The Need to Reform California's EIR Process Affirmed by PCL's Fred Keeley

We interview you the week the L.A. Business Journal has a story on the EIR process in California, which quotes you saying, " it would be wise for the environmental community to look at some changes in the law that would make the EIR process more swift and certain for infill development." Can you elaborate on your views for our readers?

It's my belief that if we want to fundamentally change how we are going to accommodate California's tremendous growth rate of 500,000 people a year and build livable communities, then it is essential that the environmental community go to the table willing to negotiate a principled compromise on the issue of how the California Environmental Quality Act works procedurally in urban and older suburban communities. However, that must happen simultaneously with local governments and the building community coming to the table willing to accept some kind of urban growth boundaries or other procedural mechanisms to protect prime agricultural lands, greenfields, and natural habitat areas from the endless march of sprawl.

Fred, TPR shared your quote with some of the leading affordable housing developers in the state and the country. Related Co's Bill Witte's reaction was instantaneous; he thought your formula for reform was disingenuous. He argues that inserting a trade-off requiring urban growth boundaries that would involve shutting off growth in the Inland Empire and forcing density into Newport Beach will not move the debate along regarding EIR reform. Your reaction?

Mr. Witte's reaction perhaps misses the point and jumps to too many conclusions. I would hope that someone of Bill's stature would understand that this is a good faith offer on the part of the environmental community, which believes that in order to have livable communities in the Inland Empire, or any place else in California, we can't simply continue to grow ever outward with no restrictions at all. That is not a prescription for sound planning or sustainable communities. Continued outward expansion is a prescription for nearly assuring that commutes will get longer, congestion will become greater, and civic life will become more segregated in all respects.

Mind you, I have not said in this conversation or any place else that the Planning and Conservation League believes that there should not be growth. We absolutely don't believe that, and it would be unwise for us to take that position. The fact is that the state of California is likely to continue to grow at a pace of 500,000 people a year. We can either choose to do it the way we've done it the last 15 or 20 years in California and expect a different outcome – expect that somehow there's going to be jobs-housing balances, mixed uses, more infill and refill, and greater investment of public capital to create livable communities. Or, we can say that we want a different outcome – one that reduces the pace of sprawl that is chewing up acres and acres of prime ag land daily.

California's historic role of providing food for the entire nation and significant portions of the world is not a role we should give up. If Bill listens carefully to what I'm saying, he'll understand that we are not taking the position of no growth. We are taking the position of intelligent, thoughtful, sustainable, livable communities. But that means we need to change the way that we regulate, the way we provide fiscal incentives and the way we invest public capital in California.

What then does need to be reformed in the EIR process to encourage urban infill development and remove incentives for sprawl? Could you elaborate?

Conceptually, the environmental community wants the same thing that the development community wants-certainty. Evidence indicates that a lack of certainty associated with some California Environmental Quality Act processes impedes capital investment in urban and older suburban communities. We are in favor of putting more certainty into the process of building infill and refill projects, and there are a number of ways to get there.

For example, when a project is proposed in an area that has a master plan or specific plan that has already been subjected to the CEQA process, if an applicant's project is consistent with those plans, then they would move through. In such a case, the opportunities to raise questions about traffic impact and other issues will have already been vetted, and it's not necessary to go back through and raise the questions two and three and four and five times. We are very supportive of the notion in circumstances of infill and refill development of having a constructive, productive dialogue with stakeholders about how we can amend that process so that there is greater alacrity and a system that moves more quickly.

Fred, as a very respected former legislator, with impeccable green credentials, comment on how difficult it is to touch this third rail of environmental politics, the EIR process.

t's difficult, but not impossible. The reason that it's not impossible is because of the balanced approach that we're taking. The other side of this is that the environmental community wants a certainty that public sector capital investment in infrastructure will encourage thoughtful, intelligent, mixed-use planning and zoning, and will also result in better jobs-housing balances in communities, and reduced vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis. Those objectives have been just as clear for the environmental community over the years as has been the desire on behalf of some segments of the building community, especially the private sector housing folks, to get greater certainty by shortening and/or streamlining the EIR process.

The way to touch this third rail and not be electrocuted in the process is to be energized by it instead. We are not afraid to make a principled compromise. However, we will not compromise our principles. We only ask that the development community and governmental community come to the table and do exactly the same thing-make a principled compromise where no one is asked to compromise their principles. We think that is totally achievable. In fact, a few months ago, with the aid of dozens of organizations throughout the state of California, we released a document called the Better California Campaign, which proposes just that type of dialogue.

The Better California Campaign is a descendent of the now defunct California Futures Network, which was viewed by most as more an environmental-affordable housing alliance than a broad-based coalition of environmentalists and developers positively grappling with growth in California. Is that a mistaken impression?

I don't think it's unfair to say that either the California Futures Network or the Better California Campaign is an amalgamation of environmental organizations, affordable housing organizations, social equity and justice organizations. It's fair to say that, in the same way that it is fair to say that the Building Industry Association is not a broad-based coalition either. The California Futures Network really did the fundamental, basic research and convening of people throughout the state who were interested in environmental issues, affordable housing issues, and social equity issues associated with growth and development in the state. They also reached out to the business community with much less success.

When the California Futures Network decided to close its business there was a very strong desire to have the forward momentum take the coalition from defining the problem to acting on the solutions. The Better California Campaign is the successor, and then some, of the California Futures Network.

It seems to me it's less important for someone to try to hold himself out as the broadest coalition than it is to take advantage of an historic opportunity with the Schwarzenegger administration to take a bold new look at how we are going to evolve as a state in terms of accommodating a wide range housing affordability and how we are going to protect the environment. Relying on the same old systems and the same old laws is not going to get us there.

Not too many years ago, you were on the Advisory Committee to the Urban Land Institute's California Smart Growth Initiative. That Committee included private sector, public sector, environmental and community-based organizations and it came up with a set of recommendations to the state for reforms that broadly and comprehensively dealt with growth. That effort largely failed to advance its recommendations, including EIR reforms. Now that you've left the Legislature and head PCL, can you candidly share what it takes to cobble together a set of reforms that will win leglislative and gubernatorial support?

It takes is a governor willing to lead-plain and simple. It‘s really not more complicated than that. The subject matter is enormously complex, because to do it right isn't as simple as saying, "gee, the California Environmental Quality Act has been a real obstruction to getting housing built." That's anecdotal information. It's an interesting claim to make, in that phrasing it that way forces other people to have to argue back the other way.

At some level, it requires the environmental community to say, "let us now show you that 25 or 30 years worth of good, positive things have resulted from the California Environmental Quality Act." It's a circular debate-it never ends. But the issue is actually enormously complicated. It involves figuring out how to maintain public sector and private sector investment, preserve agricultural land, and build housing across a range of affordability. It goes on and on and on.

How do you fix that? How do you get change? How do you get forward momentum? You get a governor who says, "I want to make good positive changes that are going to result in better outcomes in the way this state grows and develops, as well as preserves and conserves. And, I am not going to stop until it does happen." The last governor who invested any political capital in making growth management happen was Pete Wilson. He tried to do that before his administration was overwhelmed by budget issues, and I give him a lot of credit for having tried to get that process started. Since then, there has been no apparent interest in a serious effort to do this until this administration came along. This governor has expressed his commitment to the issue, and he has pulled together a group of cabinet members-Secretary Sunne Wright-McPeak, Secretary Terry Tamminen, Secretary Mike Chrisman-and others to focus in on making it happen.

Let's end with your thoughts about the state budget and aligning it with the the goals of PCL. In January you were quoted in TPR saying that, "capital funds from the state to local governments must have conditions attached that will assure that infrastructure is used to build livable communities, not feed an endless urge to sprawl." Do you see anything in the May revise or pending budget that lead you to believe we're making progress in that regard?

Not much-it's a missed opportunity. Reforming transportation funding and the state-local fiscal relationship are two opportunities that the governor and the Legislature still have available to them in the final stages of adopting a state budget. But my guess is that they will miss the opportunity and that's unfortunate. We have urged them to try to create that linkage as an element of the state budget this year, but I doubt that it's going to happen.

What then would have to change in the politics and the forces at work in the capital to make it more likely?

It would need to be part of a mega-deal-a large, multi-faceted, comprehensive agreement on how we're going to change the rules for growth, development, conservation and preservation in California. That would involve all of the aspects of what we've spoken about in this interview, including creating linkages between capital investment by the state and a set of principles and conditions for the receipt of those funds by local governments or others.