RTAC Tasked With Developing SB 375 Regional Emission Targets

The passage last year of SB 375 set up the Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) to develop and recommend regional GHG emission targets. As an appointee to RTAC, with a September deadline, elaborate on the importance of SB 375 and RTAC to the mission and work of the Bay Area Council.

In its 60 years of existence, the Bay Area Council has been pressing for strong regional control and measures that would enable places like the Bay Area, the Los Angeles region, or San Diego to grow in a sensible fashion. SB 375 gives us some significant movement in this direction for the first time.

In a press release for the Bay Area Council you said, "SB 375 is the very tool we need to change our region's growth model and comes not a moment too soon. SB 375 operates at the nexus of transportation, housing, and environment, and finally binds the three together." Can you elaborate?

There really is no state requirement that planning decisions made at the local level be tied to decisions made in transportation, certainly not with regard to the emission of greenhouse gases. SB 375 is the second part of a one-two punch. The first punch was AB 32, which requires California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. SB 375 requires that regions come up with comprehensive plans that tie together the functions of transportation, housing, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions. It's very important to get into the game of how regions can function as regions.

Elaborate on SB 375's impact on growth models for suburbia and more compact, urban cities-how difficult is it to find common ground with open space, clean air, and fewer cars, while still expecting growth of a million more residents within the next 20 years?

We know the people are coming. California's desire to deny increases in growth has caused some very dumb planning decisions, largely resulting in the formation of exurbs in places that used to be farmland. That has happened all over the state and the Bay Area is certainly no stranger to it. In fact, we have eaten up some of the most valuable farmland in the world right here in the Northern Central Valley. This new law should move development into denser, already urbanized infill areas by providing exemptions and incentives. This is really the first time that has ever happened.

One shouldn't overstate the incentives or the sticks in the measure. There are very few sticks. The incentives are limited to the creation and development of sustainable community strategies that will be put into place over the next couple of years, with concomitant targets generated by the RTAC and, ultimately, approved by the California Air Resources Board. This gets the regions talking in a serious way. It also provides an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act for projects that are consistent with the sustainable regional strategies. There will be incentives.

The RTAC will present recommendations by the end of September. What are your thoughts about that process?

At the core of this effort, RTAC is developing and approving, for CARB's consideration, models with specific targets for how much of the total greenhouse gas emissions each region should be accountable. It is the first discussion of its kind where the stakeholders from all of California's regions have come together to talk strategies to address emissions in the transportation sector. This could end up being more than what was included in the bill. That is the discussion now-what are the parameters that exist for the committee? At the end of the day it may end up being a little more aggressive than what was initially anticipated.

There are not very many business leaders or economic leaders on the RTAC or taking part in it's deliberations. Why?

The Bay Area Council worked with Senator Steinberg in the early discussion on this bill, which ultimately became a negotiation between homebuilders, environmental groups, and the cities. Those were the main negotiators of the bill with the Senator's office. Initially, the business community at large didn't have a seat in the bill. We argued that we should be there and the Air Resources Board recognized the omission. That's why I am included. I am the only general business advocate that sits on this committee. I have an obligation to the Bay Area and to all business associations in the state. I'm very open to discussing any of their concerns and where they see opportunities.

The evolution of these targets, and their acceptance, is going to require sensitivity to the state's local economies. What conversations have you had about how to set targets that take local economies into account?

The discussion so far has focused on the nature of the models. It is beginning to get into a more substantial discussion about the differences between the individual regions and what's within the realm of the possible versus what could create economic hardship. I'm particularly sensitive to that discussion. At the same time that the Bay Area Council was an advocate for California to take the lead with greenhouse gas reductions in America, we are sensitive to the fact that some of the sectors and regions may find it particularly difficult to comply.

It appears that the San Francisco Bay Area Council now represents the Central Valley, San Diego, Los Angeles, and the Inland Empire. That's a very challenging duty.

These regions are all represented. The mayor of Ontario is on there. Sacramento is represented. Certainly San Diego, L.A., and Orange County are represented. It's not as if these regions are represented by people who are acutely aware of the factors that arise from the reduction of greenhouse gasses from the transportation sector. But I am the only person who distinctly wears a broad business hat. I have the responsibility to think statewide at the same that I am looking at the Bay Area. The Bay Area has representation on the RTAC from Steve Heminger who is the head of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as well as Stuart Cohen who represents a transportation advocacy group here. My role should be broader than just simply the Bay Area. It has to be.

To whom will RTAC's recommendations ultimately go?

If we do our job properly, the California Air Resources Board should adopt the recommendations. It is going to take a couple of years to affect them though the adoption of the sustainable community strategies that occur on a statewide basis. Two key points are how well and aggressively each region pursues these strategies and how well the local governments that ultimately make the planning and development decisions are included.

Sacramento clearly leads the state in terms of its blueprint process. They have already shown that a regional strategy completely supported by local government is possible. Fortunately the person who led that strategy, Mike McKeever-who is now the executive director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments-is the chairman of the RTAC. We have the right leadership in place to begin a new trend in California where the regions take themselves seriously, where local governments take regions seriously, and where regions take local government seriously. We need that for California to continue to be a desirable place where the best and brightest want to come to work and so we can continue to be a destination for the most important, innovative businesses in the world.

The Bay Area Council is advocating for a California constitutional convention next year. Why now?

A constitutional convention is a very serious step. We've called for a constitutional convention because we think that California's system of governance is broken, and badly so, a fact most recently evidenced by the budgetary meltdown. We all share the frustration over that. But look at many of the other issues: our water system, our prison system, and, soon to be, our educational system are all in equal or greater states of meltdown. From a competitiveness standpoint, the state can't afford to leave these kinds of challenges unsolved. We can solve these problems if the government can make some tough decisions.

With what has happened to the government over the last several generations, with initiative after initiative that don't relate well to each other, we're not getting decisions made. Getting some well intended, very bright people together to rethink how government in a place like California can work in the 21st century is probably job number one right now for the state. We have many partners in this. The status quo is simply an unacceptable outcome.

You held a California Constitutional Convention Summit in late February this year. How would you describe that gathering?

We had about 400 people show up in Sacramento. We talked about what it would take to hold a convention-legal requirements, public opinion on the issue, how the delegates might be selected, and what issues might be discussed. We talked about the need for government reform, electoral reform, fiscal reform, and oversight of the government as being key strategic goals for a constitutional convention. We heard from former California leaders who recognize how dysfunctional the state has become.

We are going to be holding similar types of meetings around the state, coordinating with other groups to ensure that the constitutional convention gets an opportunity. We have groups working with us who represent good government folks, low-income people, and business. We are growing a coalition right now of people who are very excited at the possibility that we might be able to do something to turn California around. The current goal is a 2010 November ballot election that would authorize a call for a constitutional convention to take place, the work of which would probably be conducted over a multi-month period after that. The recommendations for changes to the constitution would show up on the ballot in 2012.

Surely, at the summit you discussed the difficulties of governing a state of 37 million plus-a population much larger than the 13 colonies 250 years ago. Talk a little about the reform challenges and how idealism will connect to reality going forward.

Having been involved with this for a while and having observed the summit, the key question is whether people are willing to have a summit where the goal is to provide a workable governance system for California. Or do the people think that the reason for having a constitutional convention is important "to get my issue to the front of the table-to get something I can't otherwise get from the government as it currently exists?" If it is the former, people can come together and say, "Look, this isn't working for me"-whether they are from the most powerful special interest group in the state or a group or an individual that feels powerless-we all need a governance system that can function well.