Stats 2008, ch 728, resulting development patterns and supporting §1(a). transportation networks can reduce GhG emissions by the amounts to be set by CARB. In SB 375 appears to have taken the lead role as the total, California has 18 MPOs, all of which receive implementation component for AB 32 for land use. On state and federal funding to accomplish regional December 11, 2008, the California Air Resources Board transportation planning. (As shown on the map (CARB) adopted a final Scoping Plan outlining how below, these MPOs vary greatly in size and California will achieve the GhG emissions reduction population—most cover only a single county, goals set by AB 32. The inclusion of a significant land-while those in the Bay Area and Los Angeles regions use component in the AB 32 Scoping Plan, and the include a regional transportation network covering land-use policies enumerated in SB 375, underscore multiple counties.) that without rethinking how our cities are developed, any GhG reductions achieved through gas emissions standards, energy efficiency, renewable energy, low carbon fuel standards, and industrial emissions reductions would be negated by the ever-increasing driving population in California. Thus, SB 375 was born from the realization that “[w]ithout improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” Stats 2008, ch 728, §1(c). Consequently, SB 375 seeks to reduce GhG emissions by promoting growth patterns in high-density, mixed-use developments located around mass transit hubs, and thereby indirectly encourage people to drive less. The bill shifts the development emphasis from sprawl-inducing suburban development and planning to urban and metropolitan development and planning. The message that SB 375 clearly sends to public agencies, developers, and other stakeholders is that dense, transit-oriented, and mixed-use development is a critical goal for GhG emissions reduction and the collective good. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=01814cc8-e59b-4461-86b6-1b21a91402ebH E P P A R D M U L I N R I C H T E R & H O N L L P T O R N E Y S A T L A W MULLIN in Plans for their sets forth year) transportation plan for based a set of land-use assumptions about development patterns. The RTP attempts existing transportation needs region and includes rough cost estimates. Existing requires an RTP or five years, depending on whether the region quality attainment standards. 23 USC i). Bay Area’s most recent RTP for and will updated again in 2013. Likewise, the Southern in 2008 and will update encourage regional sustainable land-use as further described below, SB to RTPs so that and supporting transportation can in with be set by CARB in accordance AB 32. However, these mandates, each the same measures GhG emissions. In fact, each of the MPOs in likely have strategies their respective RTPs, depending on transportation and housing needs. Thus, monitor for MPO regions in which their with the varying regional planning procedures, and standards that will the above modifications to the current land-use the language of SB landscape regional planning through a multipronged approach, as CARB to Set Regional GhG Targets by SB 375, CARB Committee (RTAC) to recommend to consider and methodologies to use for the regional GhG targets. On January CARB members to the RTAC, representatives of the MPOs, affected air of Association of Counties, local transportation the public. A list of the members can be found at www.arb.ca.gov/cc/rtac/memberlistfinal.The RTAC must submit its report with its to CARB by September 30, 2009. for CARB use in setting the regional targets, the RTAC may relevant issues, including data needs, forecasts, interregional travel economic and demographic magnitude of GhG reduction benefits from a land-use transportation strategies, and describe monitor performance in attaining those targets. b)(A)(i). the receive their the RTAC, must hold at workshop within the region. Govt C after reviewing the RTAC report, CARB must targets for each region by June 30, targets for a region, CARB information with the MPO the affected air district, which may include a target b)(MPOs to Develop Sustainable Community Strategy as Part of Regional Transportation Plan required 23 USC §134. Under SB 375, the internally consistent” and include the following four A policy element that describes the transportation in the region, identifies and quantifies describes desired short-range and transportation goals and pragmatic SHEPPARD MULLIN A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W S H E P P A R D M U L L I N R I C H T E R & H A M P T O N L L P Under the current state and federal framework, the 18 2009, CARB appointed 21 members to the RTAC, MPOs in California prepare Regional Transportation Plans including representatives of the MPOs, affected air (RTPs) for their respective regions. The RTP sets forth the districts, the League of California Cities, the California long-range (20-year) transportation plan for the region State Association of Counties, local transportation and is based on a set of land-use assumptions about agencies, and members of the public. A list of the future development patterns. The RTP also attempts to appointed members can be found at identify the existing and future transportation needs in http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/rtac/memberlistfinal.p the region and includes rough cost estimates. Existing df. The RTAC must submit its report with its federal law requires that an RTP must be updated every recommendation to CARB by September 30, 2009. four or five years, depending on whether the region Govt C §65080(b)(2)(A)(i). meets federal air quality attainment standards. 23 USC §134(i). For example, the Bay Area’s most recent RTP In recommending factors and methodologies for CARB update is scheduled for approval in spring 2009 and will to use in setting the regional targets, the RTAC may be updated again in 2013. Likewise, the Southern consider any relevant issues, including data needs, California Association of Governments approved its latest modeling techniques, growth forecasts, the impacts of RTP in 2008 and will update it again in 2012. regional jobs/housing balance on interregional travel and GhG emissions, economic and demographic trends, To encourage regional sustainable land-use the magnitude of GhG reduction benefits from a development, as further described below, SB 375 variety of land-use and transportation strategies, and requires all MPOs to update their RTPs so that resulting appropriate methods to describe regional targets and development patterns and supporting transportation to monitor performance in attaining those targets. networks can reduce GhG emissions in accordance with Govt C §65080(b)(2)(A)(i). Once the MPOs receive their regional thresholds to be set by CARB in accordance respective reports from the RTAC, they must hold at with AB 32. However, even with these mandates, each least one public workshop within the region. Govt C MPO may not be implementing the same measures to §65080(b)(2)(A)(ii). fight GhG emissions. In fact, each of the MPOs in California will likely have very different strategies and In turn, after reviewing the RTAC report, CARB must policies for their respective RTPs, depending on their provide targets for each region by June 30, 2010. regional transportation and housing needs. Thus, However, before setting the targets for a region, CARB interested parties would be wise to closely monitor the must exchange technical information with the MPO upcoming RTPs for the MPO regions in which their and the affected air district, which may include a projects will be located, to ensure that their projects are recommendation for a GhG target for the region. Govt consistent with the varying regional planning C §65080(b)(2)(A)(ii). strategies, procedures, and standards that will inevitably result. MPOs to Develop Sustainable Community Strategy as Part of Regional Transportation Plan With the above modifications to the current land-use framework, the language of SB 375 attempts to change As noted above, each MPO is required to prepare an the landscape of regional planning through a multi-RTP. 23 USC §134. Under SB 375, the RTP must be pronged approach, as described below. “internally consistent” and include the following four elements: CARB to Set Regional GhG Targets • A policy element that describes the transportation As required by SB 375, CARB has created a Regional issues in the region, identifies and quantifies regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) to recommend needs, and describes the desired short-range and factors to consider and methodologies to use for long-range transportation goals and pragmatic setting the regional GhG targets. On January 23, objective and policy statements; Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=01814cc8-e59b-4461-86b6-1b21a91402ebH E P P A R D M U L I N R I C H T E R & H O N L L P T O R N E Y S A T L A W MULLIN A Sustainable An action element that describes the programs and to implement plan and assigns responsibilities; A financial element that summarizes constrained available revenues, which must also include for b)(1)–(4). The most groundbreaking RTP elements of the, however, will be the Communities Strategy of an RTP which is achieve certain reduction of GhG emissions each from California’s largest category of GhG automobiles and light trucks. The SCS will be a blueprint-like set of planning with RTP and promote cores an SCS among other Identify the general location of uses, residential and the region Identify a transportation network to serve the Identify areas within the region sufficient to house life of the RTP; Include of how the development pattern transportation network can work together to Set a forecasted development pattern for the and other transportation measures and will reduce the GhG emissions from achieve, do so, the reduction targets set by an SCS, SB adopts the broad and flexible definition in CEQA, successful within a reasonable period of taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” Govt C what is “feasible” for accomplishing the in SB of GhG emissions be an SCS, the in GhG projected and lay out the differences, if between by CARB. SCS to be enforceable, must certify that SCS submitted meets the emissions targets set by CARB. Govt C b)(2)(I)(i). If the final SCS is reduce GhG to the the may revise and resubmit Govt C this process is not uniform for each For example, SB sets out procedures for the development of an SCS the six-county region represented by the California Association of Governments as as the eight San Joaquin Valley MPOs. C b)(2)(C), (M). Moreover, different will take greatly varying approaches in the of an SCS, depending on the level of camaraderie, resources, needs. Planning Strategy becomes the SCS that “requirements” preclude meeting the GhG SHEPPARD MULLIN A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W S H E P P A R D M U L L I N R I C H T E R & H A M P T O N L L P • A Sustainable Communities Strategy; network and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce the GhG emissions from • An action element that describes the programs and automobiles and light trucks to achieve, if there is a actions necessary to implement the plan and assigns feasible way to do so, the reduction targets set by implementation responsibilities; and CARB. • A financial element that summarizes the cost of plan Govt C §65080(b)(2)(B). implementation constrained by a realistic projection of available revenues, which must also include For purposes of developing an SCS, it appears that SB recommendations for allocation of the funds. 375 adopts the broad and flexible definition of feasible found in CEQA, i.e., “capable of being accomplished in Govt C §65080(b)(1)-(4). The most groundbreaking of a successful manner within a reasonable period of the RTP elements of the, however, will be the time, taking into account economic, environmental, Sustainable Communities Strategy. legal, social, and technological factors.” Govt C §65080.01(c). See also Pub Res C §21061.1. As in CEQA, The Sustainable Communities Strategy determining what is “feasible” for accomplishing the goals outlined in SB 375 for reduction of GhG emissions The linchpin of an RTP is the Sustainable Communities will likely be much debated (and potentially litigated). Strategy (SCS), which is designed to achieve certain Before adopting an SCS, the MPO must quantify the goals for the reduction of GhG emissions in each MPO reduction in GhG emissions projected to be achieved by region from California’s largest category of GhG the SCS and lay out the differences, if any, between the contributors: automobiles and light trucks. The SCS will amount of that reduction and the target for the region essentially be a blueprint-like set of planning established by CARB. Govt C §65080.01(b)(2)(G). For an assumptions with a regional overlay map intended to adopted SCS to be enforceable, CARB must certify that shape the land-use component of the RTP and promote the final SCS submitted by an MPO meets the regional residential development near urban cores and transit GhG emissions targets set by CARB. Govt C corridors. §65080.01(b)(2)(I)(i). If CARB finds the final SCS is unable to reduce GhG emissions to achieve the targets To accomplish this goal, an SCS must, among other established by CARB, the MPO may revise and resubmit things: it. Govt C §65080.01(b)(2)(I)(ii). • Identify the general location of uses, residential However, this process is not uniform for each densities, and building intensities within the region jurisdiction. For example, SB 375 explicitly sets out (i.e., regional overlay map); different procedures for the development of an SCS within the six-county region represented by the • Identify a transportation network to serve the Southern California Association of Governments as transportation needs of the region; well as for the eight San Joaquin Valley MPOs. Govt C §65080.01(b)(2)(C), (M). Moreover, different MPOs will • Identify areas within the region sufficient to house likely take greatly varying approaches in the all residents of the region over the life of the RTP; development of an SCS, depending on the level of regional camaraderie, regional resources, and housing • Include a discussion of how the development pattern and transportation needs. and transportation network can work together to reduce GhG emissions; and The Alternative Planning Strategy • Set forth a forecasted development pattern for the If it becomes clear after the SCS process that “federal region that, when integrated with the transportation planning requirements” preclude meeting the GhG Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=01814cc8-e59b-4461-86b6-1b21a91402ebH E P P A R D M U L I N R I C H T E R & H O N L L P T O R N E Y S A T L A W MULLIN targets, or public will not accept the of the SCS, or if SCS does not GhG reduction targets, the MPO must Planning Strategy (APS). C b)(2)(H). The be prepared as a document from the RTP and would show how the regional GhG emissions set by CARB could be achieved through development patterns or additional measures. However, the SCS, would not the RTP “plan” Thus, SB 375 notes “an [APS] shall not land use plan, policy, or regulation, and of an APS may an environmental effect.” Govt C b)(2)(H)(v). Consequently, it is unclear how would may well be that an APS will little practical application to regional for Public Input adoption of an SCS, must least two informational meetings in each county the region. The general purpose of these meetings is to present a draft of the SCS of supervisors county, to solicit their input recommendations. Govt C each MPO must also adopt a Public the development of the SCS to the participation C b)(2)(E). because the RTP the adopted SCS or APS) would be project” for CEQA purposes, an EIR be required to assess the the plan. Thus, interested parties would have the to further comment during the review process. for public involvement in development of each MPO’s SCS, is vital that and get process. As outlined above, the will identify general location of land uses and policies for a regional scale. This means that other stakeholders could be either negatively affected by the SCS and its of land uses. Consequently, any project (or opponents) would be ill-advised to a wait and see” approach to the SCS process. Creates Synergy Between Regional Housing and Transportation Planning 375 requires that transportation and the extends five to eight years, thereby synchronizing efforts with the eight-year Regional Housing (RHNA) See C §65588. within the region consistent with the included in the SCS. that resolution approving a final housing need plan must demonstrate that the plan is the SCS in the RTP. the been submitted of Housing and Community years parcels within the housing element demonstrate consistency the SCS. C 1)(A). However, if a local fails to complete the required rezoning the three-year period (unless extended one year), two anti-NIMBY (“not in my back remedies: The disapprove impose other discretionary make the project infeasible, if the development project complies with the element and has at least percent units. The local government may, the it makes written based on substantial evidence that the would adversely impact public health and and if there is no feasible method to avoid the adverse and safety. Govt C 1)–(SHEPPARD MULLIN A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W S H E P P A R D M U L L I N R I C H T E R & H A M P T O N L L P emissions targets, or if the public will not accept the the general location of land uses and policies for proposed framework of the SCS, or if SCS does not reducing GhGs on a regional scale. This means that achieve the GhG reduction targets, the MPO must landowners and other stakeholders could be either prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS). Govt C positively or negatively affected by the SCS and its §65080(b)(2)(H). The APS would be prepared as a designation of land uses. Consequently, any project separate document from the RTP and would proponents (or opponents) would be ill-advised to theoretically show how the regional GhG emissions adopt a “wait and see” approach to the SCS process. targets set by CARB could be achieved through alternative development patterns or additional Creates Synergy Between Regional Housing and transportation measures. However, unlike the SCS, the Transportation Planning APS would not be deemed part of the RTP and would not be considered an “applicable land use plan” under SB 375 requires that planning for transportation and CEQA. Thus, SB 375 notes that “an [APS] shall not housing occur together. To accomplish that goal, the constitute a land use plan, policy, or regulation, and bill extends the general plan housing element update the inconsistency of a project with an APS shall not be period from five to eight years, thereby synchronizing a consideration in determining whether a project may those efforts with the eight-year Regional Housing have an environmental effect.” Govt C Needs Allocation (RHNA) periods. See Govt C §65588. §65080(b)(2)(H)(v). Consequently, it is unclear how an Additionally, the housing allocation plan must allocate APS would be used. It may well be that an APS will housing units within the region consistent with the have little practical application to regional development pattern included in the SCS. To that end, stakeholders. any resolution approving a final housing need allocation plan must demonstrate that the plan is Opportunity for Public Input consistent with the SCS in the RTP. Before the adoption of an SCS, each MPO must conduct Once the housing element has been submitted to the at least two informational meetings in each county Department of Housing and Community within the region. The general purpose of these Development, local governments have three years to informational meetings is to present a draft of the SCS rezone parcels within the housing element to the members of the board of supervisors and the city boundaries to demonstrate consistency with the SCS. council members in that county, to solicit their input Govt C §65583(c)(1)(A). However, if a local and recommendations. Govt C §65080(b)(2)(D). government fails to complete the required rezoning Additionally, each MPO must also adopt a Public in the three-year period (unless extended one year), Participation Plan for the development of the SCS to SB 375 provides two anti-NIMBY (“not in my back encourage the active participation of a broad range of yard”) remedies: stakeholder groups and the general public as a whole. Govt C §65080(b)(2)(E). Finally, because the RTP • The local government may not disapprove a housing (including the adopted SCS or APS) would be development project, or impose other discretionary considered a “project” for CEQA purposes, an EIR measures to make the project infeasible, if the would be required to assess the environmental effects housing development project complies with the of the plan. Thus, interested parties would have the housing element and has at least 49 percent opportunity to further comment during the affordable units. The local government may, environmental review process. however, disapprove the project if it makes written findings based on substantial evidence that the Given the vast opportunity for public involvement in project would adversely impact public health and the development of each MPO’s SCS, it is vital that safety and if there is no feasible method to stakeholders and their advocates get involved early in adequately mitigate or avoid the adverse impact on the SCS process. As outlined above, the SCS will identify public health and safety. Govt C §65583(g)(1)-(2). Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=01814cc8-e59b-4461-86b6-1b21a91402ebH E P P A R D M U L I N R I C H T E R & H O N L L P T O R N E Y S A T L A W MULLIN If a local government attempts to deny a consistent failing to rezone parcels be the SCS, a project applicant or any other party may bring an action under CCP of mandate) to force the local agency to overturn the denial of the In any such action, the city or county (or of establishing the have C provisions may give project proponents or are consistent with the SCS. Focuses Transportation Funding focuses public transportation funds on improvements that are consistent with facilitate the SCS. Thus, projects that are not with an adopted SCS could have state funding withheld altogether, and the SCS will with regional improvement funds. Govt C b)(4)(A)–(B). This may an increased for privately financed transportation such as toll roads, to serve those that found with SCS, which may cost implications Allows for CEQA Streamlining residential and residential mixed-use projects a region in which an SCS approved by CARB, certain CEQA streamlining to mixed-use must be consistent with the use project area in the adopted Pub Res C §21155,–Does “Consistent” Mean? a threshold matter, perhaps the biggest for interested stakeholders will be the of whether a proposed project is purposes of SB 375. to any of the benefits under SB be consistent with an adopted SCS. In all each regional MPO will have its own for a project’s consistency with adopted SCS. For project proponents, the consistent” hurdle that must project to have access to transportation CEQA exemption, and the benefits enumerated in SB 375. Because there not uniform the consistency determination, litigated area for project proponents and alike. Either way, unless a statewide or threshold for project consistency is project proponents will different each jurisdiction in which CEQA Streamlining for Residential or Mixed-Use Residential Projects residential that found to be consistent with an approved and certified APS, any findings or other any CEQA the project are not required to discuss: Growth inducing impacts; Any project specific or the regional transportation network and light-any EIR prepared for a consistent” or mixed-use residential project is not to discuss a reduced-density alternative to of car and light-duty truck trips by the project. Pub Res C §21159.28(b). project applicants should note that the of regional transportation network” in SB c). Thus, residential mixed-use SHEPPARD MULLIN A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W S H E P P A R D M U L L I N R I C H T E R & H A M P T O N L L P • If a local government attempts to deny a consistent determination of whether a proposed project is project after failing to rezone parcels to be consistent consistent for purposes of SB 375. This is because, to be with the SCS, a project applicant or any other eligible for any of the benefits under SB 375, a project interested party may bring an action under CCP must be consistent with an adopted SCS. In all §1085 (writ of mandate) to force the local likelihood, each regional MPO will have its own government agency to overturn the denial of the standards for determining a project’s consistency with project. In any such action, the city or county (or its adopted SCS. For project proponents, the both) must bear the burden of establishing that the “consistent” designation is the initial hurdle that must project will have an adverse impact on public health be met for the project to have access to transportation and safety. Govt C §65583(g)(3). funding, CEQA streamlining and exemption, and the other benefits enumerated in SB 375. Because there These provisions may give project proponents does not appear to be a uniform standard or threshold additional leverage to obtain local approval of infill or to guide the consistency determination, this will likely high-density projects that are consistent with the SCS. be a highly litigated area for project proponents and opponents alike. Either way, unless a statewide Focuses Transportation Funding standard or threshold for project consistency is developed, project proponents will likely face different SB 375 focuses public transportation funds on consistency standards in each jurisdiction in which infrastructure improvements that are consistent with projects are developed. or facilitate the SCS. Thus, projects that are not consistent with an adopted SCS could have state CEQA Streamlining for Residential or Mixed-Use transportation funding withheld altogether, and Residential Projects projects that are consistent with the SCS will likely be financed with regional improvement funds. Govt C For all residential or mixed-use residential projects that §65080(b)(4)(A)-(B). This may result in an increased are found to be consistent with an approved and need for privately financed transportation CARB-certified SCS or APS, any findings or other infrastructure, such as toll roads, to serve those determinations for any CEQA documents prepared or developments that are found not to be consistent with adopted for the project are not required to discuss: the SCS, which may have serious cost implications for many suburban projects. • Growth inducing impacts; or Allows for CEQA Streamlining • Any project specific or cumulative impacts on global warming or the regional transportation network For residential and residential mixed-use projects from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the located in a region in which an SCS has been adopted project. and approved by CARB, certain CEQA streamlining benefits may accrue to those projects meeting specified Pub Res C §21159.28(a). requirements. However, these residential or mixed-use residential projects must be consistent with the use Additionally, any EIR prepared for a “consistent” designation, density, building intensity, and applicable residential or mixed-use residential project is not policies specified for the project area in the adopted required to discuss a reduced-density alternative to SCS. Pub Res C §§21155,-21159.28. address the effects of car and light-duty truck trips generated by the project. Pub Res C §21159.28(b). What Does “Consistent” Mean? However, project applicants should note that the definition of “regional transportation network” As a threshold matter, perhaps the biggest included in SB 375 excludes local streets and roads. Pub battleground for interested stakeholders will be the Res C §21159.28(c). Thus, residential and mixed-use Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=01814cc8-e59b-4461-86b6-1b21a91402ebH E P P A R D M U L I N R I C H T E R & H O N L L P T O R N E Y S A T L A W MULLIN applicants will still be required to impacts from cars and light-duty truck streets and roads in any environmental prepared for the project. Moreover, and mixed-use residential project still be required to comply with any or fees for the mitigation regional transportation network or local streets roads. Pub Res CEQA Streamlining for “Transit Priority” Projects treatment to “transit projects” that are consistent with general use the adopted SCS or APS, review via a sustainable communities assessment” See C transit priority projects”), sustainable communities assessment”). number of must be met before a project can be a transit priority project” warranting streamlining, densities, size requirements, location near a “or “high-quality transit corridor” (as defined in and many others. Pub Res C 21155–deemed “projects” qualify for an SCEA. initial study must first be prepared to all significant or potentially significant of the transit priority project, excluding inducing impacts and project-specific or impacts on global warming or the transportation network from cars and lightduty truck trips generated by the project. The initial any cumulative effects that have under the of CEQA in any prior certified impact reports for the project. When for cumulative effect of the project has been that cumulative effect will not treated as cumulatively considerable for the of the SCEA. Pub Res C the SCEA must contain measures that to a level of insignificance all or potentially significant effects of the be identified in the initial study. §21155.2(SCEA, a transit priority via an EIR. Pub Res initial study must be prepared to identify all or potentially significant impacts of the priority project, excluding growth-inducing warming or the regional transportation cars the SCEA, the any cumulative effects that have been addressed and mitigated under CEQA in any prior certified environmental reports for the project. If the lead agency that a cumulative effect has been and mitigated, cumulative not be treated as cumulatively considerable. Complete CEQA Exemption for Sustainable Communities Projects addition to CEQA streamlining, some transit projects” meeting more rigorous be declared to be sustainable communities and thus completely exempt from CEQA Specifically, for a “transit priority project” a “communities project,” lead hearing, must find that environmental seven land-use criteria, and one of three housing criteria have all been met. Pub Res a)–(c). However, given the extent that many projects will be sustainable communities projects” and a full CEQA for AB 32 and SB 375 Implementation to set reduction the for various sectors of the economy. CARB its final Scoping Plan on December 11, SHEPPARD MULLIN A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W S H E P P A R D M U L L I N R I C H T E R & H A M P T O N L L P residential project applicants will still be required to Additionally, the SCEA must contain measures that address impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips on either avoid or mitigate to a level of insignificance all local streets and roads in any environmental significant or potentially significant effects of the documents prepared for the project. Moreover, projects required to be identified in the initial study. residential and mixed-use residential project Pub Res C §21155.2(b)(2). proponents will still be required to comply with any conditions, exactions, or fees for the mitigation of the As an alternative to the SCEA, a transit priority project project’s impacts on the structure, safety, or operations may be reviewed via an EIR. Pub Res C §§21155(c). First, of the regional transportation network or local streets an initial study must be prepared to identify all and roads. Pub Res C §21159.28(c). significant or potentially significant impacts of the transit priority project, excluding growth-inducing CEQA Streamlining for “Transit Priority” Projects impacts and project-specific or cumulative impacts on global warming or the regional transportation SB 375 also gives preferential treatment to “transit network from cars and light-duty truck trips generated priority projects” that are consistent with general use by the project. As with the SCEA, the initial study must designation, density, building intensity, and applicable identify any cumulative effects that have been policies specified in either the adopted SCS or APS, by adequately addressed and mitigated under CEQA allowing review via a “sustainable communities requirements in any prior certified environmental environmental assessment” (SCEA). See Pub Res C impact reports for the project. If the lead agency §§21155(b) (defining “transit priority projects”), determines that a cumulative effect has been 21155.2(b) (defining “sustainable communities adequately addressed and mitigated, that cumulative environmental assessment”). However, a number of effect will not be treated as cumulatively considerable. conditions must be met before a project can be Pub Res C §21155.2(c)(1). considered a “transit priority project” warranting CEQA streamlining, including minimum densities, size Complete CEQA Exemption for Sustainable and usage requirements, location near a “major transit Communities Projects stop” or “high-quality transit corridor” (as defined in the bill), and many others. Pub Res C §§21155-21155.3. In addition to CEQA streamlining, some “transit priority projects” meeting more rigorous requirements Projects deemed “transit priority projects” qualify for may be declared to be “sustainable communities review through an SCEA. Under this new streamlined projects” and thus completely exempt from CEQA approach, an initial study must first be prepared to mandates. Specifically, for a “transit priority project” to identify all significant or potentially significant be considered a “sustainable communities project,” the impacts of the transit priority project, excluding legislative body of the lead agency, after conducting a growth-inducing impacts and project-specific or public hearing, must find that 12 environmental cumulative impacts on global warming or the criteria, seven land-use criteria, and one of three regional transportation network from cars and light-affordable housing criteria have all been met. Pub Res duty truck trips generated by the project. The initial C §21155.1(a)-(c). However, given the extent of these study must identify any cumulative effects that have requirements, it is unlikely that many projects will be been adequately addressed and mitigated under the deemed “sustainable communities projects” and requirements of CEQA in any prior certified qualify for a full CEQA exemption. environmental impact reports for the project. When the lead agency for the project has determined that a Timeline for AB 32 and SB 375 Implementation particular cumulative effect of the project has been adequately mitigated, that cumulative effect will not AB 32 requires CARB to set reduction targets for the be treated as cumulatively considerable for the state for various sectors of the economy. CARB purposes of the SCEA. Pub Res C §21155.2(b)(1). adopted its final Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=01814cc8-e59b-4461-86b6-1b21a91402ebH E P P A R D M U L I N R I C H T E R & H O N L L P T O R N E Y S A T L A W MULLIN targets for the and a detailed plan indicating how these of via mechanisms, other actions. SB 375 then requires CARB to the state GhG emissions targets and assign a target for the automobile and light sectors 2020 and 2035. The SCS for region must strive to meet this target. the expected timeline for the of the AB 32 and SB 375 31, 2009: CARB must create an RTAC to setting the regional GhG targets. The committee Association of Counties, local transportation and members of the public. Govt C 2009: CARB rules a series workshops each market mechanisms). Any stakeholder should carefully monitor and in this process to ensure that CARB sets for each region in a reasonable must submit its report CARB with its recommendations. Govt C 1, 2010: Many early action measures place by CARB will take effect. See www.calepa.ca.gov/legislation/2006/FactSheetAB 2010: CARB will likely conduct a series of hearings, GhG and rules governing the capand-2010: CARB must have reviewed report and draft GhG targets for each Govt C 30, CARB must provide each region with GhG emission reduction the automobile and light truck sector for C §65080(Once these are adopted, each of California’s 18 an SCS an APS) of its next regularly scheduled RTP update. any interested stakeholders should actively in the SCS/APS process to ensure that interests are adequately represented. Any the SCS likely an uphill battle gaining acceptance and 1, 2011: CARB likely have major rulemakings for reducing GhG emissions, the rules governing the cap-and-trade However, CARB probably continue to rules well after January 1, to ensure the GhG reduction goals are See & S C January GhG rules and market adopted CARB take effect and are Health & S C §38562(31, 2020: Deadline for achieving 2020 GhG GhG emissions must be reduced Health & S C §38562(of time it will take to implement SB stakeholders wonder what will happen regional planning in the interim. For example, projects be made indirectly subject to the plans that are developed, even though does not require compliance with plans? How will the different jurisdictions or apply these plans—e.g., in determining of GhG emissions from vehicle miles With these uncertainties, it is without stakeholder participation and at every step of the way, the implementation SB 375 is likely to be fraught with pitfalls for affected parties. SHEPPARD MULLIN A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W S H E P P A R D M U L L I N R I C H T E R & H A M P T O N L L P The Scoping Plan includes reduction targets for the September 30, 2010: CARB must provide each state and a detailed plan indicating how these affected region with GhG emission reduction emission reductions will be achieved from significant targets for the automobile and light truck sector for sources of GhG via regulations, market mechanisms, 2010 and 2035. Govt C §65080(b)(2)(A). Once these and other actions. SB 375 then requires CARB to GhG targets are adopted, each of California’s 18 divvy the state GhG emissions targets and assign MPOs must prepare an SCS (and possibly an APS) as each region a target for the automobile and light part of its next regularly scheduled RTP update. truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. The SCS or APS for Again, any interested stakeholders should actively each region must strive to meet this target. participate in the SCS/APS process to ensure that Consequently, the expected timeline for the their interests are adequately represented. Any implementation of the AB 32 and SB 375 mandates is projects deemed inconsistent with the SCS will likely as follows: face an uphill battle gaining acceptance and approval. January 31, 2009: CARB must create an RTAC to recommend facts to consider and methodologies to use By January 1, 2011: CARB will likely have completed for setting the regional GhG targets. The committee its major rulemakings for reducing GhG emissions, must include representatives of the MPOs, affected air including the rules governing the cap-and-trade districts, the League of California Cities, the California program. However, CARB will probably continue to State Association of Counties, local transportation revise and supplement its rules well after January 1, agencies, and members of the public. Govt C 2011, to ensure the GhG reduction goals are §65080(b)(2)(A)(i). accomplished by the 2020 deadline. See Health & S C §38562(a). During 2009: CARB staff will draft rules to implement its plan and hold a series of public workshops on each By January 1, 2012: GhG rules and market measure (including market mechanisms). Any mechanisms adopted by CARB take effect and are interested stakeholder should carefully monitor and legally enforceable. Health & S C §38562(a). participate in this process to ensure that CARB sets reasonable targets for each region in a reasonable December 31, 2020: Deadline for achieving 2020 GhG manner. emissions cap. GhG emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels or below. Health & S C §38562(c). September 30, 2009: The RTAC must submit its report to CARB with its recommendations. Govt C Given the length of time it will take to implement SB §65080(b)(2)(A)(i). 375, many stakeholders wonder what will happen with regional planning in the interim. For example, By January 1, 2010: Many early action measures put will projects be made indirectly subject to the into place by CARB will take effect. See various draft plans that are developed, even though http://www.calepa.ca.gov/legislation/2006/FactSheetAB CEQA generally does not require compliance with 32.pdf. draft plans? How will the different jurisdictions handle or apply these plans—e.g., in determining During 2010: CARB will likely conduct a series of significance of GhG emissions from vehicle miles rulemakings, after workshops and public hearings, to traveled (VMT)? With these uncertainties, it is adopt GhG regulations and rules governing the cap-assured that without stakeholder participation and and-trade program. input at every step of the way, the implementation of SB 375 is likely to be fraught with pitfalls for June 30, 2010: CARB must have reviewed report from developers and other affected parties. RTAC and must provide draft GhG targets for each region. Govt C §65080(b)(2)(A)(ii). Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=01814cc8-e59b-4461-86b6-1b21a91402ebH E P P A R D M U L I N R I C H T E R & H O N L L P T O R N E Y S A T L A W MULLIN the expectations far-reaching and which it has been greeted, SB mandate that many of its established achieved being toothless.” Rather than enumerating SB incentives Transportation are consistent with or facilitate SCS; Streamlined CEQA review for Extra eight years to any “associated SB of the bill (in light of the compromises to local land-use decisions, rather than mandate outcomes. The Six Nothings example, at the behest of the various interest in the sculpting of SB 375, specific expressly that nothing” in the bill shall six nothings” in Govt C §65080(b)(2)(J)): Be to supersede over planning; Be interpreted to limit CARB’s authority under any Be authorize the abrogation of vested Require a local agency’s land-use policies and be consistent the regional plans are Require a metropolitan planning organization to inconsistent with Relieve any states that neither the SCS the APS use land and, except as provided in b)(2)(I), they subject to state Govt C §65080(2)(“lead to over their interpretation, as some of them with other provisions of SB 375. Thus, 375, there will be some pressure put on local agencies to the SCS for General local agencies to comply with SB 375. In a 13, 2009, letter to Pleasanton, General’s argued that the city’s draft review of Plan update adequately address GhG emissions from also the city’s General enough housing. The January ag.ca.pdf/comments_Pleasan pdf. although the plans developed under SB regulate the use of land directly, they could have a strong indirect effect on the process land use, some cases to supersede the prerogatives of agencies over land-use planning. See Govt C b)(2)(J). Such issues could be the of litigation in future years because, with planning, there will be winners and there be losers. This true where inter-Consistency: In the Eye of the Beholder potential hotbed of litigation may concerning whether projects are consistent” with the SCS. 375 defines “SHEPPARD MULLIN A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W S H E P P A R D M U L L I N R I C H T E R & H A M P T O N L L P Does SB 375 Have Teeth? • Require a metropolitan planning organization to approve a strategy inconsistent with federal law; or Notwithstanding the expectations of far-reaching and dramatic change with which it has been greeted, SB • Relieve a public or private entity or any person from 375 does not mandate that many of its established compliance from any other law. targets actually be achieved and, thus, is perceived by some as being “toothless.” Rather than enumerating The bill further states that neither the SCS nor the APS strict mandates, SB 375 creates incentives to achieve its regulates the use of land and, except as provided in targets. As detailed above, these incentives include: Govt C §65080(b)(2)(I), they are not subject to state approval. Govt C §65080(b)(2)(J). • Transportation funding for infrastructure improvements that are consistent with or facilitate These “disclaimer” provisions may lead to arguments in the SCS; the future over their interpretation, as some of them arguably conflict with other provisions of SB 375. Thus, • Streamlined CEQA review for qualifying projects; and despite the disclaimers contained in SB 375, there will likely be some pressure put on local agencies to • Extra time—eight years instead of five—for cities and endeavor to be consistent with the SCS for the region. public agencies to update housing plans required by Notably, the California Attorney General appears to be the state. urging local agencies to comply with SB 375. In a January 13, 2009, letter to the City of Pleasanton, the Thus, any “teeth” associated with SB 375 are indirect; Attorney General’s office argued that the city’s draft the intention of the bill (in light of the compromises CEQA review of a proposed General Plan update failed made by the various interest groups) is to influence and to adequately address GhG emissions from guide local land-use decisions, rather than mandate transportation and also argued that the city’s General their outcomes. Plan failed to provide for enough housing. The January 13 letter may be viewed at The Six Nothings http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/comments_Pleasan ton_GP.pdf. For example, at the behest of the various interest groups involved in the sculpting of SB 375, specific Moreover, although the plans developed under SB disclaimer language was inserted into the bill expressly 375 may not regulate the use of land directly, they stating that “nothing” in the bill shall (the six certainly could have a strong indirect effect on the “nothings” in Govt C §65080(b)(2)(J)): planning process that controls local land use, and may in some cases act to supersede the prerogatives of • Be interpreted to supersede the prerogatives of local local agencies over land-use planning. See Govt C agencies over land-use planning; §65080(b)(2)(J). Such issues could very well be the subject of litigation in future years because, with • Be interpreted to limit CARB’s authority under any regional planning, there will be winners and there law; certainly will be losers. This is especially true in those areas where inter-governmental relationships are not • Be interpreted to authorize the abrogation of vested always benevolent. rights; Consistency: In the Eye of the Beholder • Require a local agency’s land-use policies and regulations to be consistent with the regional plans As noted, another potential hotbed of litigation may that are created; materialize concerning whether projects are “consistent” with the SCS. SB 375 defines “consistent” Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=01814cc8-e59b-4461-86b6-1b21a91402ebH E P P A R D M U L I N R I C H T E R & H O N L L P T O R N E Y S A T L A W MULLIN that is §134. However, even with this guidance, MPOs of a proposed project with Inconsistent approaches among jurisdictions might to further confusion regarding the of SB 375. differing California may lead to further as stakeholders seek to clarify their on the horizon, one way that counsel participating in the SCS process to ensure the plans for from the next. Because likely be impossible a be consistent the SCS in every minute detail, it will proponents and other interested parties to together to develop reasonable and obtainable Whatever ends up being consistency, likely EIRs will standard considering the is the SCS. CEQA Significance not SB 375 has teeth, the GhG targets will undoubtedly cities, counties, and developing standards of significance (and measures) under CEQA. On a project proponent may be faced with the its project causes significant effects if comply with the strategies laid out in the Thus, projects that not consistent with an SCS likely have to perform additional and/or be deemed to have more severe related stated in 375, no such argument can exist if project with an adopted APS. See Govt C In contrast, when projects are the SCS, even if they do for the CEQA streamlining measures or project proponents will likely be able to that their GhG effects from VMT are less of consistency (or, alternatively, that by such consistency). a key area for counsel and to evaluate the extent to the SCS, particularly SCS for the region is still being developed. analysis expected effects of SB a landowner’s properties (and their development in light of existing plans is critical to which properties are vulnerable to the of future restrictions, and which are advantaged” by likely SCS consistency. This will sort of advocacy may be the local MPO and cities, the assistance of counsel and of from be consistent with the plans an SCS even while is being currently SCSs have been determination will more straightforward Involved exactly SB than create a series of planning milestones and then into These to pull the diverse landscape of regional into a coherent policy for meeting transportation needs in the Agencies legislation to determine how it affects them and to address provisions. contact with the planning processes being CARB the local MPO that will specific properties located within their under their ownership. Proactive will be vital, and all stakeholders should taking actions: Closely monitor the regional GhG targets being by the RTAC CARB reasonable GhG emissions targets for region. SHEPPARD MULLIN A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W S H E P P A R D M U L L I N R I C H T E R & H A M P T O N L L P as having the same meaning as that term is used in 23 because of such consistency (or, alternatively, that any USC §134. However, even with this guidance, it remains GhG effects are mitigated by such consistency). to be seen how different MPOs and jurisdictions judge the consistency of a proposed project with an adopted Either way, this is a key area for project proponents to SCS. Inconsistent approaches among jurisdictions might seek counsel and to evaluate the extent to which their lead to further confusion regarding the projects are consistent with the SCS, particularly while implementation of SB 375. Eventually, these differing the SCS for the region is still being developed. standards throughout California may lead to further Individualized analysis of the expected effects of SB 375 litigation as stakeholders seek to clarify their on a landowner’s properties (and their development obligations under the legislation. potential) in light of existing plans is critical to determining which properties are vulnerable to the With these issues on the horizon, one way that project imposition of future restrictions, and which are proponents and their counsel can be proactive in this “advantaged” by likely SCS consistency. This will help area is by participating in the SCS process to ensure landowners determine what sort of advocacy may be that the plans contain very clear standards for judging needed with the local MPO and cities, as well as before consistency from one jurisdiction to the next. Because CARB. Additionally, the assistance of counsel and it will likely be impossible for a project to be consistent individual analysis of the expected effects will further with the SCS in every minute detail, it will be crucial for protect project applicants from the likely argument that project proponents and other interested parties to projects should strive to be consistent with the plans work together to develop reasonable and obtainable and policies outlined in an SCS even while it is being standards for consistency. Whatever ends up being the developed, as the City of Pleasanton is currently facing. standard for consistency, it is likely that project EIRs will Eventually, when the SCSs have been developed, the need to use that standard in considering whether the consistency determination will be more straightforward project is consistent with the SCS. and may likely be completed by planning firms. CEQA Significance Getting Involved Whether or not SB 375 has any legal teeth, the GhG Ultimately, no one can know exactly what SB 375 will emissions targets and SCS will undoubtedly be used by do, other than create a series of planning milestones some MPOs, cities, counties, and other agencies as the that must be met between now and 2010 and then into basis for developing standards of significance (and the future. These milestones may be what is needed to possibly mitigation measures) under CEQA. This could begin to pull the diverse landscape of regional have both positive and negative implications. On one planning together into a coherent policy for meeting hand, a project proponent may be faced with the California’s housing and transportation needs in the argument that its project causes significant effects if it future. Agencies and property owners should evaluate does not comply with the strategies laid out in the the legislation to determine how it affects them and SCS. Thus, projects that are not consistent with an how to address its provisions. They should also stay in adopted SCS will likely have to perform additional close contact with the planning processes being mitigation and/or be deemed to have more severe conducted by CARB and by the local MPO that will VMT-related effects. However, as explicitly stated in affect specific properties located within their SB 375, no such argument can exist if a project is only jurisdictions and/or under their ownership. Proactive inconsistent with an adopted APS. See Govt C participation will be vital, and all stakeholders should §65080(b)(2)(J). In contrast, when projects are consider taking the following actions: generally consistent with the SCS, even if they do not qualify for the CEQA streamlining measures or • Closely monitor the regional GhG targets being exemption, project proponents will likely be able to developed by the RTAC and CARB to ensure that CARB argue that their GhG effects from VMT are less sets reasonable GhG emissions targets for each region. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=01814cc8-e59b-4461-86b6-1b21a91402ebH E P P A R D M U L I N R I C H T E R & H O N L L P T O R N E Y S A T L A W MULLIN Stay development of the SCS in to ensure that their projects are consistent the SCS CEQA. Get involved in the Program EIR process for the RTP to that concerns Work with counsel to ensure that their projects created planning framework established by SB the ultimate outcome, interested parties California—from regional transportation local governmental agencies to land and industries—will need to AB 32, and related 375 cannot and should not be viewed for carefully consider its provisions affect them going forward, and take swift and actions to influence the various policies, they Angeles/Century City | Los Angeles/Downtown Diego/| San Francisco D.C. the Authors V. Davidoff is a partner in the Real Estate, Land Use and Natural Resources at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP in San Francisco. land use and environmental matters, including CEQA/NEPA compliance, change, resources, air trust and coastal matters, endangered species, initiatives and referendums, public land permitting, administrative proceedings F. Muilenburg is a partner in the Real Estate, Land Use and Natural Resources and at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP in San Diego/Del Mar. He Climate Change advises all phases and is particularly involved in promoting “green development” characteristics through local governments and other agencies. P. Bane is an associate in the Real Estate, Land Use Resources and Sheppard Richter & Hampton LLP in Orange County. corporations, developers, and public agencies involving compliance with the California Subdivision regulations. He is firm’s renewable energy and climate change practices. SHEPPARD MULLIN A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W S H E P P A R D M U L L I N R I C H T E R & H A M P T O N L L P • Stay involved in the development of the SCS in their Conclusion region to ensure that their projects are consistent with the SCS and comply with CEQA. Whatever the ultimate outcome, interested parties throughout California—from regional transportation • Get involved in the Program EIR process for the agencies to local governmental agencies to land regional RTP to ensure that each of their concerns is developers and industries—will need to navigate the new adequately addressed and commented on. legal landscape created by SB 375, AB 32, and related bills. SB 375 cannot and should not be viewed in isolation. It is • Work with counsel to ensure that their projects essential for interested parties to become involved early in adequately address each issue created by the new its implementation, carefully consider how its provisions regional planning framework established by SB will affect them going forward, and take swift and 375. affirmative actions to influence the various policies, procedures, and plans as they are developed. About the Authors Judy V. Davidoff is a partner in the Real Estate, Land Use and Natural Resources and Environmental practice group at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP in San Francisco. Ms. Davidoff focuses on state and federal land use and environmental matters, including CEQA/NEPA compliance, climate change, natural resources, air and water law, public trust and coastal matters, endangered species, cultural and historic resources, initiatives and referendums, public land permitting, and administrative proceedings and litigation. Rafael F. Muilenburg is a partner in the Real Estate, Land Use and Natural Resources and Environmental practice group at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP in San Diego/Del Mar. He is a co-chair of the firm’s Global Climate Change practice. Mr. Muilenburg advises and represents developers through all phases of the land use regulatory process, and is particularly involved in promoting approval of projects with “green development” characteristics through local governments and other agencies. Daniel P. Bane is an associate in the Real Estate, Land Use and Natural Resources and Environmental practice group at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP in Orange County. Mr. Bane handles matters for corporations, developers, and public agencies involving compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Subdivision Map Act, and local development regulations. He is an active member of the firm’s renewable energy and climate change practices. Los Angeles/Century City | Los Angeles/Downtown | New York | Orange County | San Diego/Del Mar San Diego/Downtown | San Francisco | Santa Barbara | Shanghai | Silicon Valley | Washington, D.C. sheppardmullin.com Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=01814cc8-e59b-4461-86b6-1b21a91402eb