A set of air quality rules meant to cut pollution from new development is being challenged by local politicians and builders who say they would unfairly tax new homes and businesses.
A set of air quality rules meant to cut pollution from new development is being challenged by local politicians and builders who say they would unfairly tax new homes and businesses.
The rules are still being drafted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, but builders and politicians are urging the district to take a different approach.
"No one is against air quality," Bakersfield City Councilman Harold Hanson said at a press conference Tuesday. "(But) adding a couple thousand per home could mean the difference between homeownership and renting."
Builders say the rules will cost taxpayers $400 million over several years -- a misleading figure, according to the rules' supporters. They arrived at this calculation assuming they'll pay $4,000 extra per building unit, and that cost will likely be passed on to the home buyer.
"I think it's very much a distortion for folks today to say this is a fee or a tax," said state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, who attended the press conference to rebut its claims. "Nobody wants to take their turn to clean the air. This is the industry that at this point needs to come to the plate."
!ADVERTISEMENT!
State law requires the district to control increased pollution from truck and automobile traffic generated by new development.
The resulting rules are meant to cut 10 years worth of pollution from development. At each new project, the rules would slash dust and diesel particles, known as PM 10, in half, and would also cut nitrogen oxides, which form smog and particulates, by a third.
To do this, developers would have to come up with energy-efficient, walkable designs. If those designs didn't cut all required pollution, builders could pay for equivalent reductions offsite.
Developers could add bike lanes, build a restaurant or bank near homes, provide public parks, plant native plants, offer electrical outlets outside homes to promote use of electrical yard equipment -- and the list goes on for a dozen pages.
If developers choose to include none of these features in their homes, they could pay as much as $331 million in the next five years to offset pollution elsewhere, according to the air district. But regulators hope developers will handle their own pollution, said Brenda Turner, spokeswoman for the air district.
"It's largely up to the developer themselves," she said. "In the ads for some of these developments they talk about exactly what the air district would like."
The rule would apply to projects with 50 or more homes, and commercial development between 2,000 and 55,000 square feet.
Builders doubt they pollute as much as the district says, and question the prudence of paying a check to the air district without a clear vision of what they're buying.
"This is another one with shaky science," said Bart Doyle, attorney and technical consultant to the state building industry association. "It's very loosey-goosey (as to where the money goes)."
Mike Maggard, a Bakersfield city councilman and air district board member, asked, "What do they propose we do? We're obligated by state law and (our federal attainment plan). If there's an alternative, I am all ears and eager to hear what that might be."
Proponents of the rules doubt they will make a dent in builders' bottom lines or dramatically increase home prices. Castle & Cooke and Tejon Ranch have already cut checks to the district to offset more pollution than the rules would require.
The rules are scheduled to go before the air district board in December.
NEW DEVELOPMENT AIR POLLUTION LAW:
--The law: A 2003 state law requires the valley air district to quantify air pollution generated by new developments, and to start a program that would force builders to cut air pollution or pay to have it cut offsite.
--What's happened: Regulators expected to have new rules in place last December. They're still working out the details, but last spring, two companies volunteered for what has become a model for these rules.
Tejon Ranch and Castle & Cooke have paid the district for 100 percent of the pollution they couldn't cut through clever design. That's more than developers will be required to trim under the proposed rules.
--What's next: Expect haggling, letter-writing and perhaps litigation in the coming weeks. Air district staff plan to present their rules to the board Dec. 15.
To see more of The Bakersfield Californian, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.bakersfield.com.
Source: Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
