9.5: The Land Use Problem

Shortly after AB 32 was passed, there was a growing realization that CARB had few tools to bring about emission reductions from regional land use planning and transit-oriented development patterns that reduce vehicle travel. Such plans would encourage denser, mixed-use development in urban centers and in other places well served by public transit, in contrast to the sprawl that has characterized much postwar development in California.

However, in considering land use planning, CARB ran up against the limits to its regulatory authority. While CARB had achieved success through command-and-control policies and performance standards such as the Pavley clean car standards, and through market-based approaches such as cap and trade, it had no authority over local land use decisions, which are jealously guarded by local governments—that is, cities and counties—as their own prerogative. And in contrast to out-of-state car manufacturers and oil companies, which had little clout with decision makers, local governments wielded substantial influence in the state legislature. Given that transportation accounts for more than 40% of California’s greenhouse gas emissions, not including a further 7% from petroleum refining and hydrogen production, this was a major gap in the state’s climate policy arsenal.

The legislative compromise was for CARB to set regional targets for emission reductions from the transportation sector but to avoid imposing any mandates on local governments. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, makes the state’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)—regional agencies that plan for freeways and public transit expansions and make other large-scale transportation spending decisions—responsible for developing plans to meet these targets. Each MPO was asked to develop a sustainable communities strategy to demonstrate the combination of land use patterns and transportation policies that would allow it to meet its regional target. When it was passed, SB 375 was billed by Governor Schwarzenegger as the “nation’s first law to control greenhouse gas emissions by curbing sprawl.”

Figure 9.5.1 Regional greenhouse gas reduction targets. Targets refer to the reduction in per capita passenger vehicle emissions between 2005 and 2035, as adopted in 2018. The four largest regions (Southern California, San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, and Sacramento) each have a 19% reduction target. Smaller regions have reduction targets ranging from 4% to 17%. Data from California Air Resources Board 2019. Map by Jesus Contreras, UC Santa Cruz.

The process of setting the targets involved detailed modeling work and a negotiation between CARB and each metropolitan region. Some regions went beyond CARB’s initial proposal, while other regions were more recalcitrant. The most recent (2018) round of targets call for reductions in per capita passenger vehicle emissions of 3% to 15% between 2005 and 2020, and 4% to 19% between 2005 and 2035. The more limited reductions apply to smaller regions such as Monterey Bay and Shasta, while the most ambitious apply to the four largest metropolitan areas (Figure 9.5.1).

So far, SB 375 has led to incremental progress, but it is far from a revolution that is overturning entrenched patterns of urban sprawl. On the positive side, each region has developed a sustainable communities strategy that, according to its modeling, will meet its target. The law has changed the way that planning is done in many regions, leading to a greater emphasis on climate change and integration of transportation and land use planning efforts. And some regions have responded enthusiastically. In the San Francisco Bay Area, for example, regional agencies introduced a new grant program that rewards cities for building housing close to transit and implementing affordable housing policies.

Figure 9.5.2 Vehicle travel and CO2 trends in California. The orange line indicates vehicle miles traveled per person, and the blue line shows emissions from gasoline-fueled vehicles in California. The green dots indicate the modeled outcomes from the regional sustainable communities strategies, which, if current trends continue, will not be achieved. Reproduced with permission from California Air Resources Board 2018.

Overall, however, Californians have increased their driving, meaning that fuel-efficiency gains from the Pavley clean car standards have been outweighed by a greater number of miles driven (Figure 9.5.2). Transit ridership has declined in major metropolitan areas, and the proportion of funding dedicated to highways has changed little. There has been no dramatic shift in funding priorities toward public transportation, walking, and cycling. Overall, CARB’s 2018 progress report finds that “California is not on track to meet greenhouse gas reductions expected under SB 375.” The modeled reductions have yet to materialize in practice.

At root, SB 375 does not provide a way to coerce or incentivize recalcitrant cities into curbing car use through increasing densities and reducing parking next to transit. Cities still have incentives to be free riders. That is, city governments want tax revenue from car-oriented shopping centers and low-density, high-end housing within their own borders while relying on their neighboring cities to provide space for new housing next to transit. In contrast to the strong regulatory power that CARB wields in many other domains and the clear price signal provided by cap and trade, land use planning shows the limits of the state’s climate policy power.