Sacramento tries to manage growth

Earlier this year, I was spreading the news about how the Schwarzenegger administration had taken aim at the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Thankfully, due to our protests, both in meetings with them and in the media, it has quietly withdrawn its proposals. But where do we go from here to have well-thought-out legislation to address California's pressing issues of traffic, loss of farmland and open space, poor air quality, and unaffordable housing.

Gov. Schwarzenegger staked out some good turf on growth management and urban infill in his "Action Plan for California's Environment" when he ran for office in 2003. But his State of the State address this past January voiced an agenda that was music to developers' ears. He said, "I will propose legislation that eliminates the regulatory and the legal hurdles that delay construction and increase the costs for new housing."

The follow-up draft legislation from his administration was dreadful. It allowed developers to claim, "we're not in favor of gutting CEQA," because it was structured to exempt their projects from this most important of California environmental laws. Their prescription for California, one shared by the whole building industry, is to flood the market with housing. If all you care about is the median price of a home, that might work. But we know that Californians also care deeply about air and water quality and about saving farmland and open space.

Since the governor was having problems with his "reform" agenda, the media became interested in this story. We had no choice but to be critical - and the administration finally backed down and went back to the drawing board.

Meanwhile, Sen. Don Perata, the president of the State Senate, introduced Senate Bill 832, announcing that it was part of a package of smart-growth legislation that he and several other Democratic state senators intended pursuing. His staff has convened meetings of the stakeholders, and we have been having good discussions about a direction for legislation to really solve some of the problems caused by growth - while accommodating the millions of people who want to live here and maybe buy a house.

"Solving" the state's growth issues will be extremely difficult, whether the starting point comes from Perata or the administration. While there is some common ground, the developers, local government, housing advocates, professional planners, and environmental groups do not see eye-to-eye. The issues are complex, stemming from decades of growth patterns driven by developer profits, campaign contributions, and the fight for sales-tax dollars at the local level.

Here are some of the ideas in the mix:

• encourage considerably more urban infill through incentives such as money for infrastructure and streamlining the CEQA process;
• give more authority to the plans of the regional councils of governments (such as the Association of Bay Area Governments - ABAG) if the plans direct new development to infill areas, and allow fast approvals of housing proposed for these areas;
• give priority for state funds to those local governments practicing smart growth;
• give developers more certainty for their housing projects, allowing them to plan out 10 years of investments if there is certainty for preserving open space and farmland.

It will not be easy to find a compromise solution that all sides will agree on. Each idea has pitfalls for the environmental community if not done right. Builders do not want to agree to anything that will not assure them of a much more streamlined approval process. They also believe they have a champion in the governor's office and may be holding out for a big win. Also in the mix are environmental-justice groups representing often underprivileged groups or disadvantaged neighborhoods. They are leery of proposals that put more intense development into older urban neighborhoods.

No side in this battle is likely to get all it wants. Compromises will prevail. I just hope that we get to these compromises sooner than later, for polls show that the vast majority of Californians see traffic congestion, air pollution, and loss of open spaces as major problems.

I am representing Sierra Club California, and therefore our 13 chapters, in various stakeholder groups that are meeting now. We are in discussions with the administration, the cities, the counties, and the legislature. It is my hope that legislation emerges in 2006 that can reach the governor's desk and that he will sign. California's problems are growing, and the public wants action, not gridlock. Stay tuned.

Bill Allayaud, state director, Sierra Club California