barbour- smart growth planning for climate protection

70

Problem: To help achieve climate policygoals, California recently adopted measures toreduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) bypromoting more efficient development. Onepolicy, Senate Bill (SB) 375, gained wide-spread attention as the nations first law tocombat greenhouse gas emissions by reducingsprawl (Office of the Governor of California,2008). What does experience to date indicateabout the effectiveness of Californias institu-tional model for achieving GHG reductionsfrom transportation and land use?

Purpose: SB 375, adopted in 2008, requiresCalifornias urban regions to achieve man-dated GHG reductions through coordinatedtransportation and land use. After its passage,the California Air Resources Board moderateda lively, contentious negotiation process withthe states 18 Metropolitan Planning Organi-zations (MPOs) to define potential GHGreductions and assign the mandated targets.We evaluate progress toward achieving SB 375goals, analyzing the target-setting process andlocal government engagement. We assess theviability of Californias largely voluntarymodel for achieving climate goals throughsmart growth.

Methods: We consider the two-year-long SB375 target-setting process as an exercise ininstitution building, creating new planningrequirements that build on existing regionalprocesses but also require the development ofnew techniques for systematically evaluatingpolicy options and assigning regional responsi-bility. We evaluate MPO data on the potentialof various smart growth policy options forreducing GHGs, and consider the activitiesand perspective of local planners by incorpo-rating findings from surveys and interviews.

Smart Growth Planningfor Climate Protection

Evaluating Californias Senate Bill 375

Elisa Barbour and Elizabeth A. Deakin

Californias landmark climate legislation, Assembly Bill (AB) 32,adopted in 2006, calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in thestate to 1990 levels by 2020. Executive Order (S-3-05), signed bythen-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, calls for a deeper reduction by2050, to 80% below 1990 levels. To comply with these policies, Californiahas been transitioning to a new regulatory framework for climate protectionthat encompasses multiple strategies across all sectors of the economy. Thisarticle addresses one component, policies and regulations that aim to reducegreenhouse gases by managing where growth and development occurs,through coordination of transportation and land use.

Results and conclusions: SB 375demonstrates that regional smart growthclimate policy can be built on existingplanning processes, particularly for trans-portation and associated air quality require-ments. However, regional and local plannersexpress concerns about inadequate resourcesfor implementation. Without strong state orfederal mandates or incentives that favor thepolicy outcomes envisioned in SB 375, thelaw expects more from MPOs than they caneasily accomplish. As executed so far, SB375 adds only a modest contribution tostate efforts to reduce GHGs by 2020. Atthe local level, we document a sharp rise inclimate policymaking, but also gaps betweenregional and local assessment and mitigationstrategies.

Takeaway for practice: It is possible tosystematize collaborative climate goal settingfor development planning across regions, butnegotiating fair share responsibilities isinherently political and requires stronginstitutions in order to succeed. Effectivesmart growth climate planning requiresmatching responsibility and authority with

incentives that integrate state, regional, andlocal needs and responsibilities; toughperformance mandates and/or strongincentives are needed to bridge the tradi-tional regionallocal divide. To reinforceclimate policy through local environmentalreview, requirements must be linked toregional plans; otherwise, project-by-projectmitigation may work at cross-purposes withwider strategies.

Keywords: climate change, regional plan-ning, smart growth, California, SB 375

Research support: This research wassupported by the California Energy Commis-sion.

About the authors:Elisa Barbour ([email protected]) is aPh.D. student and Elizabeth A. Deakin([email protected]) is a professor in theDepartment of City and Regional Planning,University of California, Berkeley.

Journal of the American Planning Association,

Vol. 78, No. 1, Winter 2012

DOI 10.1080/01944363.2011.645272

American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 70

Specifically, this article considers the design and imple-mentation to-date of Senate Bill (SB) 375, passed in 2008to help achieve Californias climate goals through moreefficient development patterns. With SB 375, Californiabecame the first U.S. state to commit to assigning specific,mandated targets to regional transportation agencies forreducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through coordi-nated planning for land use and transportation.

We first consider SB 375 in the wider context of climatepolicy, explaining why it deserves attention as a foray intoregional smart growth climate policymaking. We then de-scribe how the laws main elements both extend prior plan-ning practice, and break new ground in calling for systematicregional assessment and mitigation of climate impacts ofdevelopment. We consider whether effective measures are inplace for implementation, and whether responsibility andauthority for implementation are appropriately matched.

We trace the SB 375 target-setting process of 2009 and2010, a negotiation and fact-finding process convened bythe California Air Resources Board (CARB) before itadopted reduction targets in September 2010 for each of thestates 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs),the regional agencies tasked with implementing the newlaw. We consider how well the process systematized respon-sibilities across regions, and we evaluate MPO data compar-ing current conditions and potential for GHG reduction.

We then consider SB 375 from the local perspective,examining climate policy activity and participation in re-gional planning, utilizing results from an online survey andinterviews. We evaluate how SB 375 interacts with a secondpolicy adopted to encourage climate-friendly land usechoices, namely, the requirement under the California Envi-ronmental Quality Act (CEQA) that localities must reviewclimate impacts of development projects and plans. Theconnection between SB 375 and CEQA is important becausethe new CEQA mandate, more so than SB 375, is promptinga sharp rise in local policy action. The CEQA requirementstheoretically should support SB 375, but we detect gaps inthe policy framework that threaten the laws implementation.

From our analysis of SB 375s implementation to date,we draw conclusions about essential elements of effectivestate smart growth climate policy, and the challenge ofsystematizing climate planning across widely varyingregions and localities.

SB 375 in a Wider Context

Given that more than half of U.S. states and many localgovernments are pursuing climate policies with little corre-sponding action on the federal level, many researchers have

concluded that the most substantial climate policy action inthe United States is occurring subnationally (Bassett & Shan-das, 2010; Boswell, Greve, & Seale, 2010; Byrne, Hughes,Rickerson, & Kurdgelashvili, 2007; Dierwechter, 2010;Drummond, 2010; Lutsey & Sperling, 2008; Pew Center onGlobal Climate Change, n.d.; Rabe, 2006; Wheeler, 2008).This pattern has spurred discussion about the potential ofscattered state and local policies to succeed without federalaction, the implications of climate policymaking for federalism,the appropriate roles for levels of government, and the appro-priate mix of policies (J. H. Adler, 2007; Andreen, Glicksman,Mendelson, Steinzor, & Jones, 2008; Bailey, 2007; Bulkeley,2010; Dernbach, McKinstry, & Peterson, 2008; Dierwechter,2010; Doremus & Hanemann, 2008; Engel, 2006; U.S.House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Com-merce, 2008; Wiener, 2006).

Our analysis of SB 375 adds to this discussion byaddressing a component of the climate policy portfolio,regional planning for land use and transportation, that hasso far received relatively little attention. Most state trans-portation-related climate policies have taken a differenttack than SB 375, seeking to improve energy efficiencythrough technological means (Byrne et al., 2007). Califor-nia, too, has prioritized this path, adopting vehicle fueleconomy standards in 2002 and a low-carbon fuel standardin 2007. CARB, charged with implementing AB 32,considers these technology-forcing measures to hold thegreatest potential for reducing GHGs from passengervehicles in the short term; they account for 86% ofCARBs targeted reductions in this sector by 2020 (CARB,2011b).1 Research has indicated that, among transporta-tion strategies, technological improvements have the great-est potential for reducing GHGs; however, deep per-vehicle reductions (exceeding 60%) are unlikely withoutstrong public support for efficiency standards, research anddevelopment subsidies, carbon price signals (e.g., throughcap-and-trade), and other measures (Burbank, 2009;Greene & Plotkin, 2011; U.S. Department of Transporta-tion [U.S. DOT], 2010).

In addition to technology-forcing measures, CARBdeems a third strategy, reducing vehicle miles traveled(VMT) and vehicle use, essential for achieving the statesclimate goals in the long run (past 2020), to ensure thatprojected growth in VMT does not overwhelm GHGbenefits resulting from technology strategies alone (CARB,2008a, p. C-55-57). With transportation emissions ac-counting for 37% of Californias GHGs, and its fastest-growing source, state policymakers recognize the need toreduce the demand for driving, in addition to improvingon-road efficiency of vehicles through technology-forcingmeasures (CARB, n.d., 2008b).

Barbour and Deakin: Smart Growth Planning for Climate Protection 71

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 71

72 Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2012, Vol. 78, No. 1

SB 375 was passed to accomplish this demand-sidepolicy component. It calls for reducing emissions throughchanged land use patterns and improved transportation(S.B. 375 1 [c]). Each regions developmentpatternintegrated with the transportation network, andother transportation measures and policies, must bedesigned to achieve the GHG emissions targets set byCARB (California Government Code 65080 [b] [2] [B][vii]). Research indicates that various demand-side meas-ures can help reduce GHGs, including land use measuresto facilitate compact development near transit, investmentsin transit capacity, carpooling programs, and non-motor-ized modes, and pricing techniques that increase the cost ofdriving alone relative to other modes (Boarnet, Houston,Ferguson, & Spears, 2010; Burbank, 2009; CambridgeSystematics, 2009; Ewing, Bertholomew, Winkelman,Walters, & Chen, 2008; Greene & Plotkin, 2011; Trans-portation Research Board, 2009; U.S. DOT, 2010). Sys-tem efficiency measures, such as signalization to reducecongestion, can also help (Barth & Boriboonsomsin,2008). Combining these strategies can lower VMT morethan any single approach; many demand-side strategies areinteractive, with synergistic benefits for reducing VMT(Boarnet, 2010; Burbank, 2009; Greene & Plotkin, 2011;Rodier, 2009). Many researchers have concluded thatdemand-side strategies should be incorporated into theclimate policy portfolio, along with technology-forcingmeasures, if deep GHG reductions are to be achieved onthe order called for by scientistslevels embodied inCalifornias adopted climate goals (Burbank, 2009; Cam-bridge Systematics, 2009; Creyts, Derkach, Nyquist,Ostrowski, & Stephenson, 2007; Greene & Plotkin, 2011;U.S. DOT, 2010).

SB 375 should be of interest to scholars and practi-tioners of growth management, smart growth, sustain-able development, climate policymaking, and intergov-ernmental relations. Most metropolitan areas have a longhistory of considering demand management and systemefficiency measures, starting with transportation controlmeasures required under the Clean Air Act Amendmentsof 1970 and 1977 (Deakin, 2011). However, SB 375represents the largest U.S. statelocal effort to linkdemand management to complementary land use poli-cies in order to achieve climate goals. SB 375, thus,provides a test case for smart growth climate policy,which should interest policymakers seeking to imple-ment similar strategies. The law calls for coordinatingthese policies at a regional scale, through the auspices ofMPOs, which act as technical analysts and coordinatorsof state, regional, and local policies. This factor also

makes SB 375 a useful case study for multiscalar plan-ning and governance for sustainability.

The long-debated question of defining the appropri-ate scales for vesting environmental policy authority haspreoccupied climate policy analysts (see, e.g., Adler,2007, and Doremus and Hanemann, 2008). Some ob-servers have contended that climate policies that aim toinfluence individual behavior and lifestyles, or addressinfrastructure and land use choices, may be better managed at subnational levels (Andreen et al., 2008;Corfee-Morlot, 2009; Dernbach et al., 2008; Doremus &Hanemann, 2008). Others have noted that demand-sidepolicy options require action at multiple governmentlevels (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005).

The metropolitan scale is appropriate for focusing landuse and transportation policy coordination, to match thescale at which labor markets, and associated commute-shedsand housing markets operate. However, locally focusedpolicy coordination is equally essential because transportdemand varies nonlinearly in relation to thresholds of den-sity, transport system capacity, and employment accessibil-ity, conditions that vary across locales within regions (Boar-net et al., 2010). MPOs, in conjunction with local planners,are likely better prepared than federal or state-level officialsto fine tune policies in small-scale contexts.

Transportland use coordination is inherently anintergovernmental affair in the United States. The federaland state governments have dominated transportationplanning, while states play the central role in land use. Inturn, most states delegate land use authority to local gov-ernments. MPOs are regional agencies responsible fordeveloping federally mandated long-range (20 year)transportation investment plans (called regional transporta-tion plans, or RTPs) that integrate projects and fundingfrom various sources. They are logical venues for regionalpolicy integration because of their planning role and insti-tutional structure. In California, MPOs are generally alsoconstituted as Councils of Governments (COGs), forumsof local governments that usually operate on a one-govern-ment, one-vote basis. Thus, Californias COG/MPOsprovide an interface among federal, state, and local plansand priorities.

MPOs independent authority is limited, however.California MPOs directly control only a portion of totaltransportation funds in RTPs (15% of capital funds, onaverage; Rose, 2011). Furthermore, their governing struc-ture depends on consensus among member local govern-ments, which inhibits the enactment of policies creatingnew winners and losers (Barbour & Teitz, 2006; Fulton,2008; Wachs, 2004).

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 72


This discussion underscores the multiscalar, multi-issue nature of MPO activity. Because SB 375 dependson these agencies, it depends on the wider context ofmultilevel policies that influence MPOs work. Someanalysts have contended that because climate policyrequires a wide portfolio of strategies, intergovernmentalframeworks must be strengthened both vertically andhorizontally (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2007; Bulkeley, 2010;Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2009). SB375 is an excellent test case for evaluating this issue,because California is a state with multiple and diverseregions, two of which contain more than one hundredcities each. SB 375 provides a focus for considering howto achieve collective action for the global commons acrossa large and diverse state.

The Basics of SB 375

SB 375 requires that Californias MPOs work toachieve GHG reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 forautomobiles and light trucks. However, SB 375 does notdictate the quantity of new GHG reductions, nor theprocedure for allocating responsibility among MPOs forachieving these reductions. The law stipulated that CARBadopt the regional targets by September 30, 2010, inconsultation with the MPOs. Going forward, CARB mustupdate the targets, at minimum, every eight years.

The heart of SB 375 is the requirement that each MPOdevelop and implement a Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS) as part of its periodic RTP. An SCS is a regionaldevelopment scenario designed, in combination with othertransportation and land use policies specified in the RTP, toreduce GHGs from automobiles and light trucks by theassigned targeted amount, if there is a feasible way to doso(California Government Code 65080 [b] [2] [B] [vii]).2

The targets adopted in September 2010 are set to achieveGHG reductions beyond those projected from vehicle andfuel efficiency standards (CARB, 2010a).

The SCS must also be consistent with state-mandatedplans for ensuring that localities provide adequate housingfor all income levels, plans long prepared by CaliforniasMPO/COGs under the Regional Housing Needs Assess-ment (RHNA) process (California Government Code65080 [b] [2] [B] [iii]).3 SB 375 extends the length ofRHNA plans to eight years, aligns their schedules withRTPs, and requires regions to plan for enough housing toaccommodate all projected population and workforcegrowth (California Government Code 65080 [b] [2] [B][ii, iii]). Localities must conform zoning to RHNA require-ments (California Government Code 65583[c][1][A]).4

SB 375 was crafted by a so-called impossible coalitionof environmental, homebuilder, business, affordablehousing, and local government advocates (Adams, Eaken,& Notthoff, 2009). Its provisions provided something for(nearly) everyone. The GHG performance mandateappealed to environmentalists, while the requirement toprovide housing to accommodate job growth withinregions appealed to policymakers concerned about hous-ing provision (Adams et al., 2009). CEQA streamlining(described later) appealed to business interests. Achievingthis compromise required more than a dozen revisions ofthe original legislative bill (Haney, 2010; Henderson &Cammarota, 2009). VMT reduction mandates wereremoved, for example, while a guarantee was inserted toreassure local governments that their local land use poli-cies and regulations were not required to be consistentwith an SCS (California Government Code 65080 [b][2] [K]).

SB 375 recognizes that MPOs may be unable toachieve their assigned GHG reduction targets. To ensurerealism in SCS forecasts, SB 375 reinforces federal require-ments for RTPs by mandating that SCSs be based on themost recent planning assumptions and a realistic projec-tion of available revenues for transportation (65080 [b][2] [B] and 65080 [b] [4] [A]). If an MPO, using feasiblemeans, proves unable to devise an SCS capable of achiev-ing its assigned target, it must also complete an alternativeplanning strategy (APS) to demonstrate how the targetcould be achieved using additional resources or measures,which need not be similarly constrained (California Gov-ernment Code 65080[b][2][I]). CARBs enforcement roleis limited to acceptance or rejection of the MPOs determi-nation that its submitted strategy would, if implemented,achieve the adopted target (California Government Code65080[b][2][J][ii]).

The SB 375 Policy Framework:Something Old and Something New

Although considered groundbreaking for imposingregional GHG reduction targets, SB 375 builds onlyincrementally on existing planning processes. This heritageprovided a viable base on which to craft the new policy,but it also helped ensure that weaknesses in Californiastraditional voluntarist regional planning framework werereplicated in the new law.

The SCS process is not a wholly new undertaking forCalifornia MPOs. They have long produced land use anddevelopment projections as part of RTPs; SCSs are only amodification. Similarly, SB 375 builds on the federally

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 73


mandated process by which MPOs must demonstrate theirRTPs compliance with air quality standards, adding acarbon dioxide reduction target to the other pollutantstandards already established.

SB 375 also builds explicitly on blueprint planning, aprocess for developing RTPs adopted during the pastdecade by the MPOs in the states four largest regions(the Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay, San Diego, andSacramento areas) to help achieve air quality conformity,make efficient investments, and otherwise improve re-gional quality of life.5 Blueprint planning utilizes coordi-nated outreach to local officials and the public to developsupport for a preferred course of future regional develop-ment, one that generally has included more compactdevelopment than status quo plans and policies. Eightregional blueprint plans have been completed in Califor-nia, including one in the eight-county San Joaquin Val-ley.6 This sort of planning is not unique to California;Bartholomew and Ewing (2009) identified more than 20regional scenario-planning processes of this type acrossthe United States.

In the past, MPOs often geared transportation pro-grams to serve land uses outlined in existing General Plans,which are local comprehensive plans (Rose, 2011). How-ever, the blueprint (now SB 375) approach does not takelocally enacted land use policies as given. Instead, MPOsand local planners negotiate the feasibility of land usealternatives, and agreed-upon preferred scenarios are eitherincorporated into local policies and plans or accommo-dated within existing ones.

Thus, SB 375 builds on existing processes, but it alsointroduces substantial new challenges. In particular, definingan objective standard for what might be called a regions fairshare contribution to GHG reduction is not straightforward.GHG emissions are an air quality problem of global, notregional, proportions. While the federal and state Clean AirActs require mitigation of regionally measured pollutants tomeet health-based standards, the global nature of GHGspresents an inherently different institutional challenge, withless clearly defined benchmarks for determining appropriatemitigation levels. SB 375 instituted a collaborative approachfor determining responsibility; while CARB was chargedwith adopting mandated emissions reduction targets underthe law, it did so in consultation with the MPOs, andwith input from other stakeholders.

With passage of SB 375, California has taken amajor step toward managing growth and developmentmore systematically. Like Oregons TransportationPlanning Rule, adopted in 1991 to require MPOs andlocalities to devise transportation plans that reduceVMT, SB 375 has spurred widespread discussion and

debate on how to coordinate transportation and land usewithin and among jurisdictions (Adler & Dill, 2004;Calthorpe & Fulton, 2001). As noted earlier, SB 375also establishes a consistency requirement between re-gional plans for affordable housing (RHNA) and trans-portation (RTPs).

SB 375, however, is much narrower than the compre-hensive growth management programs adopted in Oregonand other states (including Washington, Florida, and NewJersey) that have established multiple growth policy goalsand processes for determining consistency of state, local,and regional plans with those goals (DeGrove, 2005). SB375 does not comprehensively address how the state,regions, and localities should weigh, balance, and integratesometimes competing objectives and mandates for achiev-ing environmental quality, economic growth, and socialequity.

The SB 375 model relies on an outcome-based per-formance mandate to focus planning efforts, while preserv-ing regional and local autonomy in determining specificimplementation strategies. These aspects make the modelappealing as a possible basis for federal planning reforms(U.S. DOT, 2010). This basic model has a strong trackrecord in California. One example is the Natural Commu-nities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, whichallows local governments to implement federal and stateEndangered Species Act mandates through creation ofbioregional ecosystem-based habitat preserves capable ofprotecting multiple species (including nonendangeredones) while also streamlining local development require-ments (Barbour & Kueppers, in press).

SB 375, however, lacks certain key elements thatenable the NCCP program to effectively bridge tradi-tional regionallocal planning gaps. Compared to theNCCP, SB 375 lacks a stiff, regionally measured health-based performance standard and local authority andresponsibility for implementation. SB 375 dependsinstead on intergovernmental consensus for determiningboth mitigation responsibilities and implementationmeasures. It places responsibility for execution withMPOs, not local governments. The MPOs are expectedto coordinate transportation and land use, although theylack land use authority and control only a small share oftransportation resources. This approach should not beexpected to produce substantial climate benefits if otherstrong policy and market incentives favoring smartgrowth are not also in place.

Few policy incentives or mandates favoring SB 375objectives are in place, however. MPOs can orient theirprograms and investments to encourage SB 375-supportiveland uses, but this strategy is limited to resources under

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 74


their control.7 The primary direct incentive in SB 375 toencourage local cooperation is streamlined environmentalreview under CEQA for infill projects consistent withSCSs or APSs.8 However, some observers contend that theprovisions are too narrow to induce much change (Rose,2011). Various other state policies work against SB 375goals, including recent multibillion-dollar state budget andprogram cuts to local transit and redevelopment funds, andthe lack of ongoing support for infill and associated infra-structure needs. Some state fiscal policies also work todiscourage compact housing, such as Californias Proposi-tion 13, which limits property tax rates, rendering multi-family housing a fiscal loser in the eyes of many localities.

Thus, SB 375 does not radically alter existing planningprocesses, attempting instead to better coordinate and alignthem. It depends on voluntary participation, but in spite ofambitious goals, provides few new resources or mandatesfor either plan development or implementation.

The SB 375 Target-Setting Process

In September 2010, CARB formally adopted the firstround of regional emissions-reduction targets under SB375, an important milestone in the laws implementation.The deliberations that preceded adoption were lengthy andsometimes contested, reflecting not only the inherentchallenge of the task (to invent a new method for assigningGHG-reduction responsibilities among regions), but alsothe political differences among regions, and the lack ofsupportive state policies that would ensure effective imple-mentation. New collaborative analytical techniquesemerged from the target-setting process, but so did con-cerns about MPOs technical capacity, which in turnhampered consensus on identifying objective measures forassessing regional responsibility.

To define parameters for the target-setting process, SB375 called for establishment of an advisory Regional Tar-gets Advisory Committee (RTAC), to be composed ofstakeholders including MPO leaders, local governmentofficials, and representatives from homebuilder, affordablehousing, and environmental organizations.9 The RTAC,which met for eight months in 2009, delineated many keyfeatures of the decision process, including the performancemetric for regional targets (percent per capita reductions),the baseline year against which to measure reductions(2005), and a procedure for compiling MPO data toevaluate conditions and policy options (RTAC, 2009).10

Some RTAC recommendations, like calling for CARB toexercise flexibility in applying the metric in order to allowfor regional variation, introduced ambiguity. The RTACs

standard for regional targets was that each should be themost ambitious and achievable possible.

The four large MPOs took the process even further bydesigning a method for identifying new policy options andcomparing their potential effects to the baseline of currentemissions and projected future emissions utilizing existingpolicies. They established four policy categories (trans-portation demand management (TDM) and system man-agement (TSM) measures; transportation system improve-ments; land use measures; and pricing measures) withinwhich each MPO selected specific new policy measures toevaluate (Heminger, Ikhrata, Gallegos, & McKeever,2010).

The MPOs data permit systematic comparisons ofregional conditions and investment priorities. The fourlargest MPOs (accounting for 82% of the states popula-tion) projected a decrease in per capita SB 375-relatedweekday CO2 emissions from 2005 to 2035, based onexisting policies (Figure 1). This pattern indicated thatexisting smart growth policies and market conditions,combined with effects of the economic downturn, areexpected to lower transportation emissions compared tothe recent past. The decrease was not continuous, however;most MPOs projected a decline from 2005 to 2020, fol-lowed by a small uptick to 2035. CARB asked for explana-tions of the uptick, noting that many policymakers andresearchers expect land use policies to have cumulativeeffects, with benefits increasing over time. The MPOsattributed the uptick to various causes, including front-loaded benefits of planned capacity improvements duringthe earlier period, worsening congestion expected uponimprovement of economic conditions, and exhaustion ofinfill capacity.12

The data also permit comparison of current and pro-jected development patterns (Table 1). For example, theBay Area has the highest per capita transit seat miles andthe lowest share of low-density, single-family homes. BayArea planners noted that existing smart growth policieshelped account for the regions lower per capita CO2levels. The data also indicate that future dwelling patternsare expected to be more compact in all four regions, evenabsent SB 375. The MPOs most ambitious modeledpolicy scenarios were projected to increase the share ofattached (more compact) units in 2035 by about 10% to40%, in comparison.

In terms of pre-SB 375 investment priorities, thenorthernmost MPOs (the Metropolitan TransportationCommission, or MTC, and the Sacramento Area Councilof Governments, or SACOG) allocated higher shares oftheir transportation funding to maintenance and opera-tions (Table 1), indicating that these MPOs aimed to

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 75


achieve policy goals through strategies other than newsystem capacity.12 In comparison, the Southern Califor-nia Association of Governments, or SCAG (the LosAngeles MPO), prioritized transit investment, and theSan Diego Association of Governments, SANDAG (theSan Diego MPO), emphasized new roadway capacity,including managed highway lanes to coordinate flow.

The MPOs data on proposed new strategies for reducing GHGs were somewhat more difficult to parse(Table 2). The modeled policy scenarios are not exactlycomparable; furthermore, some RTAC members raisedconcerns about inadequate and inconsistent modelingcapacity across MPOs, particularly for evaluating fine-grained smart growth policy effects.13 Nevertheless, certainpatterns were evident. Policy scenarios for expandingsystem capacity or improving efficiency were projected, ingeneral, to offer fewer GHG benefits than pricing or landuse policy scenarios. Hybrid scenarios, including aggressiveland use and pricing, appeared most promising. Thispattern conforms to research cited earlier on synergisticbenefits of combining policies.

Subsequent to submitting these data, the MPOsnotified CARB about proposed targets (Table 2). Givendiscrepancies among regions, the final negotiation stagebecame overtly political, particularly in the Los Angelesand San Francisco Bay areas. When SCAG, the Los Ange-les area MPO, proposed a less ambitious target than CARBstaff had initially recommended, CARB countered by

calling for one more in line with the other major MPOs(CARB, 2010b, p. 24). In this fashion, CARB helpedensure consistency in effort across the largest regions. In ahotly debated decision, SCAGs board of directors coun-tered with a smaller target, but agreed to reconsider ifcertain conditions were met, including restoration of theregions transportation and redevelopment budgets andmore planning funds. This action highlights an ongoingconcern: Many planners call SB 375 an unfunded man-date, with little state support for implementation.

Events in the San Francisco Bay region took an oppositeturn. Facing pressure from smart growth activists and electedofficials, the MPO board voted for a more ambitious targetthan originally modeled (Figure 1). This outcome indicatesthat determining the feasibility of an emission reductiontarget is a political, not just a technical, question. Ultimately,CARB adopted its staffs preliminary targets, unless MPOshad proposed more ambitious ones. In February 2011,SCAG agreed to implement CARBs target, while CARBannounced a grant of $500,000 for smart growth demon-stration projects in the region (CARB, 2011a).

The denouement of the SB 375 target-setting processwas thus clearly political. Supposedly objective data werehard to parse and subject to change in the face of pressurefrom local constituencies. This outcome is not surprising,given that political debate was built into SB 375s decisionframe. It reflects the reality that a targets feasibility islegitimately a political matter, not just a technical one.

Figure 1. Projected CO2 reductions for large MPOs.Sources: Heminger et al., 2010; SANDAG, 2010; SACOG, 2010; CARB, 2010a, 2010b.

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 76


Table 1. Comparison of indicators for California's four largest MPOs.

MTC/ABAG SCAG SANDAG SACOG (SF Bay) (LA area) (San Diego) (Sacramento)

Population growth from 20052020 13% 18% 20% 23%2035 28% 33% 31% 50%Projected per capita system capacityMixed flow lane miles2005 1.97 3.59 2.06 3.412035 RTP 1.60 3.21 1.91 3.092035 most ambitious scenario 1.60 3.22 1.96 3.09HOV/HOT lane miles2005 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.032035 RTP 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.072035 most ambitious scenario 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.07Transit seat miles (weekday)2005 5.36 2.08 1.67 1.232035 RTP 5.15 2.75 2.61 2.312035 Most ambitious scenario 5.15 3.97 2.61 2.72Transit trips (daily)2005 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.052035 RTP 0.22 0.09 0.08 0.092035 Most ambitious scenario 0.28 0.10 0.19 0.10Auto trips (daily)2005 2.48 2.80 5.32 3.512035 RTP 2.56 2.97 4.81 3.662035 Most ambitious scenario 2.29 2.79 4.56 3.63Current RTP expendituresRoad maintenance & operations 30% 10% 20% 34%Transit maintenance & operations 51% 31% 24% 28%Road expansion (HOV, HOT, ML*) 2% 20% 16% 3%Road expansion (General Purpose) 1% 5% 23% 13%Transit expansion 14% 18% 14% 12%Other 2% 16% 3% 10%Driving cost per mile (2009 $)2005 $0.21 $0.21 $0.18 $0.20 2035 RTP $0.30 $0.30 $0.25 $0.29 2035 Most ambitious scenario $1.15 $0.32 $0.41 $0.43 Housing units by type as share of all unitsAttached2005 37% 41% 35% 30%2035 RTP 39% 42% 44% 31%2035 Most ambitious scenario 42% 46% 46% 33%Small lot single-family (5,500 sq. ft.)2005 20% 10% 19% 3%2035 RTP 21% 11% 15% 11%2035 Most ambitious scenario 23% 12% 15% 11%Low-density single-family 2005 43% 49% 46% 67%2035 RTP 40% 47% 41% 58%2035 Most ambitious scenario 35% 42% 39% 56%

Notes: Costs based on a 22-mile round trip, except SACOGs, which are based on a 20-mile round trip. ML managed lanes. Source: Heminger et al., 2010; SACOG, 2010a.

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 77


Table 2. Scenario modeling for SB 375 target-setting by the four largest MPOs (percentage of change in per capita CO2 emissions from 2005).

MTCb/ABAGMPO CARB

Horizon Baselinea proposed adopted year % Alternative scenarios target % target %

HeavyHeavy Project Heavy Project Heavy Project maintenance

maintenance & land maintenance & pricing maintenance & land use & land use % use % & land use % % & pricing % & pricing % & pricing %

2020 3 3 7 5 7 5 10 7 7 72035 1 1 10 8 10 8 12 9 15 15

SCAGc

MPO CARBHorizon Baselinea proposed adoptedyear % Alternative scenarios target % target %

Blueprint land use, Blueprint, more Aggressive land use, more TDM/TSM, TDM/TSM & TDM/TSM & system

Blueprint & system system improvements, improvement, &land use % improvements% and pricing % pricing %

2020 5 7 8 9 10 6 82035 4 5 6 10 12 8 13

SANDAGd

MPO CARBHorizon Baselinea proposed adoptedyear % Alternatives, no land use Alternatives, plus aggressive land use target % target %

System System System System efficiency development Pricing Hybrid efficiency development Pricing Hybrid& TDM % % % % & TDM % % % %

2020 9 12 10 15 n/a 13 11 16 n/a 7 72035 5 9 7 11 19 10 9 12 20 13 13

SACOGe

MPO CARBHorizon Baselinea proposed adoptedyear % Alternative scenarios target % target %

Land use, Land use, transit,

Land use Transit TSM/TDM transit, TSM/TDM, enhancements % enhancement % enhancements % Pricing % TSM/TDM % pricing %

2020 4 6 4 5 5 7 8 7 72035 13 14 13 13 15 14 17 16 16

Notes: a. Baseline based on policies in adopted RTPs, adjusted for economic trends. b. Pricing: Increases auto costs fivefold (includes congestion pricingfor certain highway trips); Land Use: Transfers 200,000 people from suburbs to San Francisco; Heavy Maintenance: Includes transit expansion.c. Scenario 1: Blueprint land use, gradual improvements in infrastructure and pricing; Scenario 2: Blueprint land use, incrementally more aggressiveinfrastructure and pricing; Scenario 3: Blueprint land use, most aggressive infrastructure and pricing, with a two-cent VMT fee in 2035; Scenario 4:More aggressive land use, most aggressive infrastructure and pricing policies. d. Pricing: HOT lanes, VMT fee, parking pricing; System Development:Regional transit system improvements, bike or pedestrian system development; System Efficiency and TDM: Reduces bottlenecks, increasestelecommuting, rideshare options, safe routes to school. e. Pricing: Congestion pricing, VMT fee, employment parking, transit subsidies; Land Use:Blueprint; Transit Enhancements: Increase transit service 18%; TSM/TDM: Employer-based incentives for non-SOV commuting ITS/incidentmanagement resources, subsidized car-sharing pilot programs.Sources: Heminger et al., 2010; SANDAG, 2010; SACOG, 2010b; CARB, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c.

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 78


Nevertheless, SCAGs rebellion points to more than justpolitical differences among regions at work in the target-setting disputes; it also underscored a general concernamong participants that resources for SB 375 implementa-tion are currently inadequate.

What Will the Targets Achieve?

The adopted SB 375 targets, expressed as per capitareductions, actually result in a net increase in total emis-sions statewide because of projected population growth.CARB estimates that SB 375-related CO2 emissions frompassenger vehicles and light trucks will increase by 10%from 2005 to 2020, and by 18% from 2005 to 2035,based solely on the targeted reductions adopted (CARB,2010a). This outcome disappointed some participants,particularly environmentalists, who favored more aggres-sive SB 375 targets. The targets are also low compared toresearch suggesting that demand-side policy packages couldreduce transportation GHGs by as much as 11% by 2020,and 17% by 2035 (Cambridge Systematics, 2009).

From the start, CARB indicated that technology-forcing measures would account for the bulk of transporta-tion emissions reductions under AB 32. Recent CARBcalculations peg the contribution of SB 375 toward achiev-ing targeted emissions reductions from passenger vehiclesto meet AB 32 goals at 6% (CARB, 2011b).14 The mostsalient unanswered policy questions pertain to the post-2020 period, when it is unclear whether a technologicallydriven approach will be sufficient, especially if VMTcontinues to rise. If they are formally adopted, new federalvehicle economy standards announced in July 2011 couldimprove the outlook significantly. Furthermore, emissionsreductions from SB 375 are projected to grow substantiallyby 2035, from a 3.4 million metric ton projected reductionin annual CO2 emissions in 2020 (compared to pre-SB375 business as usual policies) to a 15.1 million metricton projected reduction in 2035 (CARB, 2010a). Theseincreasing benefits reflect the fact that many policies envi-sioned in SB 375 (such as transit-oriented development,and new transit capacity investments) require long timespans for implementation. It is precisely for this reason thatthe postponement of demand-side measures could provecounterproductive, given the deep reductions in GHGscalled for by state policy post-2020.

These conclusions are supported by research, citedearlier, which indicates that while technology-forcingmeasures hold the greatest potential for dramatically reduc-ing GHGs, the costs (including political costs) of aggres-sive carbon-neutral technology deployment are likely to be

high, and supplemental demand-side policies should alsobe included in the climate policy mix to help achieve thedeep GHG reductions called for by scientists. Many de-mand-side strategies could be less costly to implement andless socially disruptive than aggressive technological shifts,such as to carbon-neutral electricity and transportationmodes (Burbank, 2009; Cambridge Systematics, 2009;U.S. DOT, 2010). Furthermore, demand-side approachescan prevent the benefits of technology from being dilutedby sprawling development patterns and associated VMT.Nevertheless, the target-setting process indicated thatMPOs and their member local governments view political,economic, and social costs of demand-side strategies,especially land use and pricing policies, as real and high.

Local Views on SB 375

How are local government officials and plannersresponding to SB 375? This question is critical becausethey form half the regional planning equation. Our re-search demonstrates a wave of increased local interest inclimate policymaking, and greater involvement by localplanners in regional planning. However, local climatepolicy activity is occurring less in response to SB 375 thanto a second planning mandate adopted pursuant to AB 32to induce land use choices favorable to climate goals,namely, the requirement under CEQA that local agenciesreview, and, if feasible, mitigate climate impacts of devel-opment choices. This new CEQA requirement shouldbuttress SB 375 goals, but we detect cause for concern.

After AB 32s passage, Californias attorney general(now governor) Jerry Brown aggressively enforced climate-related CEQA compliance. The states Natural ResourcesAgency reinforced the mandate in 2010 by adopting newofficial guidelines (California Natural Resources Agency[CNRA], 2010). Our research indicates that many cities inCalifornia are developing climate policies in response to thenew CEQA mandate. This conclusion is based on two mainsources: an on-line survey of city planning directors weconducted in May and June of 2011, and interviews withplanners in 20 cities with adopted or in-progress ClimateAction Plans (CAPs) in 2010 and 2011. We surveyed citiesin the states four largest metropolitan regions and the eight-county San Joaquin Valley, and had a response rate of 57%.Larger cities, and those located in the Los Angeles and SanFrancisco Bay areas, were most likely to respond; neverthe-less our sample is highly representative of the full set of citiessurveyed on a range of other pertinent demographic, eco-nomic, and built-environment characteristics.15 For a fullexplication of our survey methodology and results, see our

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 79

report completed for the California Energy Commission(Barbour, Deakin, Newmark, & Lewis, in press).

One sign of climate policy activity is the adoption ofCAPs. We confirmed 58 adopted CAPs among cities in theregions we studied, or 15% of cities (Table 3).16 We detecta wave of growing interest across the state, with 70% ofsurveyed cities indicating they have CAPs adopted, inprogress, or planned.17 The adopted CAPs contain inven-tories of current emissions, reduction targets, and policiesto achieve them, and most contain strategies for trans-portation and land use.18 San Francisco- and San Diegoarea cities were most likely to have adopted CAPs. Regres-sion analysis indicates that the likelihood of CAP adoptionis strongly associated with Democratic voter registrationshares among residents, and city population size and den-sity (Barbour, Deakin et al., in press). This finding isconsistent with research indicating that central cities aremost likely to adopt CAPs (Dierwechter, 2010). However,this distinction among California cities may soon diminishin importance, given the rise of interest in CAP adoption.

According to our interviewees, CEQA requirements area prime motivation for CAP adoption. Cities with CAPsmay be better prepared for possible future mandates such asa requirement for including climate policies in GeneralPlans. Another motivation is coordinating and prioritizingsmart growth policies, which mesh well with economicdevelopment goals for many of the centrally located, cli-mate-leader cities we interviewed. This type of integrationparallels the co-benefits that facilitated passage of SB 375.

The resource problem we identified for SB 375 imple-mentation is also evident in local climate policymaking,corroborating findings on an implementation deficit inclimate policymaking in locales across the nation (Boswell

et al., 2010; Corfee-Merlot, 2009; Wheeler 2008). Amongsurveyed cities with adopted CAPs, 81% have identified a fullset of associated implementation measures for transportation,and 66% have identified implementation measures for landuses that will reduce transportation impacts. However, onlyabout one third as many have formally adopted the measures,and less than 20% of cities with CAPs have fully fundedimplementation. Even when adopted, implementationmeasures are often not enforceable or specific.

Many localities have adopted policies that can helpreduce GHG emissions, whether or not they have adoptedCAPs. For example, 78% have designated specific sites orstandards for encouraging infill and/or high-density devel-opment, according to our survey. However, transportationpricing measures are relatively rare; less than one-fifth ofcities have applied developer fees or parking charges toreduce driving. This finding echoes prior research(Bedsworth, Hanak, & Kolko, 2011) indicating thatCalifornia planners recognize the efficacy of pricing tech-niques, but cities are reluctant to adopt them. Given thatour respondents consider public opposition to highercharges for driving among the top barriers for implement-ing SB 375 (Table 4), the following question arises: Ifpricing policies are needed to achieve SB 375 goals, canMPOs overcome public and local government reluctance?

Of cities that responded to the survey, 77% reportedhaving been involved with regional blueprint planning.However, only 8% considered their regional blueprintprocess to be very effective at integrating regional andlocal needs and priorities; 46% considered it somewhateffective, 28% not effective, and 17% didnt know. Thesurvey responses display a regional pattern coincident withoutcomes in the state-level target-setting process: Higher


Table 3. Climate policy adopter cities, by region.

Cities with adopted, planned, Cities with adopted CAPsa or in-progress CAPs or similar plansb

% of population % of % of population Region % of cities in all cities surveyed cities in surveyed cities

Sacramento area 4 5 71 91SF Bay Area 39 46 86 96Los Angeles area 7 31 62 82San Diego area 17 62 67 88San Joaquin Valley 3 20 61 81Total 15 35 70 86

Notes: CAP Climate Action Plan.a. Independent assessment based on our survey; GOPR, 2010 & 2011; ILG, 2011; UCLA Luskin Center, n.d.; and additional verification. N 393.

Population data from the California Department of Finance. b. Authors survey of city planning directors, May/June 2011 (Barbour, Deakin, et al., in press). N 223.

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 80


shares of Sacramento area cities (100%), San Diego cities(100%), and San Francisco Bay area cities (79%) than LosAngeles area cities (63%) were involved in blueprint plan-ning. Higher shares of Sacramento area cities (85%) andSan Diego cities (83%) than San Francisco Bay area cities(52%) and Los Angeles area cities (46%) considered theprocess very or somewhat effective. These patterns not onlyreflect political distinctions; they also reflect the challengesof regional size and institutional complexity. The largerMPOs (in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay areas)face a substantial hurdle in bringing planners togetheracross multiple counties and hundreds of cities within theirjurisdictions. New subregional planning strategies linked toregional goals may be needed.

Perhaps the most critical measure of city engagementin blueprint planning is adoption of land use policies tomatch blueprint goals and policies; 29% of cities reportedhaving done this. Regression analysis indicates that factorsstrongly associated with this step include city populationsize and density, residents education levels, and rail/street-car access (Barbour, Deakin, et al., in press). Sacramentoarea location is also a strong predictor, unsurprising giventhe regions nationally recognized blueprint process.

The passage of SB 375 has compelled 25% of surveyedplanners to participate much more often and another 56%somewhat more often in regional planning, a positive findingfor SB 375 prospects. Regression analysis indicates that plan-ners from fast-growing mainly residential cities with limitedland for new development and more racially diverse, better-educated, non-Democratic residents are most likely to beparticipating more often (Barbour, Deakin, et al., in press).This finding points to more engagement from inner-ringsuburban cities, particularly in the Los Angeles region.

A substantial majority of survey respondents (65%)believe that stronger state policies, in particular, moreCEQA streamlining, and new funds for transit, infilldevelopment, and related infrastructure (Figure 2), areneeded to support SB 375. This finding coincides withrespondents perspective on barriers to SB 375 implemen-tation (Table 4): Respondents do not rate market condi-tions (specifically, lack of developer interest in infill), noreven public opposition to higher density development, astop barriers, pointing instead to the need for strongerstate policies, in particular, increased funding for transit, infill, and planning.

The Disconnect Between SB 375 and CEQA

Theoretically, CEQA should support SB 375, as localagencies are called on to mitigate climate impacts of devel-opment. However, we detect gaps in the states policyframework that may undermine SB 375 implementation.

CEQAs current emphasis on project-by-project miti-gation can work against regional planning goals (Landis,Pendall, Olshansky, & Huang, 1995; Olshansky, 1996).For example, a project with high local impacts (e.g., trafficcongestion and associated emissions) might still provideregional benefits when compared to re-siting the projectelsewhere (e.g., farther from transit access). However, iflocal agencies gain no credit for a projects regional benefitsduring CEQA review, they may oppose development orevaluate and mitigate based on narrow local conditions,which could be counterproductive to wider locationalstrategies.

Table 4. Planning directors assessment of barriers to achieving SB 375 goals.

Mean score, where 1 not much of a barrier and 3 a very big barrier For the region For my community

Lack of funds for transit/bus operations 2.7 2.7Lack of funds for transit/bus capital expansion 2.7 2.7Public opposition to higher charges for driving 2.6 2.6Lack of funds for infrastructure to support infill development 2.5 2.4Lack of funds for planning 2.5 2.6Lack of funds for affordable housing 2.5 2.3Existing land use patterns 2.3 2.2Public opposition to higher density development 2.3 2.3Lack of developer interest in transit-oriented or infill development 2.0 2.0Lack of requirements for intergovernmental planning consistency 1.8 1.7

Source: Authors survey of city planning directors, May/June 2011 (Barbour, Deakin, et al., in press).N 159167.

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 81

Our interviewed planners underscored these concerns.Some noted that current CAP and CEQA practice treatslocal governments and development projects as discon-nected islands, in spite of cross-cutting issues. They arguedthat better methods are needed to account for and rewarddisplaced emissions from other locations within regions(see, e.g., City of Berkeley, 2009).

CEQA allows for tiering (basing) local project reviewon wider scale development plans, but the option is notextensively employed, mainly due to cost, feasibility, andlegal concerns in assessing impacts of all projects covered ina plan (Barbour & Teitz, 2005; Governors Office ofPlanning and Research, 2003). SB 375 encourages tieringby providing that development projects deemed consis-tent with an approved SCS or APS can avoid certainCEQA requirements, including the need to assess impactson global warming from cars and light-duty truck trips.However, methods for determining consistency have notyet been developed, and better integration of regional andlocal modeling and measurement may be needed for thisstrategy to work well. Some agencies are working to pro-mote plan- rather than project-based analysis, which couldhelp in linking local CEQA review to regional plans underSB 375; for example, the San Francisco Bay area air agencyreleased guidelines stipulating that a qualified CAP may

be used in place of project-by-project climate review (BayArea Air Quality Management District, 2010).19 However,interviewed planners explained that developing a CEQA-compliant CAP is challenging. About one fifth (22%) ofour survey respondents indicated that they would like toutilize their citys CAP as a basis for CEQA review; how-ever, four fifths (80%) also indicated that they need techni-cal assistance for completing CEQA review of climate-related land use and transport strategies.

Meanwhile, few MPOs have adequate capacity to modelimplications of local development choices at the project-by-project level required under CEQA. Thus, a regionallocalgap separates SCS and CEQA plan-level review. SACOG,the Sacramento area MPO, has gone farthest in bridging thisgap. Through a grant awarded by the new federal Sustain-able Communities Program, SACOG is working to identifyfive transit priority areas for thorough environmental plananalysis, which in turn may form the basis for completeCEQA exemption of covered projects.

Conclusion

We see cause for both optimism and concern regard-ing SB 375, Californias experiment in regional smartgrowth climate policy. While the SB 375 model has


Figure 2. Planning directors support for new state policy measures to support SB 375.Source: Authors survey of city planning directors, May/June 2011 (Barbour, Deakin, et al., in press). N 158161.

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 82

positive attributes, progress to date reveals basic shortcom-ings in the framework for execution.

On the positive side, SB 375 and the new CEQAguidelines are clearly prodding planners to develop climatemitigation techniques. Local interest in climate policymak-ing and regional planning is widespread. At the state level,the establishment of mandated regional targets has placeddemand-side climate strategies more concretely within theframework of Californias articulated policy portfolio forreducing GHGs, providing the opportunity for greaterdeliberation about relative costs, benefits, and contributionsof various policy components. SB 375 also represents avaluable step toward more systematic growth managementin the state, with every region now facing an overarching,outcome-oriented performance target that focuses attentionon coordinating smart growth policies. MPOs and CARBare collaboratively devising analytical approaches and mov-ing toward systematizing modeling and measurement. Thebenefits of more systematic and transparent data analysis andmodeling across MPOs should not be underestimated infacilitating effective engagement and program monitoring bystakeholders and the public.

SB 375s collaborative framework, which helped ensurethe laws political acceptance, may well be the right basis forundertaking the challenging task of inventing a systematicmethod for assigning and implementing regional and localresponsibilities for GHG mitigation from smart growth.The target-setting process proved to be a viable method forassigning regional GHG reduction targets to MPOs. How-ever, a collaborative process can be expected to producesubstantial change in planning practice only if a widerframework of policies and market conditions also favors thegoals of the process. The necessary policy framework iscurrently lacking in the case of SB 375, particularly at thestate and federal levels. The CEQA streamlining optionsavailable under the law may not substantially alter businessas usual, and the state has few programs or fiscal policies inplace that support infill and transit-oriented development.SCAGs rebellion during the target-setting process under-scored this fundamental flaw in current execution of SB375, namely, the lack of adequate resources for implementa-tion. In this context, even the states new CEQA mandate,which theoretically should support SB 375 objectives, maybe counterproductive if local action is not tied more con-cretely to regional costs and benefits.

Given the lack of supportive policies, SB 375 currentlyproduces a mismatch between authority and responsibility,expecting more from MPOs than they can easily achieve. Asother growth-management states have learned, incentive-based strategies depend for success on the presence of realincentives, regardless of procedural goals (DeGrove, 2005).

Although expected to coordinate transportation and land useunder SB 375, MPOs have no authority over land use, andthey directly control few resources. Unless MPOs gainsubstantially more control over resources, and/or localitiesface stronger mandates or incentives for orienting land usesto SCS goals, the MPO facilitator role will be constrained.The first-round SB 375 targets reflect this predicament:They indicate that unless conditions change, SB 375 maycontribute only minimally to achieving the states climategoals, at least during the time span of the law.

The SB 375 process is iterative, dependent on RTPplanning that occurs in four-year cycles in most Californiaregions. SB 375 benefits can be enhanced over time, espe-cially if new supportive federal and state programs areenacted. Policies and programs should tie regional andlocal costs and benefits of climate policies more concretely.New federal- or state-level funding for development proj-ects and planning capacity aimed at SB 375 implementa-tion would help. However, such funds are hard to come byat a time of budget constraint. Providing greater fiscalauthority at the regional level tied to SB 375-related out-comes might be a promising route, given that Californiavoters have been willing to pass local infrastructure-relatedmeasures in recent years (Hanak, 2009). A more concertedeffort by the state to coordinate its own investments andprograms (such as siting and funding school constructionand other infrastructure) with SB 375 goals could alsohelp. CEQA reform is another option currently gainingattention from state policymakers, especially to connectSCSs under SB 375 to local CEQA tiering.

The interest group coalition that crafted SB 375 de-signed the law as a procedural one that relies on a voluntaristdecision-making process to achieve smart growth climategoals. To make this model viable for achieving substantialclimate benefits, support must now also be mobilized forstronger implementation policies and programs.

Notes1. This calculation is based on projected GHG emissions reductions by2020 from the following policy measures outlined in CARBs 2008Scoping Plan: Pavley vehicle efficiency standards, Advanced Clean Carmeasures (called Pavley II in the Scoping Plan), the Low Carbon FuelStandard, regional transportation-related GHG targets (SB 375), andadditional vehicle efficiency measures, including tire pressure regulationand low-friction oil programs (CARB, 2011b). CARB revised itsemissions reduction projections for these policy measures in 2011 toaccount for effects of the economic downturn and measure-specificregulations, developed since the release of the Scoping Plan; our calcula-tion is based on the revised estimates. 2. Feasible is broadly defined, using the same definition currently foundin CEQA (California Government Code 65080.01[c]).3. Under RHNA, COGs must assign to each locality its so-called fair-share responsibility for providing adequate housing for all income levels,


RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 83

such that each COGs RHNA plan meets housing targets assigned bythe California Department of Housing and Community Development.4. For more detailed analysis of these provisions of SB 375, see Adamset al. (2009).5. The blueprint moniker has been employed in California since 2005,when the state government established the Regional Blueprint PlanningProgram to encourage adoption of the approach statewide. Since 2005,the state has provided $21 million for blueprint planning. 6. By 2004, the MPOs in the four largest regions had each adopted ablueprint (see Barbour & Teitz, 2006). Since then, plans have also beenadopted by the Shasta and San Luis Obispo County MPOs, the multi-county Monterey Bay Area MPO, and a consortium of eight MPOs inthe San Joaquin (Central) Valley. The eight Valley counties are Fresno,Kings, Kern, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare.7. Along these lines, three of the states four largest MPOs have insti-tuted competitive grant programs, funded at $10 million annually ormore, for local smart growth projects. One MPO, in the San FranciscoBay area, also enacted a policy conditioning approval of funding for newBART system rail extensions on the adoption of specified supportiveland use policies by surrounding local jurisdictions.8. Under CEQA, public agencies must evaluate and require mitigation,if feasible, of significant adverse effects of proposed developmentprojects and plans. SB 375 provides that development projects deemedconsistent with an approved SCS or APS can avoid certain CEQArequirements, including the need to assess growth-inducing impacts andproject-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty trucktrips on global warming. In addition, infill projects that meet certain,stricter criteria are eligible for more extensive streamlining, up to andincluding total exemption from CEQA review.9. The RTAC was tasked with recommending factors to be consideredand methodologies to be used for setting the targets, and with submit-ting its recommendations to CARB by September 30, 2009 (CaliforniaGovernment Code 65080[b][2][A][i]).10. The RTAC recommended that each MPO estimate baseline GHGemissions for 2005, 2020, and 2035 based on existing policies, adjustedfor effects of the economic downturn, and using standardized assump-tions for fuel prices and auto operating costs; fleet mix and fuel effi-ciency standards; population forecasts; funding shortfalls and expectedrevenues; and interaction of goods movement with passenger vehicles.Then MPOs would model potential new policy measures for reducingGHGs, share results, and submit proposed targets to CARB.11. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/mpo/info.htm for MPOexplanations.12. The San Francisco Bay area MPO modeled an aggressive pricingstrategy that would increase auto operating costs for some trips nearlyfive-fold, noting, This is necessary to move the GHG emissionsneedle (Heminger et al., 2010, p. 2).13. On the question of adequacy of California MPO modeling capacity,see Rose (2011) and Matute (2011). The RTAC surveyed MPOs aboutmodeling practices, finding that while all the MPOs use travel demandmodels, their complexity and the staff resources devoted to them varywidely throughout the state. Many of the policy options promoted bySB 375 require either advanced modeling techniques or post-processingtools to evaluate. Pursuant to SB 375, the California TransportationCommission established graduated modeling standards for MPOs inregions of different population size, projected population growth rates,and air quality attainment levels (California Transportation Commis-sion, 2010). The state also provided $90 million from bond funds forcompetitive grants to MPOs and localities for planning and modelingimprovements.

14. SB 375 is projected to achieve a reduction of 3.4 million metric tonsof CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2020, compared to baselineemissions for that year (based on pre-SB 375 policies in existing RTPs,adjusted for effects of the economic downturn; CARB, 2010a). Thisreduction constitutes 6% of the total reductions projected to beachieved by 2020 from the following specific sources: Pavley vehicleefficiency standards, Advanced Clean Car measures (called Pavley II inCARBs original Scoping Plan), the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, regionaltransportation-related GHG targets (SB 375), and additional vehicleefficiency measures, including tire pressure regulation and low-frictionoil programs (CARB, 2011b).15. Our sample was representative of the full set of cities surveyed inrelation to the following characteristics (factors also employed in ourregression analysis): percent population growth from 2000 to 2010;percentage of non-White or Hispanic population; percentage of popula-tion ages 25+ with a BA or higher education level; percentage Democratof registered voters; median home value; job concentration (ratio of thenumber of jobs located in the city to the number of city residents whowork); population density on land area; transit commute mode shareamong residents who work; and rail and/or streetcar access. Our respon-dent cities contain 77% of the population in all the cities surveyed, and61% of the states total population. We conducted interviews with CAPplanners from the following cities: Alameda, Albany, Benicia, Berkeley,Chula Vista, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, Palo Alto,Pittsburg, Richmond, Sacramento, San Carlos, San Francisco, San Jose,San Leandro, San Rafael, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz. 16. Our list of CAP-adopter cities consists of Alameda, Albany, Anti-och, Apple Valley, Beaumont, Belvedere, Benicia, Berkeley, Burlingame,Calistoga, Chula Vista, Cloverdale, Cotati, Daly City, Davis, Dublin,Emeryville, Encinitas, Fresno, Hayward, Healdsburg, Hermosa Beach,Hesperia, Hillsborough, Laguna Beach, Larkspur, Lomita, Long Beach,Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, Martinez, Menlo Park, Newark,Novato, Oakland, Palo Alto, Pasadena, Petaluma, Piedmont, RedwoodCity, Rohnert Park, San Carlos, San Clemente, San Diego, San Fran-cisco, San Leandro, San Mateo, San Rafael, San Ramon, Santa Monica,Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, Temecula, Tiburon, Tracy, UnionCity, and Windsor. We defined a fully developed CAP as one contain-ing measurement of emissions by source, identification of emissionsreduction goals, and identification of implementation measures. 17. This finding, along with others from our survey related to localadoption of GHG-related transportation and land use strategies,corroborates results from prior research conducted by the Public PolicyInstitute of California; see Hanak et al. (2008) and Bedsworth et al.(2011).18. The CAPs we studied identify reduction targets that mostly meet orexceed the level recommended for local governments by CARB (15% by2020; CARB, 2008b). Many cities are climate leaders in their ownright, having adopted their CAPs long before the state passed AB 32. Indeveloping CAPs, local governments usually partner with organizationsthat provide the technical expertise, in particular, Local Governmentsfor Sustainability (ICLEI). More than one quarter of Californias 480cities (133 cities) are ICLEI members, a much higher share than in therest of the United States (which includes only another 408 membercities among the approximately 20,000 cities and townships nation-wide). ICLEI assists local governments in completing a five-step processto: 1) inventory current emissions; 2) adopt an emissions reductiontarget; 3) plan policy actions to achieve the target; 4) implement themeasures; and 5) monitor plan implementation. 19. A qualified CAP is defined as one that identifies baseline emissionsand projected emissions trends and which quantitatively demonstrates


RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 84

how it will achieve a reduction target compatible with state policy (AB32 or S-3-05), and which is formally reviewed under CEQA.

ReferencesAdams, T., Eaken, A., & Notthoff, A. (2009). Communities tackleglobal warming: A guide to Californias SB 375. Sacramento, CA:California League of Conservation Voters and Natural ResourcesDefense Council. Adler, J. H. (2007). Hothouse flowers: The vices and virtues of climatefederalism. Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, 17(2), 443464.Adler, S., & Dill, J. (2004). 11 The evolution of transportation plan-ning in the Portland metropolitan area. In Ozawa, C., ed. The Portlandedge: Challenges and successes in growing communities (pps. 230256).Washington, DC: Island Press.Andreen, W., Glicksman, R., Mendelson, N., Steinzor, R., & Jones, S.(2008). Cooperative federalism and climate change (White paper No.803). Edgewater, MD: Center for Progressive Reform.Bailey, J. (2007). Lessons from the pioneers: Tackling global warming atthe local level. Minneapolis, MN: Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Barbour, E., Deakin, E., Newmark, G., & Lewis, M. (in press).Implementing climate policy for transportation and land use in California:Evaluating local and regional action under Senate Bill 375. Berkeley, CA:Center for Global Metropolitan Studies, University of California, forthe California Energy Commission.Barbour, E., & Kueppers, L. (in press). Conservation and managementof ecological systems in a changing California. Climactic Change. Barbour, E., & Teitz, M. (2005). CEQA reform: Issues and options. SanFrancisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.Barbour, E., & Teitz, M. (2006). Blueprint planning in California:Forging consensus on metropolitan growth and development. San Francisco,CA: Public Policy Institute of California.Barth, M., & Boriboonsomsin, K. (2008). Real-world CO2 impacts fromtraffic congestion (Working paper No. 846). Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Transportation Center. Bartholomew, K., & Ewing, R. (2009). Land usetransportationscenario planning: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, 75(1), 115. Bassett, E., & Shandas, V. (2010). Innovation and climate actionplanning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(4), 435450. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (2010). CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act air quality guidelines. San Francisco, CA: BayArea Air Quality Management District.Bedsworth, L., Hanak, E., & Kolko, J. (2011). Driving change:Reducing vehicle miles traveled in California. San Francisco, CA: PublicPolicy Institute of California.Betsill, M., & Bulkeley, H. (2007). Looking back and thinking ahead:A decade of cities and climate change research. Local Environment,12(5), 447456.Boarnet, M. G. (2010). Planning, climate change, and transportation:Thoughts on policy analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy andPractice, 44(8), 587595.Boarnet, M. G., Houston, D., Ferguson, G., & Spears, S. (2010). Landuse and vehicle miles of travel in the climate change debate: Getting smarterthan your average bear. Retrieved August 20, 2011, from http://economics.ucr.edu/spring11/Boarnet%20paper%20for%205%204%2011%20seminar.pdfBoswell, M. R., Greve, A. I., & Seale, T. L. (2010). An assessment of thelink between greenhouse gas emissions inventories and climate actionplans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(4), 451462.

Bulkeley, H. (2010). Cities and the governing of climate change.Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 229253.Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. (2005). Rethinking sustainable cities:Multilevel governance and the urban politics of climate change.Environmental Politics, 14(1), 4263.Burbank, C. J. (2009). Strategies for reducing the impacts of surfacetransportation on global climate change: A synthesis of policy research andstate and local mitigation strategies. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.Byrne, J., Hughes, K., Rickerson, W., & Kurdgelashvili, L. (2007).American policy conflict in the greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal,regional, state, and local green energy and climate change policy. EnergyPolicy, 35(9), 45554573. California Air Resources Board. (n.d.). 20002008 greenhouse gasinventory by scoping plan category. Sacramento, CA: Author. RetrievedNovember 1, 2010, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm California Air Resources Board. (2008a). Climate change scoping planappendices: Volume 1. Sacramento, CA: Author.California Air Resources Board. (2008b). Climate change scoping plan:A framework for change. Sacramento, CA: Author.California Air Resources Board. (2010a). Proposed SB 375 greenhousegas targets: Documentation of the resulting emissions reductions based onMPO data. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved August 29, 2011, fromhttp://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm#backgroundCalifornia Air Resources Board. (2010b). Staff report: Proposedregional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets pursuant to Senate Bill375. Sacramento, CA: Author.California Air Resources Board. (2010c, September 23). Boardmeeting [transcript]. Sacramento, CA: Author.California Air Resources Board. (2011a, February 24). Board meeting[transcript]. Sacramento, CA: Author.California Air Resources Board. (2011b). Status of scoping planrecommended measures, July. Sacramento, CA: Author.California Government Code Sections 65080-65086.5, and 65580-65589.8. Available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov California Natural Resources Agency. (2010). Adopted text of theCEQA guidelines amendments (adopted December 30, 2009, effectiveMarch 18, 2010). Sacramento, CA: Author.California Transportation Commission. (2010). 2010 Californiaregional transportation plan guidelines. Sacramento, CA: Author.Calthorpe, P., & Fulton, W. (2001). Regional cities. Washington, DC:Island Press.Cambridge Systematics. (2009). Moving cooler: An analysis of trans-portation strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Washington,DC: Author.City of Berkeley. (2009). Climate action plan. Berkeley, CA: Author.Corfee-Morlot, J., Kamal-Chaoui, L., Donovan, M. G., Cochran, I.,Robert, A., & Teasdale, P. J. (2009). Cities, climate change and multi-level governance (OECD Environmental Working Papers No. 14). Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Creyts, J., Derkach, A., Nyquist, S., Ostrowksi, K., & Stephenson, J.(2007). Reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions: How much at what cost?Washington, DC: McKinsey & Company and The Conference Board.Deakin, E. (2011). Climate change and sustainable transportation: Thecase of California. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 137(6),372382.DeGrove, J. M. (2005). Planning policy and politics: Smart growth andthe states. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.


RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 85


Dernbach, J. C., McKinstry, R. B., & Peterson, T. D. (2008). Federalclimate change legislation as if the states matter. Natural Resources andEnvironment, 22(3), 38.Dierwechter, Y. (2010). Metropolitan geographies of U.S. climateaction: Cities, suburbs, and the local divide in global responsibilities.Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(1), 5982.Doremus, H., & Hanemann, W. M. (2008). Of babies and bathwater:Why the Clean Air Acts cooperative federalism framework is useful foraddressing global warming (Legal Studies Research Paper Series No.144). Davis, CA: University of California, Davis.Drummond, W. J. (2010). Statehouse versus greenhouse. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association, 76(4), 413433. Engel, K. (2006). State and local climate change initiatives: What ismotivating state and local governments to address a global problem andwhat does this say about federalism and environmental law (Arizona LegalStudies Discussion Paper No. 06-36). Phoenix, AZ: University ofArizona, James E. Rogers College of Law.Ewing, R., Bartholomew, K., Winkelman, S., Walters, J., & Chen, D.(2008). Growing cooler: The evidence on urban development and climatechange. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.Fulton, W. (2008, October 1). SB 375 is now lawbut what will itdo? California Planning and Development Report. Retrieved November 1,2011 from http://www.cp-dr.com/node/2140Governors Office of Planning and Research (GOPR). (2003).CEQA streamlining mechanisms used. Planners book of lists, 2003.Sacramento, CA: Author.Governors Office of Planning and Research (GOPR). (2010). Citiesand counties addressing climate change. Retrieved April 3, 2011, fromwww.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/City_and_County_Plans_Addressing_Climate_Change.pdfGovernors Office of Planning and Research (GOPR). (2011).Planners book of lists. Sacramento, CA: Author.Greene, D., & Plotkin, S. (2011). Reducing greenhouse gas emissionsfrom U.S. transportation. Washington, DC: Pew Center on GlobalClimate Change. Hanak, E. (2009). Paying for infrastructure: California's choices. SanFrancisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.Hanak, E., Bedsworth, L., Swanbeck, S., & Malaczynski, J. (2008).Climate policy at the local level: A survey of Californias cities and counties.San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.Haney, H. (2010). SB 375: Promises and pitfalls. Ecology Law Quarter-lyCurrents, 37, 4657. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://elq.typepad.com/currents/2010/06/currents37-06-haney-2010-0606.htmlHeminger, S., Ikhrata, H., Gallegos, G., & McKeever, M. (2010).Preliminary report on Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)/AirResources Board (ARB) Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) target setting process.Retrieved August 29, 2011, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/data/data.htm Henderson, A., & Cammarota, N. (2009). A review and analysis of thelegislative history of California Senate Bill 375: Moving beyond vehiclemiles traveled. Retrieved September 11, 2011, from http://www.slideshare.net/kerntax/sb-375-analysis-and-intentInstitute for Local Government (ILG). (2011). Evaluate Bay Areaprogress. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from http://www.ca-ilg.org/bayareaprogress Landis, J., Pendall, R., Olshansky, R., & Huang, W. (1995). FixingCEQA: Options and opportunities for reforming the California Environ-mental Quality Act. Berkeley, CA: California Policy Seminar.

Luskin Center. (n.d.) Southern California climate action database.Retrieved April 3, 2011, from http://www.lewis.ucla.edu/climate/CAD/Lutsey, N., & Sperling, D. (2008). Americas bottom-up climatechange mitigation policy. Energy Policy, 36(2), 673685. Matute, J. (2011). Measuring progress toward transportation GHG goals.Los Angeles, CA: Luskin Center, University of California, Los Angeles.Office of the Governor of California. (2008). Governor Schwarzeneg-ger signs sweeping legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughland-use. Press release, September 30. Retrieved November 17, 2011from http://resources.ca.gov/schwarzenegger_agency_news.htmlOlshansky, R. B. (1996). The California Environmental Quality Actand local planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3),313330.Pew Center on Global Climate Change. (n.d.) Climate change 101:State action. Retrieved April 1, 2011 from http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/climate_change_101Rabe, B. G. (2006). Second generation climate policies in the Americanstates: Proliferation, diffusion, and regionalization. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution. Regional Targets Advisory Committee. (2009). Recommendations ofthe Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) pursuant to Senate Bill375: A report to the Air Resources Board. Sacramento, CA: Author.Rodier, C. (2009). Review of international modeling literature. Trans-portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,2132(1), 112. Rose, E. (2011). Leveraging a new law: Reducing greenhouse gas emissionsunder Senate Bill 375. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley,Center for Resource-Efficient Communities.Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). (2010a). Land-Use-Deployment-SACOG060410. Retrieved September 12, 2011, fromhttp://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/mpo/info.htmSacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). (2010b).RTAC scenarios: Description of scenario testing for SB 375 greenhouse gasreduction target setting. Retrieved September 12, 2011, fromhttp://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/mpo/info.htmSan Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). (2010). Re-sponses to ARB questions. Retrieved September 12, 2011, fromhttp://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/mpo/info.htm Senate Bill 375. Introduced by Senator Darrell Steinberg February 21,2007. Approved by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger September 30,2008. Available at http://www.leginfo.ca.govTransportation Research Board. (2009). Driving and the built environ-ment: The effects of compact development on motorized travel, energy useand CO2 emissions. Washington, DC: Author.U.S. Department of Transportation. (2010). Transportations role inreducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions [report to Congress]. Washington,DC: Author.U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Com-merce. (2008). Climate change legislation design white paper: Appropriateroles for different levels of government. Washington, DC: Author.Wachs, M. (2004). Reflections on the planning process. In S. Hanson& G. Giuliano (Eds.), The geography of urban transportation (pp.141162). New York, NY: Guilford.Wheeler, S. M. (2008). State and municipal climate change plans.Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 481496. Wiener, J. B. (2006). Think globally, act globally: The limits of local climate policies. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155(6),1961.

RJPA_A_645272.qxp 1/30/12 4:13 PM Page 86

Copyright of Journal of the American Planning Association is the property of Routledge and its content may notbe copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express writtenpermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

barbour- smart growth planning for climate protection

Documents