What matters to me today is all about VMT or “vehicle miles traveled.”
Buried in the reams of the Governor’s AB 130 is a new statewide VMT mitigation fee “option” administered by HCD. The consequence of any “option” depends on who may exercise that option, or not.
Many of my peers call foul. “Yet another fee burdening housing.” Fair. But this assumes that mitigating VMT impacts came anew with AB 130. Not so.
I was on the front-line negotiating SB 375 – the first tie of land use planning to transportation funding. “It’s just about cutting emissions,” we were assured. But many saw it as a trojan horse for growth control. The advent of VMT validates those concerns (with EVs, “vehicle miles” emissions cease).
I have seen projects stymied by a local agencies uncertainty how to mitigate VMT. There, the developer would gladly have paid a fee to escape the gridlock, but it was not an option.
The key question is who chooses or rejects this fee “option”? AB 130 is not clear. At least twice, it states the “project applicant” decides. However, AB 130 also says the “ultimate” discretion lies with the lead agency.
A cramdown of a statewide fee on project developers fulfills skeptics’ worst fears, converting cars into vehicles for growth control and land use restrictions. Tread thoughtfully, HCD.
That’s what matters to me today in 250 words or less. What matters to you? I’d really like to know.