Anti-Sprawl Bill Clears Legislature
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gets landmark measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The state Senate on Saturday passed landmark legislation intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while improving land use and transportation planning to accommodate California’s population growth. An unlikely coalition of environmental organizations, homebuilder associations, local governments and affordable housing advocates had joined forces behind the anti-sprawl measure.
The legislation — SB 375 by Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento — is a follow-up measure to AB 32, which had mandated that California cut its greenhouse gas levels 30 percent by 2020. SB 375 cleared the Senate on a 25-14 vote, with Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, voting against it. The bill passed the Assembly on a 49-22 vote Monday, with Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, voting for it.
» The state Air Resources Board will set regional greenhouse gas reduction targets after consultation with local governments. That target must be incorporated within that region’s Regional Transportation Plan, or RTP, the long-term blueprint of a region’s transportation system. The resulting model will be called the Sustainable Communities Strategy.
» Each region’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment, or RHNA — the state-mandated process for local jurisdictions to address their fair share of regional housing needs — will be adjusted to align with the land-use plan in that region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy in its RTP.
» The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, the state’s principal environmental protection statute, would be amended so the review process rewards development projects that improve air quality and energy conservation, especially transit priority projects. In return, environmentalists would have a greater say in how and where projects are located to best reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill, although he champions reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promotes building more homes within urban cores.
Environmental groups were quick to hail the measure’s passage Saturday.
“We need to get Californians beyond being stuck in our cars, sitting in traffic,” said Ann Notthoff, California advocacy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the leading sponsors. “SB 375 will help get us moving again and cut global warming pollution at the same time. We look forward to working with the broad coalition that came together to support this bill to make sure it is implemented effectively.”
Tom Adams, board president of the California League of Conservation Voters, sounded a similar theme.
“SB 375 is not just another example of California’s national environmental leadership,” he said. “That the cradle of car culture is the first to tackle the global warming problem of long commutes is a watershed moment.”
McClintock, whose district includes Santa Barbara and Goleta, dissented. Describing the bill as “bureaucratic central planning over individual freedom of choice,” he said it would discourage developers from building traditional suburban neighborhoods that provide more space.
Noozhawk publisher Bill Macfadyen can be reached at .
» wrote on 08/31/08 @ 10:34 AM
To call SB 375 an “anti-sprawl bill” is about as disingenous as one can get. This is yet another piece of state legislation written by the homebuilders association--look at what is buried----mandates RHNA rezoning within a certain period of time and actually MANDATES approval of certain “affordable housing” rezoning/projects. This is but an EXTENSION of already existing high-density development state legislation, “masked” as an “environmental” piece of legislation.
Doubt me? Go to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_cfa_20080830_124648_sen_floor.html and read it to the end…
» wrote on 08/31/08 @ 02:37 PM
“Compact” is the new word coined to replace the word ‘Dense” by the smart growth advocates. Because the word compact give an impression of “small”. Most people don’t like “dense” development as the know it it means big buildings, a lot of population growth and an increase in traffic congestion so the growth advocates now use the word “compact”. But “compact” development results in big monster buildings and is like a big SUV rather than a small “compact” car. So don’t be fooled by the use of the word “compact” development, when the real meaning is dense develo[pment.
» wrote on 08/31/08 @ 04:58 PM
Shell Game is saying the Natural Resources Defense Council is a front group for the homebuilders?! I had no idea! That’s quite a neat trick those crafty developers have pulled off. They must have been planning this for some 20 years!
» wrote on 08/31/08 @ 05:52 PM
Slowly but surely, California is taking baby steps to turn around the policies of sprawl. It will surely take time and leadership to reduce vehicle miles travelled, but peak oil, global warming and environmental degradation are easing us, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century.
We heard last week from Denver a lot about “energy independence”, “the technology of tomorrow” and “borrowing from the Chinese to buy oil from the Persian Gulf”. Beyond better fuels and better cars, our region, State and Nation need to also take strong measures against sprawl and automobile dependency.
» wrote on 08/31/08 @ 11:43 PM
Alex, I agree that sprawl is bad and I am totally against building height restrictions. But Legislating this stuff is just plain wrong. I cannot in good conscience oppose restrictions on building sizes and shapes and then agree that we tell people what kind of buildings they must live in. That my friend is pure elitism and has no place in a country whose greatness was fueled by free markets. And for God’s sake a professional of your caliber shouldn’t be buying into this global warming crap. Yes the planet is heating up and no not a thing we do is going to stop it. We really do need to focus on adapting to it rather than trying to stop it (like pissing on a forest fire in a vein attempt at slowing it down). I know that you as an architect feel frustration that the market doesn’t always follow good rules of design, form doesn’t always follow function and our urban areas often resemble slightly controlled chaos. It must be equally frustrating when the legions of small minded selfish people hijack common sense and use government as a tool for dictating your job (no-growth and limits), but this legislation isn’t any different. We must be careful what we ask for.
» wrote on 09/02/08 @ 06:13 PM
This Bill sucks!