Developers’ Moves Seen as Threat to Transit Plan

A behind-the-scenes effort by development interests to modify an $18.5-billion transportation program has environmentalists and a legislative architect of the plan worried that the changes could unravel the unprecedented agreement.

The source of the latest concern is a little-noticed provision in the massive transportation program that places a major new responsibility on large developers to reduce traffic congestion.

It requires local governments to assess the effect that new developments will have on traffic congestion and then to work out an agreement with the developer to mitigate that impact.

‘The Impact on Traffic’

“It significantly changes the way developers do business in California today,” said Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar), the author of the congestion provisions and Assembly Transportation Committee chairman. “We started out in the beginning saying you had to link land-use and transportation and the environment together. . . . You have to take into account the impact on traffic, both locally and regionally. You can’t continue with some sort of Western boom town mentality.”

Building and development interests, while applauding the goal of the legislation, contend it is unworkable in its present form. They are seeking legislation that they characterize as “tidying it up a little.”

“We’re very much concerned about those provisions in the sense that we think they could probably be made a little more realistic in certain circumstances,” said Donald V. Collin, a lobbyist for the California Building Industry Assn. He conceded that his group has not determined yet exactly what changes it will seek or how extensive they will be.

Katz and environmentalists said they fear what the developers really have in mind is a wholesale weakening of what they consider a critical element of the transportation program. It could prompt them, they said, to actively oppose the whole program.

The transportation program, which includes a 9-cent hike in the state’s gasoline tax, does not become effective unless voters approve changes in the state’s spending limit at a June, 1990, election. Any strong opposition could jeopardize passage of the measure that so far, according to opinion polls, appears to have only lukewarm support from the voters.

The 10-year transportation program would provide money for new streets and highways, mass transit construction, state and local road maintenance and measures to improve the efficiency of streets and highways.

‘Environmental Components’

Mike Paparian, state director for the California Sierra Club, said the congestion management program is one of the few “environmental components” that remained after Democratic and Republican legislative leaders and Gov. George Deukmejian hammered out a final compromise earlier this summer.

“Removing or tinkering with that portion would likely push us into an opposition mode,” Paparian said.

Both sides acknowledged that the congestion management program provides a radical new approach to building and development in California that will pile additional costs on developers, realign growth patterns in some communities and force local governments to give greater consideration to the impact that large projects will have on the transportation system.

“It’s a major departure from current policy,” says David Ackerman, a lobbyist for the Associated General Contractors of California who is acting as the coordinator between lawmakers and business groups who want changes in the program.

The new measure would require local governments through computer modeling to determine how many additional vehicle trips a large residential or commercial development project will add to both the surrounding and the regional transportation system. It applies only to urbanareas.

Before local governments could approve a new project, the developer must agree to lessen or “mitigate” the impact of the additional traffic on the regional transportation system. Local governments have an array of options to force the developer to do this. They can assess fees to be used to expand the transportation system or require such things as van pooling, flexible working hours and the creation of transportation management associations.

In addition, local governments would also be required to establish congestion levels for various zones in their city. If a zone is already at near gridlock--designated by the federal government as a level F--it may remain at that level. If not, each zone must be at least a level E, which means heavy congestion but not gridlock.

If a development will force changes in the traffic levels that exceed that permitted for the local zone in which it is located, the developer must also agree to a “mitigation” plan for that zone. Local governments that fail to comply with the congestion management requirements could lose their share of new road construction funds generated by the gas tax increase.

“Some people in the development community express the attitude that they just develop things; they don’t know where all the people come from,” Katz said. “But there is a correlation between office buildings and trips, between housing and trips, between shopping centers and cars. What this bill says is that from now on in California those additional vehicles on the road are going to be offset. And we’re not going to let it get any worse, and we might even let it get better.”

Computer Modeling

But Collin says builders and developers are worried that the computer modeling may be inaccurate or vary from city to city. He said it is also unclear what data will be used to determine levels of congestion.

“We’re not looking at undoing (the program),” he said. “We’re trying to make sure it works well so it becomes doable.”

Hugh Fitzpatrick, senior director of transportation for the Irvine Co., said that building and development interests are not alone in their concerns about the program but that a broad group of business interests, including chambers of commerce, manufacturers and truckers, are also pushing for changes.