Laserfiche WebLink
8A <br /> `SB 375'Cantinued irom Page 1... Page 2 <br /> As currentiy written, SB 375 would require Metropofitan Pianning Organiza#ions(MPOs)to <br /> develop a"preferred growth scenario"within the regional transpo�tation plan(RTP). The goal <br /> would be to channel new growth and investment in a manner fhaf wouid reduce carbon <br /> emissians. <br /> The MP�woufd aEso have#o designate"significant resource areas"as defned by SB 375. Lacai <br /> projects that are contrary to the MPO's designation would not be eligible for transportation <br /> fund'+ng. in essence,a regional authority wouid be makmg loca!land use designatians. <br /> Why the League ts Acting iVow <br /> 'fhe League agrees that emissions reductinn from the transportation sector wil!be part of how the <br /> state complies with the stat2d targets inctuded in AB 32(the climate change bill from 2006). As a <br /> result, League has aitempted to wnrk with Sen. Sfeinberg to focus on emissions reductions <br /> strateg�es and plannirg, rather than growih controls. <br /> 'ihe League invited the League of Con�ervation Voters(sponsar of SB 375}ta darectfy address <br /> the League's boarci of directors at its July meeting in Monterey. The board devoted 2.5 hours to <br /> discuss the bill. In the finai analysis,however,the board believed thaf though they were willing to <br /> continue workirtg with Sen. Steinberg on the measure,there were too man;�ro�lPms and <br /> ambiguities to be warked out in the last five w�eks of the 3egisiative session. <br /> As a result,they asked Sen. Sfeinberg to make this a fwo-year biil. In return, the board pramised <br /> to fulfy engage League time and resources in finding a resolution. Otherwise,the League woulci <br /> have ta oppose the biii. Ultimately,that oifer was declined. <br /> League Issues with SB 375 <br /> The League made the following points in its oppositinn letter to SB 375 that was sent to Sen. <br /> Steinberg: <br /> • The Focus Shoutd be on Emissions Reduction, Not Growth Control. SB 375 <br /> attempts to dictate specific growth policies, rather than providing Eocaf agencies with the <br /> necessary flexibiEify to address the stated goai of emissions reduction. Bu#direcfing <br /> growth at this leve!of detai(is unnecessary. <br /> Emissions reduction can be advanced by regionai transportation agencies by givir.g <br /> preferences to transportation projects that f�elp achieve emission reductiQn targQt� <br /> without designating where growth should and should not gp. <br /> • Broad Scope of Growth Controis Compel Further Consideration. The proposed <br /> preferred growth scenario wouEd severely curtaii the devefopment of specific categories <br /> of I�nd called"significanf respurce areas.° As such,consideration of this biEl requires <br /> more in-depth discussions than what has occurred. <br /> • Coordination with Other Efforts IVeeded. Since the enactment of A8 32,one of the <br /> difficuifses is getting clariiy on the many different emissions reduction effo�fs that are <br /> ur�dervvay. For instance,�he Air Resaurces Board is proceeding according to ifs statutary <br /> schedule.The California Transportation Commission is holding stakeholder meetings on <br /> these issues to deveiop guidelines. <br /> !f SB 375 is gang Yo be a workabfe iavu that can be effectively implemented,then the time <br /> needs to be taken to integrate the bill with other ongoing efforts and applicable laws. <br /> • CEQA Promises Yet to Materiaiize. The League has carefully reviewed the CaHfornia <br /> Environmental Quality Act(C�QA)language in the bi11 and found it inscafficienf. We <br /> remain wilfing to develap meaningfuf CEQA streamfining for projects that advance <br /> emission reduction goals. 7hat discussion will take time. <br /> 2 <br />