PCL's Acting Director On Whether & How CEQA Might Be Improved

You serve now as acting director of The Planning and Conservation League, succeeding Fred Keeley. Tell us about your responsibilities and about PCL.

At present, I am the acting executive director for the Planning and Conservation League, and my colleague, Marc de la Vergne, is the acting executive director for Planning and Conservation League Foundation. When we hire a new executive director, that person will be director of both organizations. I've been at the Planning and Conservation League for almost four years as a lobbyist and legislative director, and more recently as the general counsel. I was put in this position in order to provide stability and management for PCL as we go through the process of looking for a new ED and to continue the important work that we have been doing over the past few years.

Two years ago we interviewed then PCL Executive Director Fred Keeley about his agenda for your organization. He talked about the need to recognize the demographic changes in California and to engage the Latino community in the state's environmental agenda. How much success has PCL had in that regard in the two years since The Planning Report interviewed Fred?

In many ways we've been doing well, taking on new issues and addressing some of the more social aspects of environmental issues. For example, we have a new lead program that is based in Sacramento, through which we educate the community and work with local students to test homes in neighborhoods with high rates of lead contamination. This on-the-ground work is going to be very informative for developing our legislative agenda.

In some of the areas in which we have traditionally worked, we have been very careful to take a broad view of environmental issues. One example is a report that we recently released called Every Day Heroes Protect the Air We Breathe, the Water We Drink and the Natural Areas We Prize, which is available for free at www.pcl.org. This report documents 35 years of environmental achievement under the California Environmental Quality Act. It covers not only habitat and land conservation, but also protecting the urban environment, toxics, and improving air and water quality. These are of interest to all Californians. When you look at who votes for and who supports environmental measures, the Latino community is very supportive. All you have to do is look at the votes on Prop 40, and Measure O in Los Angeles, and you see that the Latino community, like everyone else in California, wants clean air and clean water. They want parks, and communities that are good to live in. We are definitely carrying on that part of Fred's vision.

In that interview with Fred in the summer of '03, there was a discussion about CEQA reform and PCL's participation on a blue-ribbon panel for that purpose. A more recent CEQA improvement dialogue has begun under the auspices of Governor Schwarzenegger's Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman. Is there a need, in your opinion, to improve CEQA?

I am on that advisory group, and I have been attending all of the Resources Agency advisory group meetings in Sacramento. I have been also looking very closely at a proposal that has just been released by the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency. The Environmental Quality Act is one of the most important bedrock environmental laws in the state. It is the only law that functions as a very effective safeguard for environmental protection on virtually every issue that you might think of. It gives people a voice in their future and the health of their communities. The bottom line is that the Environmental Quality Act gives ordinary people the tools and the opportunity to stand up to special interests and special interest politics that otherwise have the ability to dominate the agenda. From the very basic principles of the act, like providing information to the public about projects that are being proposed, whether it is a mass-burn incinerator in the middle of L.A. or a development on some important natural habitat, it gives people a chance to comment on the project, to propose alternatives, and to propose better ways of doing projects that won't cause harm to the environment or the community. It gives people a seat at the table with developers and other interests, who have, just by virtue of their economic resources, greater access to the political system. It is an important tool for public empowerment and government accountability.

Now, that said, if you ask me whether CEQA could work better, I'm sure it could in some ways. We are very interested in looking at how we could improve the public education and empowerment benefits, the good government benefits, and the very real environmental improvements from CEQA. We are open to that. What we are not open to -- and what I fear the Resources Agency and BTH proposals that are on the table right now would lead to -- is a wholesale gutting or significant weakening of the people's rights under CEQA.

TPR has heard comments from a number of people who reviewed the Resources and BTH proposals, and who believe them to be constructive, that PCL is distributing these administrative recommendations to members with provocative language about CEQA being under attack. Is there a disconnect between attacking the agencies' intentions and your participation in the improvement process and regional dialogues?

The report documents very real victories that have been won throughout the state using the Environmental Quality Act. Let me list just a few. CEQA was a key part of the strategy to create three new state parks in Baldwin Hills, Chinatown Corn Fields and Taylor Yard in Los Angeles. In one case, housing developments were proposed on slopes that were too steep to be safe. In the other cases, the act was used to raise objections to proposed industrial developments. If not for the Environmental Quality Act, community activists wouldn't have had this opportunity to get new parks in some of those park-poor, minority areas in Los Angeles. The importance of CEQA for such victories cannot be overstated.

Is the reform process really about gutting CEQA, or improving opportunities for infill development that are now frustrated by CEQA?

Well, the name of the Resources Agency committee is "CEQA Improvement", and we are involved in it and will continue to be involved in it so long as we have any hope that improvement will be the outcome. However, the last proposal that was given to the taskforce to look at would have exempted from CEQA review virtually any project that has a housing component in an urban area, regardless of how big it was or how many units it had. It took out the definition of infill that is found in current law and defined it as any project that could be served by infrastructure.

Again, are you suggesting that the CEQA improvement advisory group is really out to gut CEQA? Or is it out to find and explore ways to encourage better infill development?

You asked me if I think there is a movement to gut CEQA, and the answer is "Yes." The developers are working as aggressively as they can on many fronts to gut CEQA. Now, specifically with regard to the Resources Agency CEQA advisory group, they have put together a very interesting group of stakeholders and we have had some very good discussions. I hope that, at the end of the day, the Resources Agency will work with this group to identify and address the most important problems related to planning and growth in California. I think there was a strong consensus at the meetings that CEQA is not the problem. The problem is that the planning system is broken. Planning is under-funded. General plans are often 10, 15, and 20-years-old. Regional planning is exciting and has potential, but it is also under-funded, and behind the curve in many regions.

The Environmental Quality Act is not the cause of California's tremendous growth problems. It is the messenger. It is through the CEQA process that people do the analysis that tells them that their traffic problems are going to get worse, for example, but CEQA does not cause traffic. The Resources Agency has proposed a two-track process. In track one, the Agency has asked us to look at CEQA. In track two, the Agency suggests that we deal with the bigger picture, particularly planning. From our perspective, this doesn't work. You just can't weaken CEQA, which is in many cases the only tool that addresses planning, air quality mitigation, and growth analysis today, and put off addressing the root causes of these problems until next year. It is not going to work. So what we hope the Resources Agency will ultimately decide to do is to work with the very good and diverse stakeholders on the advisory group to put forward a balanced package that addresses the core planning issues that California faces.

Do you think it is possible to get support from environmentalists, builders and local governments for lifting environmental review to the plan level, thereby taking the load off of project level review?

I think that it is possible to get builders and environmentalists and local government officials to say that that is a concept they are willing to take a hard look at. The hard part is determining how it would actually work. For example, one of the benefits of project level review is that you get a sense of what that project's actual contribution to a regional issue. For example, even with environmental review at the plan level, there still has to be some form of project review so you know what that project is contributing to traffic, air quality, and other environmental issues. If there is an updated plan, project level review for many issues could be more a matter of assigning mitigation for issues that have been assessed up front.

Is it fair to conclude that you are presently unable to embrace the idea of development by right for projects that comply with standards incorporated at the plan level? You remain convinced that extensive project-by-project reviews are needed to comply with CEQA.

It depends on what plan we are talking about. If you ask me, "Is it PCL's position that, if the project is consistent with the general plan, there should be no project level review?" the answer is "No." General plans are done over an enormous area and they are not done at any level of detail that would allow you to ascertain the impacts of a project. For example, a residential project proposed for a site that is designated for residential use in the general plan could eliminate the only green space left in an urban area. Maybe that site would be better suited for a park. Now, there may be a way to do upfront planning on a smaller scale, with real public input. That is something that we would be completely willing to talk about.

Does the information contained in the CEQA review process documentation typically improve planning?

The information in the CEQA review process is often times the best and sometimes the only planning we get. There are some articles in our report that provide some specific examples of how that happens. For example, if you have got an area with a 15-year-old general plan and the only real updates to the general plan come when a developer wants to do a project and requests an amendment to the general plan, CEQA requires analysis of the traffic, air quality and other impacts . . . Yes, that is helpful.

You have mentioned that planning is under-funded and you have criticized developers. The questions remains: Might CEQA benefit from any reform?

Well, let me ask you this. Is there anything wrong with giving the public detailed information about a project proposed in their community? Is there anything wrong with a public hearing that gives them an opportunity to their opinion about the project? Is there anything wrong with analyzing the impacts of a project before it is built, or with requiring project proponents to implement feasible mitigation measures so that, to the extent possible, they internalize the cost of the projects? There is nothing in our view wrong with the fundamental concept of CEQA. It is very important. Now, a few years ago PCL, NRDC and others actually sponsored an exception from CEQA for certain infill projects. We did it because we thought these projects – relatively small projects in heavily urbanized areas in medium to large cities, and surrounded or mostly surrounded by development -- were not going to have significant environmental effects and did not require significant analysis. We still stand by that exemption.

Now people are taking the concept of an infill exemption and expanding it to include anything that could be built in an urban area, no matter how large the project. There are proposals that would weaken protections for ensuring that the land being developed isn't toxic or contaminated. This takes a concept that we worked hard to get through the legislature and have turns it into a wholesale gutting of some of the most important aspects of CEQA. CEQA accomplishes important goals in urban areas as well as outside of urban areas.

Let's turn to PCL's executive director search. What is PCL looking for and when might it fill the position?

It is important to PCL that the new executive director be very familiar with California and the California environment, as we are a California focused environmental group. It has always been important that the PCL executive director be experienced with the policy making process, the legislative process, and ballot measures. Obviously, it is also important to us that the new executive director have a very strong, demonstrated commitment to environmental protection. Beyond that, we are very open and flexible in terms of considering how different candidates can serve our organizational needs.

What is the timeframe for this search?

This post is open until filled. I don't know how long it will take to find the right candidate. The PCL board is not in a tremendous hurry to fill this spot. They would rather be deliberative in getting the right fit, and they are confident in Marc de la Vergne and I in our interim capacities. On the other hand, of course, we would very much like to have a new executive director sooner rather than later.

What is PCL's position on the quality of life bills that Senator Perata, Senator Lowenthal and others have introduced?

We are definitely supportive of the intent of those bills and the efforts made by the senators. We hope that we will be able to work through those vehicles to create a package that accomplishes these goals; a package that recognizes the importance of CEQA and makes real progress in addressing some of the growth planning, funding and infrastructure issues in the state.

A year from now, how should PCL and its agenda for 2005 be judged. What would amount to success?

We would be very pleased if we could look back on 2005 and say PCL worked within the environmental community, with local governments, builders, the legislative leadership and the administration to craft a good, balanced smart growth package that will direct more growth to urban areas and reduce sprawl without lowering real environmental protections in urban areas. We are not talking about a race to the bottom in California's cities. We would like to make CEQA and planning work better to achieve more high-quality infill development and better protections for agricultural land and natural habitat. This would be a great accomplishment, even if what we came up with was not completely comprehensive, if it were a positive step in a process that we could build on over next couple of years. That would be a tremendous success.