SB 375: Smart Growth Savior or Just the Beginning

Navjot Singh Athwal, University of California, Berkeley

Abstract

This Article analyzes and dissects what has been commonly referred to as California’s climate change smart growth bill: SB 375. This bill, which was the result of a unique compromise between environmentalists, local governments and the building industry, seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by creating incentives and in some cases implicit mandates for smarter land use and development choices by local governments and developers thereby seeking to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Thus, in sum the bill strives to help Californians spend less time in their cars. SB 375 was signed into law in 2008, shortly after AB 32 passed into law in 2006.

AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act made California the first state in the nation to commit to achieving the Kyoto Protocol. Under AB 32, California will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 375 has been deemed by some as an arm of AB 32 and as necessary to attaining the goals set forth in AB 32. It requires the California Air Resources Board to develop regional greenhouse gas reduction targets for automobiles and light trucks. The methodologies that will be used to set the regional targets are currently under development by the Regional Targets Advisory Committee—a committee of stakeholders created under the bill itself. The regions will then develop transportation and land use plans designed to achieve the emissions reduction targets and at stake will be state transportation funding and California Environmental Quality Act streamlining and benefits.

Although proponents and drafters have deemed SB 375 as a sweeping revision of land use policy and as a bill that will be responsible for reshaping the face of California’s communities into more sustainable walkable communities, this Article places doubt on these optimistic predictions. The arguments within this Article are important for several reasons. First, the Article analyzes the incentives created under the bill to determine whether incentives alone can lead to the optimistic reduction goals set forth in the bill. Second, the Article analyzes the governance structure created under the bill under which local government officials sitting as regional board members are allocated decision making authority and the potential for horse trading that this self interested structure permits. Third, this Article analyzes the considerable market and practical constraints that may create a barrier to attaining the reduction goals set forth in the bill. Finally, this Article focuses on the states role in overcoming these internal and external constraints and how the conduct on part of the state since the passage of SB 375 has contradicted its commitment to green house gas reduction as indicated by the passage of both AB 32 and SB 375.