In the article recently published in the California Real Property Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, (January 2009) I explain the problem of governance that combating global warming through more efficient land use and development practices poses for California.  The California Constitution directly establishes the police power of cities and counties, and state statutes enshrines the principle of local control for all land use, planning and zoning issues.  The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (better known by its bill number, AB 32) commits the state to reducing greenhouse gas emission levels equivalent to those as they existed in 1990 - a reduction of roughly 30% from the average in 2004-2006 -- by the year 2020. This puts local control of land use on a collision course with centralized state command & control regulatory regime that AB 32 creates to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction mandate.

AB 32 assigns the principle responsibility for developing an overall plan to accomplish the GhG reduction goal to the California Air Resources Board (CARB).  CARB has the authority to adopt regulations needed to meet it, and to impose fines and/or injunctions or other penalties for failure to comply.  CARB is also to recommend measures to further reduce emissions by another 60- 80% by 2050, in line with the Kyoto Protocol and recommended by the vast majority of climate scientists as necessary to keep human induced climate change from spiraling out of control and causing hugely disruptive changes in the earth's climate and sea levels.

CARB's Scoping Plan adopted in December 2008 identifies that the transportation sector is the biggest contributor of GhG emissions, with autos and light trucks being the greatest share, accounting for roughly 28% of all emission sources in the state.  CARB's Scoping Plan relies primarily on much improved vehicle emissions standards (requiring a waiver from the U.S. EPA) and alternative low-carbon fuel requirements to meet the 2020 challenge.  The longer range problem focuses attention on the contribution to emissions in the transportation sector that results from California's predominate pattern of auto-centric sprawl development. 

The key metric is "vehicle miles traveled" or VMT, which takes into account the number of trips and the distance traveled.  Different land use decisions that are more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, mix residential and employment centers in closer proximity, allow for increased density along transit corridors are all techniques that may help decrease VMT, and therefore reduce emissions.

SB 375 creates a framework for local governments to use their land use authority to meaningfully address the goal of reducing GhG without making CARB a super-planning agency for the state.  The process starts by setting GhG reduction targets from transportation and land use sectors for different regions through a consultative process involving local governments, regional planning agencies, the public and CARB. Each regional planning agency then prepares a "Sustainable Community Strategy" to meet the target, if possible, based on existing general plans and zoning in effect for each local government in the region.  If it is determined that it is not feasible to meet the target based on these constraints, then the region is to develop an "Alternative Planing strategy" that would achieve the targeted cuts, if adopted by the local governments. The process is the ideal forum for environmental and climate change advocates to energize citizens at the local level so that localized, context-sensitive solutions can be adopted.  The cycle then repeats every eight years until 2050. 

Funding for this ambitious new planning regime is to some extent piggy-backed from federal transportation planning money, with the rest to come from local governments themselves for their planning staff work and through increased funding for regional planning by assessing themselves.  To the extent that the increase of the housing element update cycle times will lower costs, presumably the money saved is theoretically available to be redirected  for the SB 375 process. 

While SB 375 lessens the potential for a political meltdown on governance and local land use powers, all the planning and collaboration and good will between levels of government to reduce GhG is meaningless without the means to build and expand the utility infrastructure to support higher density infill and redevelopment of existing developed areas and to develop the mass-transit systems and get people out of their cars. The biggest challenge is yet to come -- reforming state and local government tax and bond programs - and the state budget process - to at least adjust the handcuffs with which the voters, through Props 13 and 128, have shackled state and local government.