E-Mail Express

Name:

Company:

E-mail:

Phone:

Law first to link greenhouse gases with urban planning

CALIFORNIA – California could be the first to link greenhouse gas reduction with urban planning if the governor signs a bill aimed at discouraging urban sprawl; but some North Bay groups are concerned with the long-term effects on transportation spending and local discretion.

Originally crafted almost two years ago, incoming Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, created Senate Bill 375 as a model for reaching the state’s rigorous 25 percent emissions reduction goal, a benchmark set by Assembly Bill 32.

Officials from three of the state’s often divided interest groups participated in negotiations on the bill that continued for almost two years before its passage in the Senate Aug. 30. The bill is on the governor’s desk for his signature.

“We are still trying to figure out how [Sen. Steinberg] was able to get three traditionally warring factors together: the environmental who never wanted CEQA opened to scrutiny, builders who always thought building should drive development and local government, which usually guarded planning authority. But somehow they were able to reach a really well compromised bill,” said Matt Regan, director of housing for the Bay Area Council, which supports the bill.

According to legislators, limiting building outside of the city core will help people cut down on vehicle transportation, which accounts for about a third of all carbon emissions. Once passed, regional Metropolitan Transportation Commissions will collaborate with local stakeholders to create what the bill calls a sustainable community strategy for the region meant to reach carbon reduction targets set by the Air Resources Board.

Local governments will still have the authority to authorize land-use as they please, but transportation funding will likely be prioritized for projects that encourage transit over highway projects or road expansions. At the same time, building projects in high density, infill areas will be allowed to side-step some time-consuming and expensive requirements of the California Environmental Air Quality Act if they meet certain criteria in the bill meant to reduce driving.

“We supported this legislation almost at the outset because we recognized that with the state’s effort related to global warming we needed some structure for how to reach that goal,” said Rebecca Long, legislative analyst for the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.

She said each metropolitan region is already required to have a transportation plan, SB 375 just folds the sustainable community strategy into that plan by prioritizing practical projects that will reduce driving. Also, because the Bay Area MPO already prioritizes much of its discretionary funding on mass transit projects, she doesn’t expect a lot to change.

But the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, which was one of several groups that opposed the original version of the bill, said it surrenders some of the local governments’ planning authority and could jeopardize the county’s ability to solicit a sales tax measure in the future.

“The crux of our concern is that it would institute a top down land use and planning approach, particularly in the Bay Area,” said Transportation Authority Executive Director Suzanne Smith.

Unlike other metropolitan agencies that oversee about one to four counties, the Bay Area MPO covers nine. Ms. Smith said though the law does provide for some local outreach, ultimately the regional organization holds the power to control funding.

“It’s not that we think a regional plan is a bad thing, but it should start at the bottom and bubble up,” she said.

Also, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority board expressed concern for the future of soliciting sales tax measures, which require at least two-thirds voter approval. Often the votes hinge on the types of projects linked to measure and it could be difficult if the government is not permitted to include road improvements or expansions.

Other leaders praised the intent behind the bill, but worried about its impact.

“I don’t think anyone can argue against the intention of the bill, but it leaves a lot of ambiguity that could have some far reaching consequences, and I think that is what’s making some feel a little uncomfortable,” said Napa Chamber of Commerce President Kate King.

Others in opposition of the bill include the Associated General Contractors of California, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Hotel and Lodging Association, the Department of Finance and the California Retailers Association.

Groups that expressed support for the bill include the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Bay Area Council, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the California Major Builders Council, the County of Napa and the Environmental Defense Fund.