About the Authors: Blake Murillo is the CEO of Psomas, a consulting engineering firm specializing in the land development, transportation and water markets in the Western United States. Joel B. Miller is the head of the Planning and Entitlements Team at Psomas.

By now the alarming stories on the impact of climate change are well known: increased air pollution and respiratory disease, a shrinking snowpack, extensive coastal and forest damage, increased insect-borne diseases, changes in vegetation and crop patterns, flooding, and extensive strain on energy infrastructure. According to a 2006 report by the California Department of Transportation, it is estimated that the economic costs of the rising level in greenhouse gasses could reach 5 percent to 20 percent of the annual global GDP.

This looming crisis has not escaped the attention of our nation’s lawmakers. Numerous bills have been introduced in Congress to tackle the issue, but despite the increased shift in the Capitol in favor of doing something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Congress has yet to take action.

In California, it’s a different story. AB 32, California’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires a rollback in greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent to 1990 levels by 2020.

The passage of AB 32 is bringing a host of global warming issues to the foreground, especially the conflict between traditional environmental/zoning regulations and smart growth measures that would lead to decreased dependence on the automobile.

The biggest cause of global climate change is CO₂ emissions from cars and trucks. According to Growing Cooler, a recent publication of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), every gallon of gasoline burned produces about 20 pounds of CO₂ emissions. Auto use is only increasing as people are commuting longer distances and making multiple trips. Average on-road fuel economy, which correlates with emissions, is declining due to larger vehicles and rising congestion. Emissions due to auto use will far outpace the projected efficiencies in vehicle fleets and low carbon fuels.

Auto dependence is a result of some 60 years of local government land-use decisions and the infrastructure expenditures that transportation agencies have made in responses to those decisions.

Complicating this picture is that the innovative policies of Smart Growth that would modify travel behavior often are in direct conflict with the conventional governmental approaches that encourage automobile dependence.

AB 32 may well be the catalyst that finally forces a confrontation and reconciliation of these often-conflicting approaches to managing how our cities grow. The solutions will require a re-thinking of long-held zoning and environmental sacred cows. What happens in California may well set the stage for similar dialogues across the country.

CO_² savings with smart growth
The ULI report clearly lays out how much transportation-related CO₂ savings can be expected with smart growth: shifting 60 percent of new growth to compact patterns would save 85 million metric tons of CO₂ annually by 2030.

A variety of development types—walkable communities, new urbanist neighborhoods, transit-oriented developments, infill and brownfield developments, lifestyle centers—fall under the Smart Growth umbrella. The newest LEED^® initiative, LEED for Neighborhood Development, sets a measurable standard for communities seeking to facilitate the precepts of smart growth.

When a Smart Growth residential/retail project with reduced parking is placed along a transit corridor, an explosive demand is created for walking, bike and transit alternatives. “Complete streets” in Smart Growth projects give equal weight to all the different street uses: bikes, walking, and public transit, as well as cars. Instead of requiring more parking and road widening, the emphasis turns to reducing auto dependence by providing “skinny” streets, plentiful bike racks, bike and carpool lanes, and vanpool and carpool parking.

Obstacles to smart growth
Unfortunately, current land use and transportation policies continue to emphasize automobile use.

Traffic mitigation requirements are a key obstacle to Smart Growth. A project’s environmental impact report will typically require road widening to facilitate traffic flow. The traffic generation of a development is modeled to determine expected traffic generation and then the responsible agencies facilitate the anticipated traffic demand by road widening. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As Chris Norfas, an analyst for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District notes, “If you design streets for traffic, you’ll get lots of traffic; if you design streets for people, you’ll get people.”

Narrow streets are resisted because of public safety concerns and their impact on traffic movement. Yet this is contrary to superior urban design, which values the tendency of narrow or “skinny” streets to encourage pedestrian use and contribute to a sense of neighborhood.

Another culprit in feeding auto demand is parking. Local agencies require that new projects provide zoning-required parking, but sustainable design calls for reduced parking to discourage driving and encourage use of public transit.

Antiquated code standards setting the ratio of parking per employee, dwelling unit, or square footage fly in the face of sustainable standards. If parking is, inconvenient, expensive, and less plentiful, it encourages people to change their habits and turn to public transportation or other alternatives.

Of course we cannot ignore market demand. The demand for parking is very strong and will affect the marketability of a project. This will not change until there is a behavioral change in how we get around, with more convenient and plentiful transit alternatives to support that behavioral change.

Another obstacle to Smart Growth is environmental regulations that fail to define different thresholds of adverse environmental significance for infill development. After all, one would expect current residents’ views to be impacted by dense, high-rise development in downtown cores; like-wise shade/shadow impacts would be unavoidable. Planning agencies that want to encourage Smart Growth need to distinguish between greenfeld and infill developments in terms of degree and types of impacts.

Transportation funding policies
Historically, federal transportation funding has been targeted at projects that facilitate auto use and vehicle miles traveled, leading to inefficient use of the transportation network and negative ­environmental consequences. Unfortunately, these policies have been mirrored at the state and local levels, promoting the movement of vehicles rather than people.

These investment decisions were not based on land use and environmental policies that promote multi-modal transportation choices, sustainable energy use, and access to jobs and affordable housing. Instead, these decisions were made in order to provide “catch-up” infrastructure that was necessary to connect outlying communities to urban centers.

The allocation decisions and criteria to make those decisions have not yet caught up with the greenhouse gas issue. It is not being addressed in the methodology used in making transportation-funding decisions. In California, the environmental community wants bond funds earmarked for transportation subject to AB 32. Not surprisingly, transportation interests are balking at that.

Forces for change
Spurred by the passage of AB 32, efforts are underway in California to reconcile environmental regulations and zoning requirements with Smart Growth measures in order to modify travel demand. A substantial change in transportation and transit decision-making will not be far behind.

The Air Resources Board (ARB) in California is mandated to adopt a plan by 2011 to meet AB 32 targets. The state ARB is creating the template for the new rules of the game and has made it clear that fundamental change is needed. Its plan lays out action measures, including enhancing and expanding transit, infill development, transit-oriented development, and Smart Growth. And, very significantly, it lays out enabling policies that call for providing relief from the constraints of the California Environmental Quality Act that stand in the way of Smart Growth.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown asked a state superior court judge to require San Bernardino County to redo its general plan to account for the amount of greenhouse gas emissions new developments could create and provide strategies for lessening or mitigating those emissions. The County and Brown reached an out-of-court agreement, but this action put cities and counties across the state on notice to incorporate AB 32 in their planning.

Brown is convening a series of workshops across the state to brief local officials on how government at all levels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Included among the topics is how cities and counties should analyze the global warming-related impacts of planning and land use decisions.

In the City of Los Angeles, the policies delineated in the Framework Element of the General Plan set forth planning priorities for a walkable city, density around transit, jobs near housing, smart parking requirements and less emphasis on road widenings.

According to Claire Bowin from the Planning department’s Citywide Division, Los Angeles is now in the process of updating 12 of its 35 community plans to spell out where the zoning needs to change to accommodate increased mixed-use and residential density around transit modes.

“We need to look at land use changes and street infrastructure changes near our transit modes,” says Bowin. “We should consider modifying secondary highways to reduce traffic speeds, moderate traffic volume, accommodate bicycles, widen sidewalks, and add tree canopy.” According to Bowin, the city needs to be more progressive in analyzing traffic generation of a proposed project and factor in the multi-modal potential.

The California State Association of Counties policy on climate change includes guidelines on land use. The association recognizes that “land use planning and development plays a direct role in transportation patterns, affecting travel demands… Smart land use planning and growth remain critical components to achieve reduction targets pursuant to AB 32.”

Trends in transportation ­funding
Fortunately, recent trends are moving transportation funding decisions in a new direction:

• The United States Senate is considering federal greenhouse gas legislation that would implement a “cap and trade” program, which will earmark for public transit some revenues derived from sources that exceed emission limits.
• California’s State Transportation Commission is considering regional transportation planning guidelines, which would establish a policy linkage between transportation investments and reducing carbon emissions.
• 
  
• The Minnesota State Legislature is considering a “Green Solutions Act” which, among other provisions, will generate new revenue for investments in public transit.
• 
  
• A recently released report to Congress from a bi-partisan group of public and private sector transportation officials urges the creation of a new “Environmental Stewardship Program” in the next federal surface transportation bill.

The marketplace
Market forces are also coming into play for Smart Growth.

Increasingly the younger, socially conscious user/buyer is more and more interested in “living green.” The typical green homebuyer is 35 to 50 years old with a college degree, a highly attractive demographic to developers. According to a recent study by Green Builder Media and Imre Communications, these homebuyers are willing to pay 11 percent to 25 percent more for environmentally friendly homes.

Communities that promote walking to nearby shops and services offer a very livable lifestyle. These communities stand to gain better returns for the developer in terms of higher rents and higher sales and leases.

In concentrating their efforts on building for the traditional family model, the development community has been responding to an outdated market scenario. The market today is segmented, with the traditional family in the minority. The rest of the market is made up of retired baby boomers, empty nesters, and single living by choice. Many are looking to downsize, for a more urban alternative, and/or a shorter commute.

Young professionals are looking for a more exciting, vibrant, active urban lifestyle. Developers are beginning to appreciate the nuances of different market niches and this bodes well for Smart Growth communities.

In passing AB 32 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, California is forcing a dialogue on the disconnect between the principles of Smart Growth and traditional zoning and environmental regulations. There are no easy answers and local governments may well get caught in the middle. The rest of the country should pay attention. The way this dialogue plays out will be significant for cities across the nation. SLDT

Reprinted with permission of the California Real Estate Journal.