Is reducing greenhouse gases through sustainable community-guided transportation planning good for the economy? Will SB 375, the sustainable communities bill enacted in October 2008, give local governments like Glendale enough flexibility to address housing, transportation, and land-use issues or will it feature a top-down regulatory mandate that drives away local investment?
These were two of the questions addressed during an afternoon panel discussion at the Mobility 21 summit of Southern California transportation leaders. Three government council executive directors, the President and CEO of the California Business Properties Association, and a planning liaison from the California Air Resources Board (who had been on the job for six weeks) took part in the discussion.
According to Governor Schwarzenegger’s fact sheet, SB 375 is the nation’s first law to control greenhouse gas emissions by curbing sprawl, providing emissions-reducing goals for sustainable development, and enhancing the Air Resources Board’s (ARB) ability to reach AB 32 greenhouse gas reduction goals.
The business leaders expressed strong concerns that the “command and control” approach of the state legislature won’t work in implementing greenhouse gas emissions guidelines to be developed in 2010 under this law.
Hasan Ihkrata, Southern California Association of Governments Executive Director, said that targets will only be met if they make economic sense, and if cities and businesses are given “appropriate incentives to encourage sustainable development.”
Lee Harrington, Southern California Leadership Council CEO, warned that “it is developers, at the end of the day, that have to build these projects”, and we won’t have an adequate supply of housing if we negatively impact the economic bottom line for the private sector. He went on to tell the audience that he didn’t want to be stereotyped, because he has invested in solar energy and sustainable materials in his own residence and he does “believe we have to be smarter about the way we live.” Harrington said that the greenhouse gas provisions in SB 375 were “opportunistic” but reflect reality.
Among the business implications of SB 375 for transportation leaders at this discussion:
California lacks a strategic plan for growth and has no financial resources now to fund a plan.
Current state structural and fiscal policies provide disincentives for smart growth.
The potential costs of compliance are massive – up to $250 million.
A regulatory construct won’t work.
Redevelopment of urban infill zones to create sustainable communities can’t happen without redevelopment funds.
Transit plans are an important component of any future sustainable development proposal, but the state has defunded transit.
At this point, Terry Roberts of the California Air Resources Board acknowledged that the board recognizes the need for more transit funds. The discussion concluded with questions from the audience including ideas about specific incentives beyond the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) negative declarations for projects within 1/2 mile of major public transit stops.
***On an encouraging note, the moderator asked the 70+ people in the room how many of them had taken public transit to attend the Mobility 21 meeting, and more than 1/3 raised their hands. This editor was one of them.