Along with the collapse of the housing market, here in California climate change was the biggest land use story of 2007. But is there any doubt that the greening of the planning process will be the No. 1 story in 2008 – and maybe No. 2 and No. 3 as well?
Environmental issues are never far from the forefront of concern in the land use arena, especially here, where the California Environmental Quality Act forces environmental review of everything from huge master-planned communities to tiny infill projects.
But climate change is pushing the environment to the front burner in the planning world faster than the you can say Al Gore. Planners are talking a lot about global warming – and, frankly, they're not talking about much of anything else. Local governments with a strong environmental consciousness, like Marin County, are beginning to make environmental sustainability the cornerstone of their planning efforts. But that's just the tip of the quickly melting iceberg.
1. AB 32. land use, and SB 375
The big question in Sacramento this year is whether and how the state will apply AB 32 – the greenhouse gas emissions reduction law – to the land use arena. The Governor's Climate Action Team has said from the beginning that "smart growth" and related concepts will have to account for 10% to15% of required emissions reduction by 2020. As Joan Sollenberger, Caltrans's chief planner, told CP&DR recently, "You can't reduce VMT without addressing the land use question."
At the core of the AB 32 land use debate during 2008 is the fate of one bill, SB 375, carried by Darrell Steinberg, a Democratic state senator from Sacramento. The bill came within a whisker of passing last year. At its core, Steinberg's bill uses transportation funding as a big carrot to get local governments to create more efficient land use patterns. Under the bill, regional planning agencies around the state would create "preferred growth scenarios" meeting AB 32 emissions reduction targets and then dole out transportation funds to local governments whose plans and projects conform to those scenarios.
Endorsed by environmental lobbyists, SB 375 also contains a wide range of other growth management requirements, such as the identification of permanent open space areas. These heavy ornaments were one of the reasons why this particular Christmas tree didn't get passed during 2007. The legislative debate in 2008 is likely to revolve around SB 375's approach. Will AB 32 drive land use reform – or will it be an excuse to promote longstanding growth management ideas?
3. CEQA and climate change
The big news during 2007 was that San Bernardino County reached a settlement with Attorney General Jerry Brown to incorporate climate change considerations into its general plan and future planning efforts. But the big news during 2008 will be how the state will institutionalize climate change as part of CEQA practice.
Having just finished a relatively noncontroversial update to the CEQA guidelines, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research is now charged with a new update – one that takes climate change into account in CEQA analysis as required by AB 32. OPR has been mum on the approach so far. But CEQA practitioners face a fundamental challenge in approaching climate change.
CEQA is generally designed to make sure the worst thing doesn't happen and by law it can force local governments only to adopt feasible mitigation measures. (This is what the AG's settlement with San Bernardino County calls for.) Yet the mandate of cutting emissions 20% in 12 years will clearly require some actions that would be considered infeasible under current conditions.
Just last week, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) issued a lengthy white paper laying out possible methodological approaches to dealing with climate change in CEQA analysis. The core question in the CAPCOA paper is what the threshold for significant impacts should be – the trigger for an environmental impact report. Should it be zero? Should it be some other number? Should there be no threshold? When the goal is to cut emissions rather than limit their growth, what's significant and what isn't? [NOTE: Planners were hoping that CAPCOA would help answer this questions, not simply reiterate them.]
4. Green building
Even while planners debate the land use implications of climate change, developers anad builders are moving much more quickly into the green world. Most local governments don't yet mandate green building practices – and many don't even allow green building as an option. But developers are way ahead on this, claiming that green building adds no more than 2% to the cost of construction and is likely to become standard practice over the next few years no matter what. But the process for getting a building certified as green by the U.S. Green Building Council isn't easy – and represents of the one major costs of "green building."
5. Stormwater runoff rules
There's one more looming giant out there in the world of environmental planning in California, and that's stormwater runoff regulations. Stormwater's a water quality problem, not an air quality problem, but it's also a huge issue that regulators are getting tougher on all the time. Especially in the coastal parts of the California, regional water quality control boards are in the process of implementing new rules that will cost millions – perhaps billions – of dollars to comply with. Local governments keep suing to block these rules, but without much success. Meanwhile, advocates are promoting green ideas like "stormwater gardens" as part of public works projects. It seems likely that, in the long run, local governments in California will find a way to embed "green infrastructure" ideas into both the development review and their capital construction practices.
Green land use. Green building. Green infrastructure. Yup, 2008 is going to be the year of environmental issues in planning. What will planners do? As usual, they'll be in the trenches – the policy implementers and technicians trying to make these new directives work.
-- Bill Fulton
