Photo Credit: HUD.gov

The rule would modify how traffic is evaluated during a critical phase for planning for building developments, shifting the focus from traffic congestion to the increase in miles traveled. New building projects would be viewed as adversely affecting the environment if they increase vehicle miles traveled by more than a regional average without offsets.

The Brown administration — which was tasked with creating the new rule by the Legislature — believes this shift will encourage the development of urban housing, bringing people into the cities and giving them more transportation options beyond the car.

“This proposal will actually help affordable housing projects, especially near transit,” said Christopher Calfee, General Counsel for California’s state Office of Planning and Research. Calfee said the new proposed guidelines will streamline the process as it removes other factors, like aesthetics and parking — from being considered to be negative for the environment.

But critics say applying this standard in instances outside of specific urban areas near major transportation spots — areas called Transit Priority Areas — will hurt the development of housing in suburban and rural areas where property values are lower, and hurt local economies by thwarting new development.

“We’d prefer to see approaches that continue to incentivize transit, incentivize (re-purposing old buildings),” said Richard Lambros, the managing director of the Southern California Leadership Council. Lambros was critical of the new rule, saying while it benefits areas near mass transit, it could limit the development in lower cost, suburban and rural areas.

Greenhouse gasses

When the Legislature tasked Brown’s administration with writing the new rules in 2013, it asked that the new rule “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multi-modal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” This coincided with a statewide goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030.

In addition to promoting alternative means of travel, the new regulations impose a “road diet,” meaning limiting the amount of new road lanes built — a 4 percent cap statewide between now and 2030.

“We respect that we’re trying to achieve important (greenhouse gas) reduction goals in California, but we can’t develop the policy to do that in a way that doesn’t account for unintended consequences,” said Lambros.

But the Brown administration contends that this doesn’t put a cap on roads (although road diet is OPR’s term), providing instead a threshold for when the mileage standard is considered significant.

“Some new roads will actually decrease (the new standard called Vehicle Miles Traveled),” said Calfee. “Others will increase it. Even if that increase is significant, lead agencies may override the impact and still approve the project.”

Lawsuits

The 46-year-old California Environmental Quality Act requires developers to obtain an Environmental Impact Report during the planning period, which evaluates a project’s impact on the local environment. This public document advises local governments when they are deciding to approve or deny a project, and it’s in this report that the new guidelines will be applied.

Local governments are not actually required to deny a project based on a negative report. However, many proposed developments end up being fought in court — by environmentalists, opposing developers and so on — so cities and counties can overlook these guidelines at their own peril. In other words, overlooking the environmental impact report makes a project less defensible.

“It gives more ammunition to people who want to stop capacity projects for whatever reason,” said Hasan Ikhrata, executive director of the Southern California Association of Governments, whose group is concerned that the new rule will subject hundreds of projects in their six counties to new standards midstream, which they say are largely un-achievable.

History

Under CEQA (pronounced see-qua), many factors were considered in an environmental impact report — a requirement for new development. Some of the factors were transportation, aesthetics and parking.

The 2013 bill said that parking and aesthetics in certain instances in the Transit Priority Areas were no longer considered significant impacts on the environment. These areas were created by the Legislature to encourage high-density development in areas where there is existing or proposed public transportation — like areas near metro stops.

The bill also tasked the Brown administration to come up with new guidelines on determining the transportation impact, as the old guidelines were based on traffic congestion — making congestion worse was considered an adverse impact.

The proposed modification shifts the focus from congestion to vehicle miles traveled, as compared to the regional average. So, increasing the average amount of miles that vehicles travel compared to the regional average is considered adverse if it’s without plans to offset the mileage.

Affordable Housing

So with the new standard, close proximity to proposed or existing mass transit is certainly helpful, and critics say it’s an unofficial requirement. Because there are existing roads and generally adequate access to public transportation, high density projects near urban centers will fare better in the CEQA/environmental review process.

But areas further away from the urban center would likely be more affected. Critics say this could affect the access to affordable housing, since property values and rents usually fall the further away development gets from the city. Many critics aren’t against the new standard, just it’s widespread application.

“We’re ok with (the new standard),” said Ikhrata. “But what we’re saying is you shouldn’t subject every project to this test. This should be done on an overall system, and be able to mitigate in other places. No project is going to pass that test.”

By Dave Roberts

Five years ago the California Air Resources Board adopted a scoping plan to implement AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The plan outlines myriad regulations imposed on state residents and businesses in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

CARB officials are now updating the scoping plan. So you might think this would be a good opportunity to take a step back to see whether the plan is even necessary. The New York Times reported recently that the “rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.”

But second thoughts about the need for California’s vast regulatory scheme were not raised at CARB’s scoping plan update workshop in Los Angeles on June 26 (Webcast in the link). To the contrary, nearly everyone who spoke at the 4½-hour meeting praised the state’s efforts.

However, a couple of lone voices advised caution before leaping further into the climate change void. Richard Lambros, managing director of the business-led Southern California Leadership Council, pointed out that California is unable to accomplish much on its own. But it can have an impact if it provides a model for other states and nations to follow; failure to do so would leave California at a competitive disadvantage.

Challenge

“While we support the idea that as California achieves our GHG [greenhouse gas] goals, the challenge of global warming will still not be addressed,” said Lambros. “A level playing field will not exist domestically or internationally. Markets will continue to be imbalanced unless the remainder of the world does the same as what we’re doing here. Thus California’s greatest contribution ultimately in addressing this issue is to show the rest of the world how GHG emissions can be reduced smartly, cost effectively and in a manner that retains or improves a state’s or country’s global economic position.”

Whether that is even possible remains in question. The answer to that question is particularly important for Southern Californians, who are much more reliant on manufacturing, construction and transportation jobs than better-educated Northern Californians, said Lambros. Unfortunately for Southern California, those industries have a big target on their backs.

“All of those are front line industries when we try to start to further address climate change,” said Lambros. “So no matter how you slice it, we are going to have to smartly address those industries, or risk completely diminishing them. Which then has obviously a very significant effect because of our education gap and the makeup of our economy. So this has to be done smartly. That means from a regional perspective, we need CARB to set goals but leave a lot of local control and flexibility on how we achieve those goals. Ultimately this is all about creating smart followers.”

Texas

But while California is trying to become the anti-global warming pied piper, it may turn around to see that other states and nations are instead following the lead of Texas, which has two-thirds the population of California but twice as much carbon emission.

“They have 6.5 percent unemployment compared to our 8.6 percent,” said Lambros. “They have 4.8 percent GDP growth, we have 3.5. So while we are trying to do this, because of the lack of a competitive playing field, we are at a competitive disadvantage. We can have the greatest [anti-global warming] plans in the world, but we won’t get there because of the economic damage that will occur in the interim from our competitors. So it’s really important that we recognize that and try to allow ourselves to continue to work together. Work as partners, understand each other’s needs and do it smartly.”

It’s likely that Lambros’ words will fall on deaf ears, given the strong support and momentum for emission-reduction action in California, damn the anti-business consequences.

Two more scoping plan update workshops are scheduled: July 18 in Fresno and July 30 in the Bay Area. A draft report is scheduled to be released in mid-August. The board is expected to adopt the update in November.