This study provides an overview of how California's local governments are reacting to and planning for current and anticipated growth and development. It identifies trends related to that growth and recommends policies and programs the State of California should consider.

The research is unique in its degree of integration of the concepts of sustainable development, smart growth, and livable communities, and in its up-to-date assessment of the land use and transportation strategies being incorporated into local plans and implementation activities.

Its primary purpose is to help state officials, concerned professionals, and other involved stakeholders select and shape effective and feasible state policies and programs that will support and promote better management of California's future growth. It may also be useful to a wide variety of professionals and advocates concerned with the policies used to guide California's growth and development.

Research for this study identified and investigated policies and approaches associated with the concepts of livable communities, smart growth, and sustainable communities. For the study, the term "smart growth" was selected as the primary term used to refer to these new planning approaches. Definitions of these terms are provided beginning on See DEFINITIONS of this report, but it was not the purpose of this study to explore the distinctions between these terms. Indeed, there is no authoritative source for such definitions, and while the terms are sometimes used differently, these differences are not significant for the purposes of this report.

Research consisted of a literature review, a survey mailed to California's 534 city and county planning directors, and follow-up phone interviews of 30 survey respondents. The 200 responses to the mailed survey represent jurisdictions having almost 58 percent of the state's population.

The literature review identified a variety of land use and transportation strategies. The survey of city and county planning directors focused on 10 commonly cited strategies clustered within three policy areas:

Develop Efficient and Compact Communities

Plan for a significant amount of development to occur on vacant and underutilized sites within developed areas.

Establish land use standards and practices that increase land use intensity within downtown(s) and near transit stops.

Plan for more mixed-use developments.

Plan for more open space preservation, including natural areas, conservation lands, parks, and, if available, agricultural areas.

Promote Transportation and Housing Choices

Plan for more transportation choices, including transit-supportive and bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, shopping areas, and employment centers.

Plan for the retention and development of housing that meets projected demand and accommodates a range of incomes and ages.

Plan for the development of housing affordable to workers employed locally.

Enhance Public/Private Processes and Interjurisdictional Cooperation

Coordinate local land use and circulation plans with neighboring communities.

Use public, private, and/or nonprofit partnerships, alliances, and other collaborative approaches in the preparation of conservation and development policies and regulations.

Establish procedures that provide greater certainty and predictability in the review of developments conforming to the jurisdiction's adopted planning policies, programs, and strategies.

From 107 to 143 jurisdictions currently are either implementing or studying each of the 10 strategies. Additional jurisdictions report that although all the strategies are applicable, they have not yet been considered. Few jurisdictions report having considered and rejected any of the identified strategies (no more than four for any one strategy).

The following major conclusions were drawn from the background research, survey data, and planning director interviews:

Implementation of the 10 strategies is not restricted to particular types of communities but is broadly distributed throughout California's cities and counties.

Cities and counties throughout California anticipate that land use will intensify. Of the 190 jurisdictions responding to the question, "In general, would you say that your jurisdiction is moving in the direction of using land more intensively?" 153 jurisdictions, representing all population sizes, geographical locations, and social and economic circumstances, answered "Yes."

There is a large and growing trend in California to restrict urban expansion. Of the 128 jurisdictions that found the issue applicable, 85 reported that their jurisdiction is moving in the direction of restricting outward growth.

Policies and programs to promote more transportation choices, including transit-supportive and bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, shopping areas, and employment centers, have been adopted or are under study in 129 of the 140 jurisdictions that report them as applicable.

Policies and programs addressing land use, transportation, and other elements of growth will need to be sensitive to regional differences. The challenges of addressing growth are likely to be especially difficult for the high-growth, low-income Inland Empire and San Joaquin Valley regions.

The highest levels of controversy related to the 10 growth-related strategies identified and evaluated by this research involve intensification of uses -- particularly housing uses -- within existing residential neighborhoods.

The research suggests that controversies could intensify significantly in coming years. Both the survey and the in-depth interviews show that many jurisdictions are still studying or only beginning to implement new planning approaches. At the same time, the population and economic growth projected for California, combined with restrictions on outward growth, will force planners to attempt to situate large quantities of new development within existing communities.

Jurisdictions that are the most successful in implementing new planning approaches often employ several strategies, including extensive neighborhood and community involvement in the planning process; attention to design detail; visualization techniques; and improvement of community facilities and services, both within and around new projects. These strategies require funding and skills not available to all jurisdictions.

California communities that hope to accommodate projected growth within existing boundaries without encountering potentially debilitating opposition from residents must substantially enhance existing planning resources and skills, involve neighborhoods and communities in shaping their own futures, provide guidance to ensure that growth is accommodated in a manner that benefits the community, and secure adequate and stable funding sources.

Recommendations focus on what state leaders should consider if the state government is to become a stronger advocate for smart, livable, and sustainable transportation and land use policies. Specific recommendations are made in the following areas:

Measures to enhance the planning capacities of local governments.

Measures to target state funds (and federal pass-through funds) to communities that are implementing smart growth projects.

Measures to enhance the capacity of local governments that approve smart growth projects to secure the local taxes and fees needed to adequately provide for related needs, including existing deficiencies in neighborhoods expected to accommodate the new projects.

Improvements in the adequacy, security, and predictability of state funding for local government.

Measures that structure state general plan requirements, housing requirements, and funding assistance to reward localities that are addressing and accommodating the housing needs resulting from job growth in their jurisdictions.

Preparation of guidelines to assist localities in streamlining California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedures while maintaining existing CEQA benefits, coordinating local land use plans with neighboring communities, and increasing certainty in development review procedures.

Introduction

This study is intended to help state officials, concerned professionals, and other involved stakeholders select and shape effective and feasible state policies and programs that will support and promote better management of the state's future growth. It may also be useful to a wide variety of professionals and advocates concerned with the policies used to guide California's growth and development.

If the state government is to become a stronger advocate for transportation and land use policies that address growth patterns and related issues, state policymakers and key administrative agency leaders should have the clearest, most up-to-date understanding possible of the following issues:

Existing efforts by local government to improve and update planning methods.

The status of and attitudes toward innovation and change in the planning and community development profession.

The extent to which local governments are incorporating new ideas and concepts into local plans and implementing them in practice.

The sources and nature of support and opposition to these changes at the local community level.

Previous research conducted by the team that carried out this project has concluded that the term "smart growth" is an appropriate way to reference the planning efforts associated with sustainable, smart, and livable development concepts. Thus, "smart growth" is the primary term used here to refer to new planning approaches. However, the work effort also integrated implementation policies and approaches associated with the concepts of livable communities and sustainable communities and development. Definitions of these terms can be found on See DEFINITIONS.

This report addresses the following questions and issues:

What land use and transportation techniques are appropriately associated with smart growth?

To what extent are local (that is, city and county) planning agencies incorporating smart growth concepts in their planning strategies?

What are the major obstacles to incorporating smart growth planning concepts into local plans?

To what extent are local planning agencies seeing smart growth concepts being implemented?

What are the major obstacles to implementing smart growth planning concepts?

Who are the advocates and opponents of smart growth planning?

What are the perceived motivations of advocates and opponents?

What actions could the state take that would be both effective in facilitating smart growth plans and acceptable to the constituencies that would have implementation responsibilities?

This report includes an executive summary, a description of the scope and methodology of the study, results of the literature and Web site research, results and analysis of a survey of planning directors, results and analysis of interviews with selected planning officials, a summary of major conclusions, and recommendations for consideration by the State of California.

The research is unique in its degree of integration of sustainable development, smart growth, and livable communities concepts and in its up-to-date assessment of the land use and transportation strategies being incorporated into local plans and implementation activities.

Scope and Methodology

The research and analysis undertaken to answer the questions presented in See Introduction involved three primary elements:

Through a literature review, a master list of specific land use and transportation actions generally associated with sustainable, smart, and livable growth management was created. The primary research method was the use of the Web to review professional publications, advocacy group Web sites, and available independent studies. Some written materials were collected and incorporated into the analysis; the most important of these involved work done by the State Office of Planning and Research and surveys conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). More information on research sources and methods is available beginning on See Introduction.

A survey of planning directors was developed and administered. It focused on the master list of specific land use and transportation actions developed in the literature review. The methods used to develop, administer, compile, and analyze the data collected in the survey are presented in See Survey of Planning Directors and discussed in more detail in See Survey Methodology and Source Notes.

Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with 30 survey respondents. Interviewees were selected to distribute interviews geographically, by size of jurisdiction, by rates of anticipated growth, and by other factors. More details on the methods used are provided beginning on See Introduction.

Literature and Web Research

Introduction

The goal of our literature and Web research was to create a master list of specific local land use and transportation actions generally associated with sustainable, smart, and livable growth management. The main objective was to identify specific techniques used by local planning agencies to promote smart growth.

The results of the literature and Web research summarized in this chapter are presented in full in See Local Smart Growth Activities in California.

The primary research approach used information drawn from the Web in April 2002. Information also was drawn from local government planning documents in academic and governmental libraries. The most helpful online source of information was the LUPIN Web site ( http://ceres.ca.gov/planning ). Key planning documents included adopted or proposed general and specific plans on file in the College of Environmental Design Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in the Association of Bay Area Governments-Metropolitan Transportation Commission Library at the MetroCenter in Oakland, California.

The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) provided selected unpublished results from a research process they completed during the course of this project, and key elements of that are summarized below and more fully in See Local Smart Growth Activities in California. The work of the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) was also reviewed. The relevant information drawn from that work is presented beginning on See Public Policy Institute of California Opinion Research.

Smart Growth Characteristics

Three core themes, or organizing concepts, characterize smart growth. The first is conserving resources--accommodating growth in greenfield edges of communities through contiguous, compact development that lowers costs for new infrastructure and reduces consumption of open space, restoring and recycling built-up areas already served by community infrastructure, and taking steps to conserve valued natural resources. The second is widening choices of development forms and functions to satisfy the needs of an increasingly diverse society and economy--expanding available options of home styles, types of neighbors and neighborhoods, work locations, travel modes, recreation and cultural opportunities. The third theme is achieving these goals through inclusive, public/private, multijurisdictional processes that ensure that the interests of all the stakeholders in community development are heard and leverage collaborative relationships to achieve smart growth.

These ideas are expressed in various phrases and formulations, but usually incorporate the following elements or principles:

Promoting compact, mixed-use development

Conserving open space and natural features and qualities

Efficiently maintaining and expanding infrastructure systems

Encouraging infill, redevelopment, and adaptive reuse in existing built-up areas

Improving mobility through multimodal transportation.

Smart growth principles propose to bend the current course of development -- to make communities more compact, for example, to conserve more open space, and to encourage more infill and redevelopment.

Research Findings: Local Policies and Implementation Measures

The following menu of policies and implementation measures identifies actions that have been either adopted or considered at the local level in California. Other than Social Equity and Workforce Development (See Social Equity and Workforce Development: Policies and Implementation Measures), these measures have been organized around state-mandated local general plan element topics.

Land Use Element: Policies and Implementation Measures

Ensure that infrastructure efficiently serves future growth.

Identify existing urbanized areas in need of infrastructure upgrades. Target local infrastructure resources to support development where infrastructure is already in place, enabling existing infrastructure to support increased intensity of use. Repair or replace aging infrastructure in infill and redevelopment areas.

Designate service boundaries for extending infrastructure and discourage extension of public facilities beyond these boundaries.

Work with sponsors of regional projects and activities, such as sports, entertainment, and employment, to locate these activities in downtowns and areas well served by transit.

Locate schools, libraries, hospitals, and civic buildings near existing and planned transit stations, and within walking or biking distance of the communities they serve.

Establish joint-use public facilities, such as the sharing of recreational centers between schools and cities, and placing libraries in local community service centers.

Direct future growth to vacant and underutilized land within existing urbanized areas.

Complete an inventory of vacant and underutilized land.

Prepare specific plans for underutilized areas, for example, surplus or abandoned institutional, commercial (strip malls), and industrial land (contaminated sites). Redevelop these areas with activities that eliminate large surface parking lots, mix different types of uses, and include shared parking areas as well as pedestrian and transit-access amenities.

Identify sites with special redevelopment needs, such as abandoned or contaminated sites, and prioritize their redevelopment or clean-up.

Provide loan guarantees, letters of credit, and fee or tax waivers to developers of mixed-use and infill projects.

Create private-public partnerships in community revitalization efforts to improve the quality of life for new and existing residents and businesses in disadvantaged/existing communities.

Remove barriers to adaptive reuse, such as building codes that inhibit the redevelopment of older buildings.

Make the development process more efficient by providing certainty as to where new development will or will not occur.

Conduct front-end environmental clearance, and minimize project-by-project reviews in areas designated for reuse.

Assign and fund staff contacts to guide projects through the development review process as efficiently as possible.

Minimize discretionary permit requirements, such as use permits, applicable to proposed infill and other smart development.

Create efficient land use patterns that will reduce projected congestion levels, improve mobility, and reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Exempt or minimize development fees for infill and redevelopment projects.

Identify transit and transportation corridors and create specific plans for their development at greater intensities.

Locate the services people use every day, such as child care, cleaners, and convenience shopping, at transit centers and in major activity centers.

Revitalize or establish a pedestrian-oriented town center or subcenters. Create a specific plan for the center's development.

Encourage mixed uses by permitting residential uses in all zones and neighborhood-serving commercial uses in residential zones.

Reduce parcel size for new single-family developments.

In newly developing areas, permit mixed uses and housing for a wide range of incomes.

Design neighborhoods and projects to improve livability.

Zone for mixed-use, compact development with a connected street network, pedestrian-scale design, and transit-oriented development. Encourage pedestrian-scale, neighborhood-serving commercial uses in residential areas.

Develop, adopt, and implement design guidelines for the street frontage of buildings. Avoid blank walls; encourage windows, entrances, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities such as sitting areas. Provide opportunities for traffic calming. Design streets and structures at a human scale, allowing walkability.

Coordinate local land use, circulation, and major development plans with neighboring communities.

Provide for input on proposed general plan changes from those localities that could be affected by such changes.

Establish interjurisdictional review boards to review major development proposals within the sphere of influence of a neighboring community.

Circulation Element: Policies and Implementation Measures

Promote efficient use of resources for mobility demands, especially opportunities for nonmotorized transportation and access to destinations by alternatives to auto travel.

Establish guidelines that call for transit-supportive and bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, shopping areas, and employment centers.

Require new developments to include pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Adopt transit station area specific plans or redevelopment plans for all areas within walking distance, which include a mix of uses and the highest residential and commercial densities found in the community.

Interconnect pedestrian and bicycle networks with transit networks; connect bike and pedestrian paths directly with transit stations or stops.

Establish lower parking requirements, and short- and long-term bicycle parking facilities in activity centers and areas near transit stops.

Provide a variety of coordinated measures aimed at congestion relief.

Establish a transportation demand management program that encourages alternatives to single-occupant vehicles.

Work with Caltrans and local transit agencies to develop transit priority measures, such as signal priority and dedicated bus lanes, that allow transit vehicles to bypass congested areas.

Form partnerships with transit agencies to develop financing or other strategies for development around stations or in the design of major transit corridors.

Relax traffic level-of-service standards within major activity centers.

Incorporate standards that enhance walkability (sidewalks, on-street parking, traffic calming, landscaping, good building facade design) into street design manuals.

Establish minimum density requirements for all new development within a certain distance (for example, one-third of a mile) of public transit stations.

Advocate employer-sponsored transit passes as an alternative to on-site parking for employees.

Pursue a city car-share program.

Promote telecommuting by establishing telecommuting programs for city and county workers or adopting alternative work schedules.

Housing Element: Policies and Implementation Measures

Provide a quantity of diverse housing types that meets projected demand.

Identify the potential for new housing production within existing urbanized areas. Complete an inventory of vacant lands in the jurisdiction and study potential for higher densities on currently developed sites.

Conduct a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing for all economic segments of the community, to measure unmet housing needs.

Permit in-law (accessory) units.

Relax restrictions on multifamily housing.

Establish locally initiated density bonuses that allow developers of housing units to add extra units (stories) if the developments include such amenities as improvements to nearby transit, parks, public spaces, or pedestrian or bicycle facilities.

Amend the general plan and zoning on undeveloped or underutilized commercial and industrial lands to allow residential or mixed use. Permit residential development in conjunction with commercial projects.

Encourage the construction of affordable and infill housing by processing permits more quickly and providing project subsidies.

Preserve and restore the existing housing stock and limit the conversion of residential buildings to other uses.

Encourage housing development that accommodates a range of incomes and ages, including some mixed-income neighborhoods.

Participate in location-efficient mortgage programs to provide low-interest mortgage loans for residents who purchase homes in neighborhoods targeted for revitalization and/or near transit.

Adopt inclusionary zoning, which requires developers of new housing to provide a certain percentage (usually 10-20 percent) of units affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income residents. The developer can provide this housing in new residential developments or in a different location. In-lieu fees for affordable housing can substitute for units where land has been identified for it.

Work with nonprofit and for-profit developers to create permanently affordable housing. Preserve existing affordable housing to address gentrification of urban neighborhoods, and provide opportunities for increased community and economic development.

Subsidize affordable housing projects by reducing development fees or pursuing proactive programs designed to assist in construction of affordable units.

Locate more housing near job centers.

Institute jobs-housing linkage programs, which require all new job-generating projects to pay a fee toward the development of affordable housing. (This may be inappropriate for housing-rich areas where it might penalize needed new job production.)

Establish a housing impact fee on new commercial and industrial projects, to be used for the provision of affordable housing units.

Pursue tax-increment financing and other incentives to promote transit-oriented developments, producing housing at commute nodes.

Social Equity and Workforce Development: Policies and Implementation Measures

Although Social Equity and Workforce Development is not a state-mandated element of local general plans in California, issues related to social equity are part of a smart growth program and can be addressed effectively locally.

As part of an overall economic development program, locate and link businesses that are compatible with the skills and education of the local workforce.

Encourage new employers and contractors to search for skilled workers locally.

Match economic development efforts to attract employers to the skills of the area's employees.

Adopt policies encouraging local workers to occupy new housing units.

Support workforce development programs that encourage schools, colleges, and other training programs to educate and train residents for targeted employment opportunities.

Avoid displacing residents, community institutions, and neighborhood-serving local businesses.

Conservation/Open Space Element: Policies and Implementation Measures

Prepare conservation and development policies and regulations in collaboration with all stakeholders, including neighboring jurisdictions. Address community concerns through alliances and partnerships.

Develop resources for "green" building design practices and materials.

Assess development fees to preserve or provide open space.

Incorporate new development in or adjacent to existing developed areas, and provide greenspace for recreation and other amenities.

Develop measures of environmental justice to ensure that low-income communities and communities of color do not bear a disproportionate burden of environmental hazards.

Establish a transfer-of-development-rights program that allows for preservation of open space on the urban fringe and intensifies land use within existing developed areas.

Prepare plans and measures for preserving open space, natural resources, and the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, and agricultural land.

Protect significant open space resources by establishing an open space land trust.

Adopt urban growth boundaries coupled with infill development commitments.

Encourage recycling, resource reduction, and energy conservation programs to reduce waste of scarce natural resources.

Identify significant open space and scenic, cultural, and historic resources so they can be protected.

Establish standards for park and recreational space in new and redevelopment areas.

Establish conservation easements to allow local communities to finance open space needed for parks, watershed protection, and recreational activities.

Identify prime agricultural land that should be set aside from development, and pursue Williamson Act agreements with those landowners.

Do not publicly fund infrastructure that would support low-density new development in prime agricultural areas not planned for future growth.

Design for preservation and improvement of open space, parks, and community centers in urbanized areas, improving the quality of urban green space.

Identify existing parks and neighborhoods that lack parks. Identify potential greenspace and park space in existing urbanized areas that lack public greenspace. Identify recreational activities and neighborhoods that lack these.

Educate citizens about the public benefits of infill and redevelopment, and the tradeoffs involved between smart growth and sprawl.

Explain how traditional suburban development patterns can lead to sprawl and its associated challenges of increased auto trips, congestion, and energy consumption, and how mixed uses, compactness, and walkability can promote more travel choices and livability.

Planning Strategies for the Survey of Planning Directors

Based on the findings from this research, the following operational framework was used as a starting point in surveying local governments with respect to smart growth activity, interests, and needs:

Develop Efficient and Compact Communities

Plan for a significant amount of development to occur on vacant and underutilized sites within developed areas.

Establish land use standards and practices that increase land use intensity within downtown(s) and near transit stops.

Plan for more mixed-use developments.

Plan for more open space preservation, including natural areas, conservation lands, parks, and, if available, agricultural areas.

Promote Transportation and Housing Choices

Plan for more transportation choices, including transit-supportive and bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, shopping areas, and employment centers.

Plan for the retention and development of housing that meets projected demand and accommodates a range of incomes and ages.

Plan for the development of housing affordable to workers employed locally.

Enhance Public/Private Processes and Interjurisdictional Cooperation

Coordinate local land use and circulation plans with neighboring communities.

Use public, private, and/or nonprofit partnerships, alliances, and other collaborative approaches in the preparation of conservation and development policies and regulations.

Establish procedures that provide greater certainty and predictability in the review of developments conforming to the jurisdiction's adopted planning policies, programs, and strategies.

Other Supportive Research

Research and surveys conducted by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and the Public Policy Institute of California are summarized below to provide additional evidence supporting the conclusions and recommendations of this report.

State Office of Planning and Research Survey

Exploration of other research in the area of growth management in California identified another opinion research process involving public officials that was relevant to the issues addressed by this project. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) sponsored a series of roundtable meetings -- 17 were held in 2001 -- that involved hundreds of locally elected and appointed officials, as well as leaders representing real estate, business, environmental, and ethnic interests and organizations. At these sessions, participants were asked to recommend specific actions that could be taken by the state to effectively accommodate projected growth. After synthesizing the results of these roundtable meetings, OPR prepared and distributed a survey to all participants to measure their response to suggestions brought up at the roundtable meetings.

Certain subjects addressed in the survey relate to smart growth strategies. These ideas, and responses to them, are as follows:

	Strongly support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose	Left blank
1. Give priority for state grant funding to communities that can demonstrate that they are implementing key smart growth principles.	34	23	8	6	7	1
2. Establish a revolving loan fund for local jurisdictions to develop and adopt specific plans that developers can rely on for approval of a project application.	13	30	16	12	2	5
3. Develop a comprehensive state plan for growth and development in California.	33	20	11	5	7	3
4. Prepare a new publication that identifies existing streamlining measures within the California Environmental Quality Act and planning law.	25	38	12	3	1	0
5. Allow transit-oriented development (TOD) to be funded through tax-increment financing by exempting TODs from meeting the physical and economic criteria of blight in order to qualify as redevelopment areas.	17	35	14	11	2	1

Public Policy Institute of California Opinion Research

The context in which the views of planning officials were solicited for this project (see the survey described in See Survey of Planning Directors) includes the opinions of the general public.

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) regularly surveys Californians on growth, land use, and environmental issues. A survey on these issues was conducted in late October 2001; details are available on the PPIC Web site at http://www.ppic.org .

The survey identifies a clear split in public attitudes about growth, with a slight majority tilting in favor of greater controls. Key findings include the following:

55 percent would vote to approve "a local initiative that would slow down the pace of development" in their community even if it meant having less economic growth. 29 percent regard population growth and development in their region as a "big problem," 37 percent as "somewhat of a problem," and 33 percent as "not a problem," with 1 percent not knowing if it is or is not a problem.

49 percent agree that "it is better to allow growth in undeveloped areas if people want to live there," and 46 percent want to "steer growth to already developed areas."

53 percent of Californians believe that "the state should maintain current land use and environmental restrictions, even if it increases the cost of new housing" and 43 percent believe that the state should ease land use and environmental restrictions in an effort to increase the housing supply.

55 percent favor using tax dollars to "buy undeveloped land to keep it free from commercial and residential development," but 56 percent oppose higher local taxes to pay for buying undeveloped land.

59 percent agree that local governments in their region should "get together and agree on land use and growth issues," and 35 percent agree that "local government should decide on its own." 50 percent agree that the state should give planning guidelines to local governments as part of addressing regional development; 47 percent do not want state planning guidelines.

50 percent conclude that state government is not doing enough to manage land use and growth issues, with 35 percent concluding that the state is doing "just enough" and 8 percent "more than enough." 12 percent have "a lot" of confidence in "the state government's ability to plan for land use and growth," with 48 percent having "only some" confidence, 28 percent "very little" confidence, and 10 percent no confidence; 2 percent do not know.

This survey helps to explain the controversy confronting local planning officials. While there is a slight tilt in favor of doing more to manage growth, there is no public agreement about the best course for planning.

Importance of Regional Differences

California's year 2000 population of almost 34 million people live in diverse regions with very different characteristics. The strategies employed by local smart growth efforts, or by the state in supporting them, will differ substantially to account for these differing characteristics.

A State of Diversity -- Demographic Trends in California's Regions , authored by Hans Johnson for the Public Policy Institute of California (May 2002; available on the PPIC Web site, www.ppic.org ) , analyzes California from the perspective of the nine regions identified in See California Counties Compared. See California Counties Compared identifies the year 2000 population and rank, the projected 2000-to-2020 population growth and rank, and the 1998 per capita income for each of California's 58 counties. Data are divided into the county groupings used by the PPIC report A State of Diversity . Using per capita income as an indication of local resources available to address land use, transportation, and growth issues, the data suggest substantial regional differences.

California Counties Compared
REGION County	2000 Population	2000 Population Rank	2000-2020 Population Growth	Projected Population Growth Rank	1998 Per Capita Income ($)	Income Rank
BAY AREA
Alameda	1,466,900	7	344,900	9	32,130	9
Contra Costa	963,000	9	189,900	15	36,006	5
Marin	250,100	24	23,700	39	52,869	1
Napa	125,800	35	32,600	35	32,649	6
San Francisco	787,500	11	-31,700	58	44,518	2
San Mateo	717,900	13	116,600	23	43,338	3
Santa Clara	1,709,500	5	453,500	7	40,828	4
Solano	400,300	20	159,200	18	23,724	24
Sonoma	464,800	16	163,600	17	30,911	11
CENTRAL COAST
Monterey	408,700	18	182,000	16	28,185	14
San Benito	54,500	43	32,300	36	21,088	36
San Luis Obispo	249,900	25	141,000	22	24,807	22
Santa Barbara	406,100	19	146,600	20	28,698	13
Santa Cruz	259,300	22	111,300	24	31,302	10
SACRAMENTO METRO
El Dorado	158,300	30	94,600	28	27,046	16
Placer	251,800	23	155,100	19	32,319	8
Sacramento	1,242,000	8	465,600	6	26,257	18
Yolo	170,900	28	65,500	30	25,791	19
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
Fresno	816,400	10	318,200	10	20,333	41
Kern	678,500	14	410,100	8	19,643	47
Kings	134,500	32	64,200	31	15,492	58
Madera	127,700	33	101,500	27	17,403	52
Merced	214,400	26	108,300	25	17,732	50
San Joaquin	573,600	15	314,000	11	20,813	38
Stanislaus	454,600	17	257,500	12	21,136	35
Tulare	375,100	21	195,800	14	18,893	48
SOUTH COAST
Los Angeles	9,716,000	1	1,868,800	1	26,773	17
Orange	2,893,100	2	648,600	5	32,541	7
Ventura	765,300	12	241,900	13	28,711	12
SAN DIEGO
Imperial	149,000	31	145,200	21	17,353	53
San Diego	2,856,300	3	1,007,200	4	27,657	15
INLAND EMPIRE
Riverside	1,577,700	6	1,239,900	2	22,451	29
San Bernardino	1,742,300	4	1,058,600	3	20,258	43
SIERRAS
Alpine	1,200	58	500	56	22,688	28
Amador	35,400	47	5,900	50	20,721	39
Calaveras	41,000	45	21,200	41	20,172	44
Inyo	18,200	52	2,500	52	23,468	25
Mariposa	17,300	53	7,000	49	21,231	34
Mono	13,100	54	3,900	51	25,020	21
Tuolumne	55,200	42	22,000	40	20,082	45
FAR NORTH
Butte	205,400	27	103,500	26	20,838	37
Colusa	19,100	51	20,100	43	20,287	42
Del Norte	28,200	48	10,800	47	16,385	57
Glenn	26,900	49	19,600	44	16,882	54
Humboldt	127,700	33	14,400	45	22,066	30
Lake	59,100	40	33,900	34	21,696	33
Lassen	35,600	46	13,900	46	16,667	55
Mendocino	87,400	37	29,300	37	22,728	27
Modoc	9,500	56	2,000	55	20,005	46
Nevada	93,000	36	40,200	32	25,051	20
Plumas	21,000	50	2,500	52	23,783	23
Shasta	165,000	29	66,000	29	21,986	31
Sierra	3,600	57	200	57	23,175	26
Siskiyou	44,700	44	9,200	48	20,474	40
Sutter	80,200	38	35,400	33	21,965	32
Tehama	56,700	41	28,400	38	17,600	51
Trinity	13,100	54	2,300	54	18,704	49
Yuba	60,800	39	21,100	42	16,405	56

The PPIC report identifies several factors that are especially relevant to addressing future growth issues.

Population densities range from 9 people per square mile (ppsq) in the seven-county Sierra region and 26 ppsq in the eighteen Far North counties, to 980 ppsq in the Bay Area and 1,959 ppsq in the three South Coast counties. With the exception of the Far North and Sierra regions, every region in California is more racially diverse than the nation as a whole. In three regions--the South Coast, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Inland Empire--no single group constitutes a majority of the population.

California's regions have continued to diverge economically. The San Joaquin Valley and the Inland Empire -- the poorest regions and two of the fastest-growing regions -- had inflation-adjusted declining per capita income in the 1990s. In 1999, the San Joaquin Valley's per capita income was more than 30 percent below the state average, the Inland Empire's per capita income was about 25 percent below the state average, and the Bay Area's per capita income was almost 40 percent higher than the state average.

Survey of Planning Directors

Smart Growth Strategies Included in the Planning Director Survey

Initial research identified a variety of planning strategies that are commonly associated with smart growth. The strategies can be grouped into three major categories of local planning activities: developing efficient and compact communities, promoting transportation and housing choices, and enhancing public/private processes and interjurisdictional cooperation. The survey (see See Planning Director Survey Questionnaire with Tabulated Results) asked for responses to the following 10 strategies:

Strategy A. Planning for a significant amount of development to occur on vacant and underutilized sites within developed areas.

Strategy B. Establishing land use standards and practices that increase land use intensity within downtown(s) and near transit stops.

Strategy C. Planning for more mixed-use developments.

Strategy D. Planning for more open space preservation, including natural areas, conservation lands, parks, and, if available, agricultural areas.

Strategy E. Planning for more transportation choices, including transit-supportive and bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, shopping areas, and employment centers.

Strategy F. Planning for the retention and development of housing that meets projected demand and accommodates a range of incomes and ages.

Strategy G. Planning for the development of housing affordable to workers employed locally.

Strategy H. Coordinating local land use and circulation plans with neighboring communities.

Strategy I. Using public, private, and/or nonprofit partnerships, alliances, and other collaborative approaches in the preparation of conservation and development policies and regulations.

Strategy J. Establishing procedures that provide greater certainty and predictability in the review of developments conforming to the jurisdiction's adopted planning policies, programs, and strategies.

Survey Description

The Mineta Transportation Institute conducted a mail survey of 534 city and county planning directors in California in mid-February 2002. Follow-up e-mails were sent to agencies that did not respond by the end of February. Extensive phone contact was made with jurisdictions where the mailed survey and/or the e-mail had been returned as undeliverable, and those agencies were sent the survey again by fax or e-mail.

A copy of the survey instrument (including the tabulated results) is presented as See Planning Director Survey Questionnaire with Tabulated Results to this report. The survey was drafted, reviewed, and revised in consultation with the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San José State University. The strategies included in the survey were developed as part of the literature and Web research effort described on See Introduction.

From mid-March through early April 2002, phone, fax, and e-mail follow-up were carried out for jurisdictions that had not responded. The most effort was expended on the largest jurisdictions; some effort was focused on jurisdictions having more than 20,000 in population; and few jurisdictions smaller than 20,000 received further effort. After April 15, no additional written survey responses were accepted for inclusion in the analysis. See Survey Methodology and Source Notes contains a more detailed description of the sources of information and methods related to the survey and to the analysis below.

Findings

As California is growing, increasing the need for forward thinking in land use planning, overwhelming majorities of cities and counties throughout the state say they are using land more intensively than in the past and incorporating multimodal transportation features in their land use plans. Most cities and counties are altering past policies to some degree, and substantial numbers are adopting new language to describe those policies, with an increasing emphasis on the concept of a "livable community." The jurisdictions most likely to be moving away from past development policies are those with the greatest projected rates of growth and those with lower per capita incomes.

Planning officials also report that some of the same strategies their jurisdictions are using to plan for significant growth on vacant and underutilized land, for example, are generating the most local controversy. The least controversial (or most widely accepted) policy among California cities and counties appears to be planning for more transportation choices, including transit-supportive and bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, shopping areas, and employment centers.

Summary of Results

The tabulated survey results are presented as See Planning Director Survey Questionnaire with Tabulated Results. Of the state's 534 jurisdictions, 200 responses were received. This represented 37.5 percent of the total jurisdictions and 57.9 percent of the total population of the state (the unincorporated populations of counties were covered by county planning departments). Some respondents completed only some of the questions in the survey, so the totaled responses to individual questions frequently add up to less than 200.

The comments below are summarized from See Planning Director Survey Questionnaire with Tabulated Results.

Question #1: Study or action on 10 identified strategies?

From 107 to 143 of the survey respondents are currently either studying or implementing each of the 10 strategies. Few jurisdictions report that they have considered and rejected any of the identified strategies (no more than four for any one strategy). The strategies on the low end of this range were also those with the most jurisdictions reporting them as "not applicable." Between 51 and 86 jurisdictions report each of the strategies as either "applicable but not yet considered" or "under study."

Question #2: Level of controversy?

Levels of controversy are significantly different for the 10 strategies presented on See Smart Growth Strategies Included in the Planning Director Survey. The most controversial strategies (A, F, and G) involve infill and additional housing, with a similar number of respondents reporting them very controversial (score 4 or 5) as reporting them mildly controversial or not controversial (score 1 or 2). In the middle are measures involving more intensive use of downtown or transit station areas, mixed use, or open space protection (strategies B, C, and D); between two and four times as many respondents reported them mildly or not controversial as reported them very controversial. The least controversial strategies (E, H, I, and J) involve expanding transportation choices and such process strategies as neighboring jurisdiction coordination, partnerships, and developer certainty; between four and ten times as many respondents reported them mildly or not controversial as reported them very controversial.

Question #3: Narrative on nature of controversy.

Of 200 jurisdictions, 115 reported that at least one of the 10 smart growth strategies was causing significant controversy. Those 115 jurisdictions cited a total of 320 comments on controversies associated with specific strategies.

The local agency comments were aggregated into categories with similar concerns. They are identified in the left column of See Types of Local Controversy for Smart Growth Strategies. These concerns were expressed relative to the 10 strategies as identified by letter across the top of the table.

Types of Local Controversy for Smart Growth Strategies
	Smart Growth Strategies
Local Issue Causing Concern	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	Total
Property owner/developer objections	0	1	1	11	5	2	1	0	2	9	32
Voter/resident objections to growth/development/density	30	26	21	6	6	19	7	3	4	3	125
Voter/resident objections to low/moderate/affordable housing	1	1	2	0	1	31	36	1	0	0	73
Voter/resident concerns about increased traffic	14	4	2	1	2	2	1	4	0	0	30
Disputes with other governmental agencies	2	0	0	2	0	6	4	11	0	0	25
Disputes over environmentally sensitive/agricultural land/water supply	7	0	2	7	0	1	1	1	0	0	19
Miscellaneous	0	1	0	2	0	3	3	2	3	3	16
Total	54	33	28	29	14	64	52	22	9	15	320

Question #4: Level of modification following controversy?

Respondents were asked to rank the degree to which they modified adopted and/or implemented strategies as a result of controversy. They ranked the degree of modification made relative to the original proposal or concept on a scale of 1 (none) to 5 (major). Results indicated that the more controversial strategies were modified the most.

For the most controversial strategies identified in response to Question 2 (A, F, and G), an average of 19 percent of responding jurisdictions reported very significant modification (score 4 or 5). For the middle level of controversy (strategies B, C, and D), an average of 17 percent reported very significant modification. For the least controversial (strategies E, H, I, and J), an average of 8 percent reported very significant modification.

Question #5: Moving in particular directions?

Jurisdictions are moving in the direction of using land more intensively by a ratio of 153 to 35, with just two jurisdictions declaring this strategy not applicable.

Respondents report that their jurisdictions are moving toward restricting outward growth by a ratio of 85 to 43, with 55 reporting this strategy not applicable.

Respondents reporting that they are moving in the direction of incorporating multimodal transportation features in land use plans outnumbered those who are not using this strategy by 134 to 31, with 20 reporting this strategy not applicable.

Question #6: Moving in a significantly different direction in approach to planning?

Of 181 jurisdictions responding, 11 reported they intend to follow past policies, 97 projected moderate change (score 2 or 3), and 73 projected more significant change (score 4 or 5).

Question #7: Terminology used to describe planning philosophy?

Weighted results (3 points for first choice, 2 points for second choice, and 1 point for third choice) show that the term "livable community" is far ahead of other terms used by elected and appointed officials (211 points). The next most frequently cited term is "smart growth" (132 points), followed by "reliance on the private market" (106 points).

Of 170 respondents indicating a number one rank for a term listed in the questionnaire, 104 selected a "new" term, 41 selected a "traditional" term, and 25 selected "reliance on the private market."

"New" terms in order of preference (for number one rank) were: livable community (46); smart growth (24); transit-oriented development (8); new urbanism (7); sustainable development (7); regional planning (5); compact growth (5); and green city (2); (total 104).

"Traditional" terms in order of preference (for number one rank) were: controlled growth (21) and growth management (20) (total 41).

Analysis of Respondents

Before analyzing and interpreting the results of the survey, two questions about the 200 respondents were considered:

In what ways and to what extent were the 200 respondents similar to or different from the 534 jurisdictions to whom the survey was distributed?

To what extent might any differences identified be related to differences in growth management practices?

The survey methodology described above and in See Survey Methodology and Source Notes resulted in overrepresentation of larger jurisdictions. As a result of the greater attention to follow-up for larger jurisdictions and the generally larger planning staffs and budgets of those jurisdictions, the respondents represented 37.5 percent of the cities and counties but 57.9 percent of the total population of California.

Because larger jurisdictions generally have larger planning staffs and more elaborate growth management programs, the affirmative responses to questions about being engaged in particular planning practices may be somewhat greater than would be the case for all the cities and counties in California. Also, agencies more engaged in change might be more likely to respond to a survey about change than agencies that are less involved with change. The former agencies have more to say and are more motivated where issues related to change are involved. This, too, could have resulted in more affirmative responses about engagement in planning practices than would be the case for agencies not responding to the survey.

On a more analytical level, See Respondent Analysis Spreadsheets contains several tables showing data related to the two questions posed above. Using data available by county, the 534 jurisdictions were divided in quarters (approximate-to the nearest county) for each of five characteristics:

Percent of projected growth in population (2000 to 2020), from highest to lowest

Per capita income, from highest to lowest

Agricultural sales, from highest to lowest

Presidential vote (2000), from highest to lowest for George Bush

Percent of multiple family housing, from highest to lowest.

These five parameters where selected because professionals and policy makers often expect smart growth practices to be more prevalent in areas experiencing rapid growth, in more affluent areas, and in more densely developed areas; likewise, these practices are often expected to be less prevalent in more rural and politically conservative areas.

We then compared the percent of our 200 respondents in each approximate quarter to the exact percent of the 534 jurisdictions contained in each approximate quarter (remembering that the data was available by county and the jurisdictions were divided into quarters to the nearest county). While the county basis of our data is less than ideal, this procedure allowed us to compare in what ways and to what extent the 200 respondents were similar to or different from the 534 jurisdictions along these five parameters.

The results are summarized in See Comparison of All Jurisdictions and Jurisdictions Responding to Planning Director Survey by Five Data Categories (top two quarters compared to bottom two quarters) and presented in more detail in See Respondent Analysis Spreadsheets.

Comparison of All Jurisdictions and Jurisdictions Responding to Planning Director Survey by Five Data Categories
DATA CATEGORY	Jurisdictions in the top half (% of 534)	Responding jurisdictions in the top half (% of 200)	Jurisdictions in the bottom half (% of 534)	Responding jurisdictions in the bottom half (% of 200)
% 2000-2020 Growth (projected)	47.9	46.5	52.1	53.5
1998 Per Capita Income	54.3	62.5	45.7	37.5
2000 % Multiple-Family Housing	48.5	54.5	51.5	45.5
1997 Agricultural Sales	50.9	55.5	49.1	44.5
November 2000 vote for Bush	50.6	51.5	49.4	48.5

The 200 respondents differ from the top half of the 534 total as follows:

% Projected Growth -- respondents: 1.4% less projected growth

Per Capita Income -- respondents: 8.2% more per capita income

Agricultural Sales -- respondents: 4.6% more agricultural sales

Presidential Vote -- respondents: 0.9% more for President Bush

% Multiple-Family -- respondents: 6.0% more multiple-family housing

The respondent group includes more than its proportional share of higher income, higher multiple-family housing, and higher agricultural sales jurisdictions, and is close to representative for projected growth rate and political orientation.

The second question addressed was to what extent the differences identified between our 200 respondents and the total 534 jurisdictions might relate to differences in growth management practices. We did not attempt to evaluate this question in terms of the various particular practices, but considered it in terms of the overall proclivity to change as measured by responses to Question 6, which reads: "In general, on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 represents past policies and 5 represents moving in a significantly different direction, does your jurisdiction believe that in the next 20 years development policies and practices should follow past policies or move in a different direction?"

To do this, we calculated the average response to Question 6 for the top and bottom halves of the respondent jurisdictions arrayed by the five parameters described above; results are shown in See Comparison of Question 6 -- Average Ratings for California Jurisdictions Ranked by Five Data Categories. (For more detail, see See Respondent Analysis Spreadsheets.)

Comparison of Question 6 -- Average Ratings for California Jurisdictions
Ranked by Five Data Categories
DATA CATEGORY	Average rating by jurisdictions in top half of data category	Average rating by jurisdictions in bottom half of data category
% 2000-2020 Growth (projected)	3.44	3.06
1998 Per Capita Income	3.14	3.41
2000 % Multiple-Family Housing	3.24	3.23
1997 Agricultural Sales	3.25	3.23
November 2000 vote for Bush	3.26	3.21

Question 6 addresses the extent of anticipated change in planning policies. The average rating by the 200 jurisdictions that responded to the Planning Director survey was 3.23.

This data shows that responses vary significantly only for projected population growth and per capita income. Because our respondents are very much like the total 534 jurisdictions in terms of percent projected growth, we can hypothesize that only our respondents' somewhat higher per capita incomes might result in somewhat understating the overall proclivity to change.

Based on this analysis, we see little evidence that the respondents as a whole are very different from the total 534 jurisdictions in terms of their proclivity to change. Nevertheless, those more involved with change might respond to our survey more frequently, and larger jurisdictions have more planning resources and thus may be more involved with changes in growth management practices. Thus, it appears to be a plausible hypothesis that the jurisdictions not responding to our survey might be less involved with changing growth management practices. We have no empirical evidence to support or refute this hypothesis.

At the same time, the lack of significant differences in responses to Question 6 based on political orientation, agricultural sales, and multifamily housing provides evidence that the movement to change land use planning practices in California is not restricted to the more urban and more liberal areas but is widely distributed throughout the state.

Analysis of Results

The survey results support a picture of widespread and unfolding change in how California's cities and counties are approaching community planning and development. This change is either underway, expected, or planned in the great majority of jurisdictions that responded to the survey.

Change is not restricted to particular types of communities but is broadly distributed throughout California's cities and counties. Many of the responding communities are embracing terminology that reflects an effort to develop and articulate new development concepts and philosophies, rather than merely to accomplish incremental changes within existing concepts such as growth management or controlled growth.

Between 51 and 86 jurisdictions reported strategies as either "applicable but not yet considered" or "under study." These numbers, especially when combined with the low numbers having considered but rejected strategies, suggest that many more jurisdictions will be joining the ranks of those for whom strategies are being carried out. This, in turn, suggests that the number of jurisdictions experiencing controversy will increase over time.

In addition, the unfolding of strategies reported as "now being implemented" can be expected to result in more controversy as implementation progresses from project planning to project approval and from first projects to many projects in any given jurisdiction.

Given the population and economic growth projected for California in the coming decades, plus the relatively widespread expectation expressed in the survey responses that the intensity of land use will increase and that outward growth will be increasingly curtailed, the only possible conclusion is that growth will be forced into existing communities. The survey demonstrates that infill projects and increasing the intensity of development, particularly housing development, is the most controversial aspect of the effort to change how communities are planned and developed.

In terms of the relationship between the measures being carried out and the level of controversy, the three most controversial measures are being carried out by an average of 78 jurisdictions, the three in the middle by an average of 68, and the four least controversial by an average of 80. This generally supports the idea that the level of controversy is not a significant factor in determining the level of implementation. (However, it is a significant factor in the degree of modification of policies and practices, as noted on See Question #4: Level of modification following controversy?.)

A review of the comments included in responses to Question 3 identifies a number of major obstacles to incorporating smart growth planning concepts into local plans and implementing smart growth concepts.

Objections to increased density and providing multifamily and affordable housing focus on traffic, concern regarding changing community character, property values, fears of crime, and discomfort with new and different populations.

Development of vacant land can provoke fear that the character of the community will change.

In areas with lower property values and higher unemployment, mixed-use development is often cited as not being of interest to the development community.

There is support for more public parkland, but controversy over how to pay for acquisition and operation. This can lead to jurisdictions using slow and no-growth strategies to prevent development and preserve private land as a form of open space.

Planning for more transportation choices generates little controversy, but implementation, including providing higher-density housing close to transit stops, can generate the same opposition as affordable housing.

An obstacle to coordinating plans with neighboring communities appears to be prior, and often ongoing, jurisdictional problems over responsibility for growth and provision of urban services.

The comments also help to identify the advocates and opponents of smart growth.

Opponents of affordable housing and of focusing future development on vacant and underutilized land often are nearby residents and property owners.

Planning for more open space is sometimes opposed by agricultural interests, who fear lower property values; and developers, who fear having to contribute land.

The development community is the major proponent of more certainty in the development review process. At times, this includes opposition to local agency design review.

In some communities, supporters of downtown revitalization efforts can provide the basis of community support for acceptance of higher-density housing and new development.

Planning Director Interviews

Introduction

Between April 1 and May 23, 2002, telephone interviews were conducted with planning directors or senior-level planners from 30 different California localities. These interviews were designed to follow up with a selected number of professionals who completed the written questionnaires that were developed and distributed in this study. A complete summary of these interviews is included in See Summary of Interviews with Local Planning Officials.

Those interviewed represented communities from Northern and Southern California, the Central Valley, and the Central Coast. Attempts to interview planners from the northernmost portions of the state were unsuccessful. Those interviewed were from localities ranging in population from 4,450 (Del Mar) to 3,807,400 (Los Angeles), major old and new suburban employment centers, and slow- and fast-growing communities. An attempt was made to assure that the planners interviewed represented communities that reflect the economic and racial diversity of the state.

Each interviewee was asked to respond to a series of common questions (in italics below). Depending on responses, other areas of inquiry were undertaken to gain a greater understanding about specific local opportunities, obstacles, and practices, and to explore the current and potential future role of the state.

Questions Posed and Summarized Responses

To what extent are local planning agencies incorporating smart growth concepts into their planning strategies?

In accordance with state law, all local plans set forth policies for meeting future housing supply and affordability needs. Approximately half the cities contacted have adopted housing strategies that encourage higher-density development in and around downtowns as a means of accommodating a portion of these needed housing units. The three large central cities contacted (San Diego, Los Angeles, and Oakland) cite this as central to their smart growth strategies. Less than half of the communities have recently modified their general plan and zoning rules to either encourage, or mandate, mixed-income (inclusionary) housing.

The encouragement and provision of bike paths and walkways is cited as a smart growth strategy in less than half the localities, and those facilities, primarily, have a recreational focus. Folsom is pursuing street connectivity policies and development review approaches to encourage more transportation choices. Nearly all localities with transit stations have established policies or plans that call for more intensive development in close proximity to these stops.

Nearly all the suburban and rural cities, as well as both counties surveyed (Sonoma and Kern), have established significant open space protection programs, including urban growth boundaries and agricultural land preservation policies. The counties update their general plans in cooperation with the cities in the county and are focusing a great deal of attention on protecting agricultural land from future development.

Infill planning strategies that call for a significant amount of future development on vacant and underused land is, or has been, considered in more than half the localities. Carlsbad uses sophisticated level-of-service performance standards that tie into ways of using land more intensively to prevent sprawl. Bellflower is focusing its infill program on providing owners of oversized lots with opportunities to add additional units. Less than half the communities have had long-term programs aimed at raising residential densities.

Mixed use is a concept that is acceptable in nearly all the communities; however, only a few localities are exploring it, and it is not advocated consistently or strongly.

The City of San Diego is pursuing joint-use planning with the local school district. The belief is that this could lead to a better integration of school facilities into the neighborhood, and that it is a key feature of a communitywide smart growth strategy. Several California cities have contacted San Diego about how to do this.

A few localities have made a commitment to take the time to work with neighborhood groups on accommodating infill and transit-oriented development. They spend time with neighbors trying to identify specific concerns: Is it density, bulk, traffic? These localities have had significant success and believe that it has paid dividends.

What are the major obstacles to incorporation or implementation of smart growth planning concepts at the local level?

Neighborhood opposition to density is cited as a significant barrier to smart growth planning and implementation in nearly all localities, with traffic and change of community character mentioned as the underlying concern. The need for, or lack of, funding to provide adequate infrastructure also is an obstacle in nearly all localities. A few local planners say that the public's lack of understanding about the benefits of smart growth blocks its implementation.

The promotion of smart growth policies is a low priority in nearly all older inner suburbs contacted.

More than half of the localities believe that state restriction on local government funding sources has been a major cause of the fiscalization of land use. A few localities cite the lure of "big box" services and their sales tax revenue as a specific barrier to the implementation of smart growth objectives. In Palm Springs, the State of California's Department of Fish and Game restrictions on development is cited as having precluded a number of smart growth projects.

Less than half the respondents say that it is important to protect and enhance auto use and to meet a reasonable traffic level-of-service throughout the community. However, more than half cite inadequate parking in conjunction with infill policies and projects as an obstacle in both commercial and residential districts. The respondent from Mountain View notes that traffic level-of-service standards, which are established by the county congestion management agency, make it difficult to plan for and approve infill development. A few planners indicated that they did not see any obstacles to smart growth.

Developers in a few communities prefer to build lower-density single-family projects, even if they could build multifamily housing on a site. This resistance is attributed to uncertainty about multifamily marketability, developer comfort with a time-proven single-family detached product, and concern about the neighborhood opposition that frequently occurs in reaction to multifamily development.

Fremont's Planning Manager, Dan Marks says: "Planning is easy. Implementation is hard!" Amy Harbin, Principal Planner with the City of Baldwin Park, says: "Our community needs services, not more density."

To what extent are local planning agencies seeing smart growth concepts being implemented?

Nearly all communities note a growing public and private sector interest in multifamily development near regional transit stations and within downtowns. Less than half cite significant development of new housing within and around downtowns. However, major mixed-use infill communities are being planned for in and around downtown San Diego, and in Los Angeles.

Urban growth boundaries have been established and defended in more than half the suburban localities, and more than half of those localities have funded the acquisition of sensitive open space. Sonoma County has passed a "right-to-farm" ordinance that puts future home buyers on notice that they will need to put up with certain odors and noises associated with farming activities.

Approximately half the localities have increased the overall allowable density of development in the last couple of years, while only a few have established minimum density requirements and policies allowing for mixed use in their zoning provisions.

Localities as diverse as Lodi, San Diego, Sonoma County (Santa Rosa), Mountain View, and Carlsbad have established multimodal transportation centers.

"Density has been gradually increasing in Chico since the 1980's" says Kim Seidler, Planning Director. "We restricted the use of septic tanks, which prohibited leap-frog development," says Cheryl Casdorf, Senior Planner, Kern County.

Who are the advocates and the opponents of smart growth plans, and what are their perceived motivations?

Communities that have had the greatest success in pursuing smart growth on a comprehensive basis have strong advocates on the city council, planning commission, and staff. Localities that strongly support and pursue smart growth have had to commit significant time to working closely with neighborhood groups to identify and try to resolve specific concerns.

Some regional planning agencies (SANDAG and ABAG/MTC) are seen as major proponents of smart growth that back their commitment with planning grants and capital facilities for smart growth activities.

Opponents of smart growth plans are residents reluctant to see change, interested in protecting community character, and fearful about possible traffic impacts. Many of these groups want to see deficiencies in their neighborhoods corrected before allowing higher density.

A few respondents perceive state policies and practices as hindering smart growth by not providing supportive policies or funds, and often sending contradictory conservation and economic development messages.

What actions could the state take that would be effective in facilitating smart growth plans and be acceptable to the constituencies that would have implementation responsibilities?

Nearly all planning officials cite the inadequacy and uncertainty of local government funding, which serves to encourage land use planning and development decisions that are contrary to smart growth, as a shortcoming of the state. They believe that the state needs to fix local government funding problems that lead to the fiscalization of land use decision making.

"Stop `robbing' revenue from the city," says Douglas Evans, Director of Planning and Building, City of Palm Springs. Specific revenues cited were the property tax and vehicle license fee.

Suggestions for state actions include changing tax laws that discourage the approval of needed housing; tackling Proposition 13; and considering a split-roll proposal where nonresidential land uses would be taxed at a slightly higher rate, with the resulting new revenue targeted for community services, infrastructure, or affordable housing.

Nearly all support the state's enacting a simplified incentive or bonus program that would reward localities that are doing the "right thing." There is a unanimous feeling that infrastructure funding support would be first priority, with planning assistance second. A few feel that current state financial reward programs are so complicated and limited in amounts that it does not pay to go after them.

It is suggested that the state provide greater local flexibility regarding the use of the real estate transfer tax, establishing taxing districts for free transit, and so forth.

Nearly all planning officials think that the housing needs process should be thoroughly reevaluated and overhauled. It should be a more performance-based system that provides financial rewards to localities that accommodate regionally identified needs. A few argue that the housing need numbers are too high. Others note that the process does not push for balancing jobs and housing and leads to land use policies that can be contrary to smart growth, such as pressing for more housing without concern for the environmental consequences or the effect on community livability.

The respondent from Sonoma County suggests that the state prepare an overall land use plan or strategy that would focus on balancing jobs and housing, housing needs, and open space preservation. Such a plan could lead to incentivizing solutions to job-housing balance problems and providing funds to establish conservation easements to protect agricultural land and sensitive resources that are under development pressure. This respondent also suggests a longer term for Williamson Act contracts.

A Southern California planner suggested, "Perhaps the state should modify the General Plan law to require that cities address smart growth and sustainable development."

A handful of respondents suggest that state policies and programs need to be more internally consistent; an example of contradictory programs is environmental protection versus housing production.

One respondent suggests that the state undertake a comprehensive analysis to determine whether housing pays its own way, taking into consideration factors such as the effects on schools. Another suggests that the state put out guidelines that explain what smart growth is and how communities can promote it. Such a guidebook should stress the need for interjurisdictional coordination and problem solving.

Each interviewee was asked to express an opinion on a set of specific possible state actions. The suggestions and reactions are as follows:

Give priority for state funding to those communities who can demonstrate that they are implementing smart growth principles?

Overall, very positive support. Comments centered on what the principles (criteria for judging) would be, whether those communities that cannot do as much as others would be recognized, and if the amount of state funding would be significant enough to make a difference. There was some concern that older, slow-growing communities that greatly need infrastructure funds might be cut out in this process ("If it was a beauty contest" - Michael Johnson, Assistant Director of Planning Services, City of Folsom).

Focus state capital investments within designated growth area?

Responses similar to those shown above.

Establish a revolving loan fund that would be available to localities for developing specific plans?

Although no one opposes this idea, less than half strongly support a loan program and believe that the strings likely to be attached to it would limit its attractiveness. Nearly all support a forgivable loan or grant program for this purpose, particularly if it is targeted to needy communities.

Allow localities to exempt infill projects in designated areas from EIR preparation, provided they are consistent with a plan that has been prepared in the last 10 years?

Mixed reaction to this idea. Approximately half feel that current CEQA exemptions are adequate as is, do not want to avoid assessing infill projects that might be located on environmentally sensitive sites, and think that the issue is best decided at the local level. ("This would need to be carefully drafted to assure that bad projects aren't allowed to slip through the cracks" - Linda Niles, Planning Director, City of Del Mar.) A few think that raising the exemption threshold could help to stimulate desired development and would eliminate the ability of NIMBYs to delay good projects. A few respondents suggest that CEQA should center its focus on zoning or specific plan decisions, then exempt conforming projects from another round of CEQA review.

Change the method of sales tax distribution from point-of-sale to a population basis?

Although many think that the idea is conceptually sound, it did not get widespread support. A few respondents note that communities with many retail facilities have to absorb higher costs for maintaining supportive infrastructure. Nearly all say that their response would depend on data indicating if their community would be a winner or loser under such a change.

Allow transit-oriented development to be encouraged through tax-increment financing, similar to the approach used in redevelopment areas?

Nearly all respondents think that this is both a creative idea and potentially valuable in stimulating desired development. The greatest concern revolves around mitigating the financial impact that this would have on county services.

Establish a mandatory inclusionary housing requirement for housing projects larger than 20 units in localities with a vacancy rate below, for example, three percent?

More than half think that this should be left as a local decision. Others, particularly those from communities that already have such a program, think that a broad-scale application of the concept makes sense. Planners from lower-income communities with a good supply of affordable housing feel that it would have a negative impact and discourage needed new housing.

Focus state capital investments within designated growth area?

Responses similar to those shown above.

Key Points Raised

The following key points were determined from the interviews:

A few localities have made a commitment to take the time to work with neighborhood groups on accommodating infill and transit-oriented development. They spend time with neighbors trying to identify specific concerns. Those localities that have been responsive to neighborhood and community concerns believe that it has paid dividends.

Neighborhood opposition to density is cited as a significant barrier to smart growth planning and implementation in nearly all localities, with traffic and change of community character mentioned as the underlying concerns. The need for, or lack of, funding to provide adequate infrastructure also is an obstacle in nearly all localities.

Nearly all communities note a growing public and private sector interest in multifamily development near regional transit stations and within downtowns. Less than half cite significant development of new housing within and around downtowns; however, major mixed-use infill communities are being planned for in and around downtown San Diego, and in Los Angeles.

Urban growth boundaries have been established and defended in more than half the suburban localities and more than half of those localities have funded the acquisition of sensitive open space.

Nearly all planning officials cite the inadequacy and uncertainty of local government funding that serves to encourage land use planning and development decisions that are contrary to smart growth as a shortcoming of the state. They feel that the state should fix local government funding problems that lead to the fiscalization of land use decision making.

Although many planners indicated that their localities are pursuing smart growth, responses to in-depth questioning indicate that in some cases actual activities are extremely modest or even contrary to fundamental precepts of smart growth (low-density single-family and auto-oriented development).

Rapidly growing lower-income localities do not have the financial resources or trained staff to effectively plan for the anticipated growth.

Some respondents indicated that new revenue sources might be needed to support the infrastructure and services necessary to maintain and enhance the future quality of life in their communities, particularly in light of projected future growth. Two new specific revenue sources, identified by one of the respondents worthy of exploring, were securing voter approval for a split property tax roll that would allow assessing nonresidential property at a modestly higher rate, and allowing local governments to increase and use the real property transfer tax to provide needed infrastructure.

Some cities (most notably San Diego, Mountain View, and Chico) have worked with the neighborhood or community to accommodate this type of development while being responsive to resident concerns. Effectively implementing this approach seems to require a number of steps:

Let the community know that, as a matter of policy, the city is committed to exploring opportunities for infill and TOD without being detrimental to neighborhood and/or community livability.

City leadership (city council, planning commission, and staff) identifies areas within the community that would appear to have some feasibility and logic for infill or TOD.

Staff works with community in an open and collaborative process that identifies current deficiencies and concerns in the area--Is it traffic? Is it design, bulk, or height? Is it services such as libraries, parks, and recreation facilities?

The city develops a strategy that encourages infill or TOD while being responsive to community deficiencies and concerns. This would include planning policies and regulations as well as funding commitments.

Conclusions

A variety of conclusions appear warranted by the research.

There is a large and growing trend in California to restrict urban expansion and intensify land use within the existing urbanized areas.

This trend is not concentrated in particular types of jurisdictions (for example, urban or politically liberal), but extends throughout California to include rural, lower-income, and more conservative areas.

This trend is identified by its advocates and practitioners under a variety of labels -- livable communities, smart growth, new urbanism, sustainable development, and others. Advocates and practitioners include all sectors of society -- business, labor, minority, environmentalist, and others.

Addressing land use, transportation, and many other elements of growth requires sensitivity to regional differences. The challenges of addressing growth are likely to be especially difficult for the high-growth, low-income Inland Empire and San Joaquin Valley regions.

The highest levels of controversy related to the 10 land use strategies identified and evaluated by this research involve intensification of uses, particularly housing uses, within existing residential neighborhoods. (Nonresidential intensification can also provoke high levels of controversy, particularly when it results in significant traffic impacts.) Some of this opposition appears to be based on the real impacts of such development (for example, more traffic, stretching urban service facilities thinner to serve more people), but some appears to be based on fears that often have little relationship to real impacts (for example, lower property values and more crime).

Interviews identified a view that the target numbers provided to localities through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process are too high. They are seen as sometimes inconsistent with local infrastructure capacity, local fiscal resources, and community open space and environmental objectives. Moreover, there is an absence of rewards or benefits for communities that meet the RHNA targets.

Community and neighborhood opposition to land use intensification, particularly to higher levels of housing density and to affordable housing, is causing modification of plans and projects (sometimes minor, sometimes major).

The research suggests that controversies could intensify significantly in coming years. Both the survey and the in-depth interviews show that many jurisdictions are still studying or only beginning to implement new planning approaches. At the same time, growing restrictions on outward growth combined with the population and economic growth projected for California will force planners to attempt to situate large quantities of new development within existing communities. Some jurisdictions are establishing urban growth boundaries without also considering where and how projected household growth would be accommodated.

Jurisdictions that are most successful in implementing new planning approaches often employ several strategies:

Extensive neighborhood and community involvement from the first steps in the planning process, and genuine flexibility to plan and modify policies and projects to address the concerns expressed.

Attention to design detail to reduce real problems and increase real benefits of projects for surrounding neighborhoods.

Use of visualization techniques (such as photos of similar projects, drawings, computer-generated images, and models) in the community process so neighbors can see what projects will be like after construction, rather than neighbors visualizing their worst fears and assuming those fears will be the reality.

Planning projects such that project-generated revenues and general municipal revenues can be used to improve community facilities and services both within and around the projects. To the extent that this strategy is used to make projects into real improvements to the neighborhoods in which they occur, neighborhood concerns are easier to address and support is easier to generate.

The strategies identified in Number See Jurisdictions that are most successful in implementing new planning approaches often employ several strategies: require funding and skills that not all jurisdictions have. In smaller and less affluent areas, planning staffs may lack the skills, experience, or tools needed. Many jurisdictions lack the capital and/or operating funds needed to incorporate into projects the expanded and improved community facilities and services that would make intense infill projects a net asset for their communities.

If California's communities are going to accommodate a large percentage of projected growth within existing boundaries without encountering potentially debilitating opposition from residents, they will need to accomplish the following tasks:

Substantially enhance existing planning resources and skills.

Involve neighborhoods and communities in planning and shaping their own futures.

Provide the means and mechanisms to ensure that existing communities can accommodate growth in a way that represents a real, substantial, demonstrable net benefit to those communities.

Secure funding sources adequate to meet the new capital and operating needs engendered by these projects and also correct existing deficiencies in transportation, open space, and community and cultural facilities and services now existing in the surrounding neighborhoods. This will require both ensuring the stability of existing funding sources and securing new funding to meet growing needs.

Educate citizens about the public benefits of infill and redevelopment, and the tradeoffs involved between smart growth and sprawl.

Recommendations

Based on the research presented in this report, we recommend that the State of California consider the following measures:

Enhancing the planning capacities of local governments, including:

Providing grants to improve neighborhood and community participation in the planning process.

Establishing a skills training institute or institutes (perhaps as part of the state college or university regular or extension programs) to train planners, city managers, and other city officials, both elected and appointed, in collaborative planning skills and the use of related tools. It should promote the ability to deal with all stakeholders -- community members, property owners, developers, investors, and so on.

Preparing a guidebook to assist local governments in effectively planning and implementing smart growth.

Developing and providing local governments with a package of visualization tools (such as equipment and software, slides, digital images) so local planners can create visual depictions of proposed projects.

Targeting state funds and federal pass-through funds to communities that are engaged in smart growth projects. Funds for transportation, parks, wastewater and stormwater facilities, other infrastructure and utilities, schools, public health and safety, economic development, brownfield cleanup, toxics prevention and abatement, and related needs could be targeted preferentially into communities and neighborhoods that agree to accept smart growth developments that meet local and regional housing and transportation demand reduction needs. This targeting could be accomplished in part through partnerships with the metropolitan planning organizations. Targeting of state funds should recognize the critical needs of regions such as the San Joaquin Valley and the Inland Empire that have many lower-income jurisdictions projected to experience large amounts of new growth.

Enhancing the capacity of local governments that approve smart growth projects to secure the local taxes and fees needed to adequately provide for related needs, including existing deficiencies in neighborhoods expected to accommodate new projects. Measures identified by interviewees or in the literature and Web research process include the following:

Enhanced use of tax increment financing, for example, in proximity to major transit corridors and stations and related to facilities needed for transit-oriented development.

Enhanced use of local bonds.

Enabling legislation to encourage greater use of public/private funding arrangements.

Securing voter approval for a split tax roll that would allow assessing nonresidential property at a modestly higher rate.

Allowing local governments to increase the real property transfer tax and use it to provide needed infrastructure.

Improving the adequacy, security, and predictability of state funding for local government.

Structuring state general plan requirements, housing requirements, and funding assistance to reward localities that are addressing and accommodating the housing needs resulting from job growth in their jurisdictions.

Preparing guidelines to assist localities in streamlining CEQA procedures, while maintaining existing CEQA benefits; coordinating local land use plans with neighboring communities; and increasing the certainty in development review procedures.

Survey Methodology and Source Notes

Overview

The Mineta Transportation Institute conducted a mail survey of the 534 city and county planning directors in California in mid-February 2002. Follow-up e-mails were sent to the agencies not responding by the end of February. Extensive phone contact was made for jurisdictions where the mailed survey and/or the e-mail had been returned as undeliverable, and surveys were resent to those agencies by fax or e-mail.

A copy of the survey instrument (including the tabulated results) is presented as See Planning Director Survey Questionnaire with Tabulated Results. The survey was drafted, reviewed, and revised in consultation with the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San José State University. The strategies included in the survey were developed as part of the literature and Web research effort described in See Literature and Web Research.

From mid-March through early April, jurisdictions that had not responded were contacted by phone, fax, or e-mail. The most effort was expended on the largest jurisdictions; some effort was focused on jurisdictions of more than 20,000 in population; few jurisdictions smaller than 20,000 received further effort. After April 15, no additional written survey responses were accepted for inclusion in the analysis.

Identification of Planning Directors

The most recent mailing list of city and county planning directors was obtained from the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California League of Cities. The lists were reviewed and compared; the League's list was missing about 100 jurisdictions (some as notable as the City of San Diego). Although the OPR list appeared to be two years old, it listed all jurisdictions. A decision was made to use the OPR list and mailing labels were created.

Administration of the Survey

The questionnaire and cover letter were mailed to 476 cities and 58 counties in mid-February 2002. E-mail distribution lists were prepared using the e-mail addresses on the OPR list. Near the end of February, an e-mail reminder was sent to 414 agencies that had not responded and for which an e-mail address was available. The e-mail noted the earlier mailing and asked for a response if one had not yet been sent. A few of the paper mailings and about 20 percent of the e-mails were returned as undeliverable. The research team then telephoned jurisdictions from which a paper or e-mail message was returned. The purpose of the calls was to obtain the name of the planning director and the correct mailing address, telephone, fax number, and e-mail address. A copy of the questionnaire was then sent to jurisdictions where no one indicated having received the original mailing.

By mid-March, about 150 surveys had been returned from the original list of 534 agencies. As the completed questionnaires were received, they were tracked on a master list of California counties and cities. The master list included the estimated year 2000 population of each agency. From mid-March through early April, follow-up telephone calls were placed to the planning directors of cities with a population over 20,000 that had not yet responded. If the planning director was unavailable, an effort was made to talk to the director's secretary or administrative assistant. In many cases, another questionnaire was sent via fax or e-mail. Special attention was paid to jurisdictions with a population higher than 50,000, which often resulted in a third or fourth contact. A cut-off time was set for mid-April, to allow time to compile survey results. The final list of returned surveys included 10 counties and 190 cities, representing 37.4 percent of the surveyed jurisdictions. Using unincorporated population for the county responses, the responding communities have a combined July 2000 population of 19,981,090, 57.9 percent of the state's residents.

Sources of Data For Respondent Analysis

The responses to the questionnaire were analyzed by total jurisdictional responses within counties for five data categories. County-level analysis was used because the only city-level data available was year 2000 population. The five data categories are:

Population percent increase from 2000 to 2020, projected by the California Department of Finance

Per capita income according to the 1998 California Department of Finance statistics

Percent of multiple-family housing according to United State's Census 2000 statistics

Agricultural sales per county according to 1997 California Department of Agricultural statistics

November 2000 presidential election results according to California Secretary of State statistics.

The five categories were selected to obtain different groupings of California's counties based on levels of projected rate of growth; wealth and, by association, local resources; urbanization; nonurban economic production; and political orientation.

Local Smart Growth Activities in California

The goal of this work task is to develop, through a literature review, a master list of specific local land use and transportation actions generally associated with sustainable, smart, and livable growth management. The objective is to identify specific techniques used by local planning agencies to promote smart growth.

The primary research approach uses information drawn from the Web in April 2002, as well as from local government planning documents in academic and governmental libraries.

CITY AND COUNTY PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES

California cities and counties are primarily responsible for determining the intensity and geographic arrangement of land uses in communities. These responsibilities are carried out through making and implementing plans. Plan making involves the devising of general plans, specific plans, district or neighborhood plans, and other policy documents. Plan implementation involves carrying out those plans on a project-by-project basis with zoning decisions, permit approvals or denials, and other individual actions.

DEFINITIONS

The terms "smart growth," sustainable communities," and "livable communities" are often used interchangeably, and share many broad policies and practices. While this study focuses on smart growth, it is useful to understand how it is distinguished from these other planning concepts, since they do have differences.

Sustainable Communities

Sustainability and sustainable development are defined globally as meeting the needs of the present population without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Applying this idea to communities leads to the concept of sustainable communities -- "think globally, act locally."

The sustainable communities concept generally includes a tenet of sustainable development -- the idea of choosing a path that will serve economic, environmental, and social equity ends simultaneously. The idea embodies most, if not all, of the characteristics of livable communities, but also involves long-term and global goals and issues, such as slowing global warming.

Livable Communities

"Livability" generally refers to a range of things both local and immediate in nature. Livable communities are pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly; provide affordable housing; offer good access to neighborhood facilities and services; provide for easy mobility and multiple modes of transportation; promote neighborhood and community interaction through design; have lots of parks and open space; have good schools and libraries; have well-maintained streets, sidewalks, street trees, and landscaping; and have lower levels of congestion, air pollution, water pollution, noise, dust, litter, graffiti, crime, and related problems that reduce the quality of life -- or livability -- of an area.

While there can be conflicts between specific elements of these two concepts, most of the things that make a community more sustainable, help also to make it more livable, and most of the things that make it more livable, improve its sustainability.

Smart Growth

Smart growth involves thoughtful and deliberate decisions about where growth is channeled and how it is shaped to accomplish community goals. Smart growth steers development to areas with existing or planned infrastructure. It balances jobs, housing, and other development types, and it promotes affordable housing. Within developing areas, compact, mixed-use, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, and transit-oriented development is encouraged. Incentives are established to enhance investment, regulatory barriers are lowered, and state and local funding is used to improve infrastructure. Outward development is controlled, leapfrog development is prevented, and open space is protected both at the edges of and inside the area permitted for development. Specific local programs may be summed up as intended to make the community livable, sustainable, healthy, clean, or some other term.

Smart growth has little to do with the rate of growth. Sometimes smart growth is more beneficial if it happens sooner rather than later, faster rather than slower. Slow growth in itself does not avoid any growth-related problems, nor secure any of the positive benefits of smart growth.

Smart growth calls for building more hospitable, productive, and fiscally and environmentally responsible communities than have been developed through most of the past century. Smart growth approaches apply to development in newly developing greenfields; to infill and renewal of already urbanized infields in cities and suburbs; to growing rural villages; and to standalone new towns and resort communities. These strategies can guide the siting and design of both large and small projects; single-use and multi-use developments; and dense complexes as well as typical neighborhoods.

Smart growth envisions well-designed, multi-use communities that offer residents and workers a range of options for living, working, recreation, and travel. Growing in smart ways means developing compact neighborhoods and communities that reduce infrastructure costs and conserve open space and natural resources.

SMART GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS

Three core themes, or organizing concepts, characterize smart growth. The first is conserving resources--accommodating growth in greenfield edges of communities through contiguous, compact development that lowers costs for new infrastructure and reduces consumption of open space; restoring and recycling built-up areas already served by community infrastructure; and taking steps to conserve valued natural resources. The second theme is widening choices of development forms and functions to satisfy the needs of an increasingly diverse society and economy--expanding available options of home styles, types of neighbors and neighborhoods, work locations, travel modes, recreation, and cultural opportunities. The third theme is achieving these goals through inclusive, public/private, multijurisdictional processes that ensure that the interests of all the stakeholders in community development are heard, and that leverage collaborative relationships to achieve smart growth.

These ideas are expressed in various phrases and formulations, but usually incorporate the following elements or principles:

Promoting compact, mixed-use development

Conserving open space and natural features and qualities

Efficiently maintaining and expanding infrastructure systems

Encouraging infill, redevelopment, and adaptive reuse in existing built-up areas

Improving mobility through multimodal transportation.

Smart growth principles propose to bend the current course of development --for example, to make communities more compact, to conserve more open space, and to encourage more infill and redevelopment.

RECENT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STUDY RESULTS

League of California Cities

In 2001, the League of California Cities established a Smart Growth Subcommittee to discuss issues and challenges facing cities in managing conservation and development. The subcommittee was composed of local elected officials and staff from around the state. Local fiscal restructuring was recognized as a key ingredient in altering some of the problems that have resulted in existing land use patterns, and was identified as the highest priority of the League. However, the group recognized that many other aspects to problems associated with smart growth could be addressed in conjunction with fiscal reform.

To guide its efforts, the subcommittee developed the following 10 smart growth principles, which have been approved by the League's Board of Directors. They are posted on the League's Web site (www.cacities.org).

Well-Planned New Growth : Recognize and preserve open space, watersheds, environmental habitats, and agricultural lands, while accommodating new growth in compact forms in a manner that de-emphasizes automobile dependency, integrates the new growth into existing communities, creates a diversity of affordable housing near employment centers, and provides job opportunities for people of all ages and income levels.

Maximize Existing Infrastructure : Accommodate additional growth by first focusing on the use and reuse of existing urbanized lands supplied with infrastructure, with an emphasis on reinvesting in the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure.

Support Vibrant City Centers : Give preference to the redevelopment and reuse of city centers and existing transportation corridors by supporting and encouraging (1) mixed-use development; (2) housing opportunities for all income levels; (3) safe, reliable, and efficient multimodal transportation systems; (4) retaining existing businesses; and (5) promoting new business opportunities that produce quality local jobs.

Coordinated Planning for Regional Impacts : Coordinate planning with neighboring cities, counties, and other governmental entities so that there are agreed-upon regional strategies and policies for dealing with the regional impacts of growth on transportation, housing, schools, air, water, wastewater, solid waste, natural resources, agricultural lands, and open space.

Support High-Quality Education and School Facilities : Develop and maintain high-quality public education and neighborhood-accessible school facilities as a critical determinant in making communities attractive to families, maintaining a desirable and livable community, promoting lifelong learning opportunities, enhancing economic development, and providing a work force qualified to meet the full range of job skills required in the future economy.

Build Strong Communities: Support and embrace the development of strong families and socially and ethnically diverse communities by (1) working to provide a balance of jobs and housing within the community; (2) avoiding the displacement of existing residents; (3) reducing commute times; (4) promoting community involvement; (5) enhancing public safety; and (6) providing and supporting educational, mentoring, and recreational opportunities.

Emphasize Joint Use of Facilities : Emphasize the joint use of existing compatible public facilities operated by cities, schools, counties, and state agencies, and take advantage of opportunities to form partnerships with private businesses and nonprofit agencies to maximize the community benefit of existing public and private facilities.

Support Entrepreneurial/Creative Efforts : Support local economic development efforts and endeavors to create new products, services, and businesses that will expand the wealth and job opportunities for all social and economic levels.

Encourage Full Community Participation : Foster open and inclusive community dialogue and promote alliances and partnerships to meet community needs.

Establish a Secure Local Revenue Base : Support the establishment of a secure, balanced, and discretionary local revenue base necessary to provide the full range of needed services and quality land use decisions.

Based on these principles, the subcommittee will develop additional recommendations on suggested strategies and changes needed to implement these principles. Future recommendations by the subcommittee will focus on:

Strategies cities should implement themselves

Actions the League should take

Actions the legislature and state and federal governments should take

Recommendations for improving cooperation and coordination with other local and regional governmental entities.

The Association of Bay Area Governments

The Association of Bay Area Governments, in Making Better Communities by Linking Land Use and Transportation , identified five land use and transportation strategies and related best practices that local communities should consider in the pursuit of smart growth (including minimizing transportation-related energy consumption). The five strategies and their related best practices are listed below.

Compact and Balanced Communities

Establish urban growth boundaries around existing communities. Such action requires coordination with nearby jurisdictions and special districts. Whether future housing can be accommodated within the boundaries should be carefully considered.

Encourage the development of housing targeted to the incomes and needs of workers within the community. Achieving a better match between incomes and housing prices can reduce commute distances.

Identify transit corridors and activity centers and separate auto-dependent uses from them. Identifying transit corridors before development improves the chances that land uses can be served by transit when it becomes available.

Require specific plans in order to ensure coordinated planning for the development of activity centers. Cost recovery for this type of proactive planning is permitted under state law.

Greater Mix and Intensity of Land Uses

Increase the density of housing and employment, especially in activity centers. Moderate increases coupled with excellent design are most effective.

Increase the mix of uses within communities. This should include situating housing within walking distance of employment areas, allowing a broader range of uses within zoning districts, and encouraging more on-site services such as day care, dry cleaning, and cafes within employment centers and office parks.

Encourage infill and intensification. This should include second units in single-family zones, the sale of air rights over public lands, and the redevelopment of vacant and underutilized lands.

Direct civic uses to, and create public spaces in, community activity centers. Such civic uses can be a catalyst for private development.

Discourage auto-oriented uses in pedestrian- and transit-oriented areas.

Integrated Transportation Network

Plan and implement a dense, interconnected network of streets and pathways. Connect key core sites, have short regularly spaced blocks and frequent intersections, limit the use of cul-de-sacs, and provide direct bus access to potential riders and key sites. Include midblock pathways where blocks are long, and clear direct pedestrian paths through parking areas.

Keep vehicle speeds low, and improve safety through traffic-calming techniques, narrow vehicle ways, reduced turning radii and intersection width, and wider inside lanes for bicyclists.

Establish transit routes that are located to serve and link activity centers with transit priority, direct routing, and few turns.

Pedestrian-Friendly Development Standards

Orient buildings and entrances to the pedestrian network by encouraging visually interesting building facades, frequent building entrances, and front porches, and by reducing setbacks for commercial and residential buildings.

Situate parking areas to the rear or, if screened, to the side of buildings.

Limit driveways crossing pedestrian paths.

Provide street trees along roadways and through parking lots to help mark pedestrian paths.

Use on-street parking to help separate pedestrians from moving vehicles.

Provide adequate lighting and opportunities for visual surveillance.

Incentives to Reduce Driving

Include pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the design of new and reconstructed streets.

Limit the amount of parking allowed and encourage shared parking.

Reduce parking subsidies through cash-out programs, and increase parking fees.

Allow bicycles on buses and rail transit.

Require bicycle-friendly facilities at employment centers.

Establish shuttles to connect employment and shopping areas with fixed-rail transit stations.

State Office of Planning and Research Survey

The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is studying how California could address the projection that the state's population will expand by 12 million more residents by 2020. Part of this study included a series of roundtable meetings -- 17 were held in 2001 -- that involved hundreds of local elected and appointed officials, as well as leaders representing real estate, business, environmental, and ethnic organizations. Participants were asked to recommend specific actions that the state could take to accommodate projected growth effectively. After synthesizing the results of these roundtable meetings, OPR prepared and distributed a survey to all participants to measure their responses to 50 different suggestions brought up at the roundtable meetings, and sent the survey to all of those who attended the sessions. A complete copy of the survey is attached to this report.

Results were requested on the following 11 selected questions or ideas:

Category #1: Planning and Planning Assistance :

Idea 2: Give priority for state grant funding to those communities who can demonstrate that they are implementing key smart growth principles .

Strongly Support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose	Left Blank
34	23	8	6	7	1

Idea 6: Amend state statutes to require local jurisdictions to update their comprehensive general plans every 10 years.

Strongly Support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose	Left Blank
21	21	12	13	11	1

Idea 9: Establish a revolving loan fund for local jurisdictions to develop and adopt specific plans that developers may rely on for approval of a project application .

Strongly Support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose	Left Blank
13	30	16	12	2	5

Idea 10: Develop a comprehensive state plan for growth and development in California .

Strongly Support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose	Left Blank
33	20	11	5	7	3

Category #2: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

Idea 3: Prepare a new publication that identifies existing streamlining measures within CEQA and planning law .

Strongly Support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose	Left Blank
25	38	12	3	1	0

Category #3: Infrastructure and Finance:

Idea 6: Create a state "Works Progress Administration" to build homes, construct facilities, and provide neighborhood clean-up assistance .

Strongly Support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose	Left Blank
11	21	23	17	6	1

Idea 9: Provide greater funding for intelligent transportation systems .

Strongly Support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose	Left Blank
17	34	23	2	1	2

Category #4: Housing and Neighborhood Development:

Idea 1: Allow transit-oriented development (TOD) to be funded through tax-increment financing, by exempting TODs from meeting the physical and economic criteria of blight in order to qualify as redevelopment areas.

Strongly Support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose	Left Blank
17	35	14	11	2	1

Idea 2: Provide opportunities for greater utilization of Location Efficient Mortgages (LEMs) in California by having the California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) offer LEMs or provide down payment assistance to home buyers who use LEMs .

Strongly Support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose	Left Blank
11	33	27	3	1	4

Idea 4: Redirect a portion of California's federal discretionary transportation funds for matching grants for transit-related amenities to local governments that approve housing within a 1/4-mile radius of transit.

Strongly Support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose	Left Blank
16	34	19	6	3	1

Idea 5: Require school siting to be linked with local land use planning by amending the School Facilities Program to give priority funding to existing schools for modernization and to applicants whose school project sites are identified in their local general plans or zoning ordinances.

Strongly Support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose	Left Blank
30	28	13	6	1	1

RESEARCH FINDINGS: LOCAL POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

Building off the information presented above, a combined Web-based and governmental library survey was undertaken to identify specific local smart growth policies and implementation measures that are currently in place or are being considered by individual California cities and counties. The sources of this information include the LUPIN Web site, as well as adopted or proposed general and specific plans on file in the College of Environmental Design Library-University of California at Berkeley, and in the Association of Bay Area Governments-Metropolitan Transportation Commission Library at the MetroCenter in Oakland, California.

The following menu of policies and implementation measures identifies the array of actions that have either been adopted or considered at the local level in California. These actions have (with one exception) been organized around state-mandated local general plan element topics:

Land Use Element: Policies and Implementation Measures

Ensure that infrastructure efficiently serves future growth .

Designate service boundaries for extending infrastructure and discourage extension of public facilities beyond these boundaries.

Work with sponsors of regional projects and activities, such as sports, entertainment, and employment, to locate these activities in downtowns and areas well served by transit.

Locate schools, libraries, hospitals, and civic buildings near existing and planned transit stations, and within walking or biking distance of the communities they serve.

Establish joint-use public facilities, such as the sharing of recreational centers between schools and cities and placing libraries in local community service centers.

Direct future growth to vacant and underutilized land within existing urbanized areas.

Complete an inventory of vacant and underutilized land.

Identify sites with special redevelopment needs, such as abandoned or contaminated sites, and prioritize their redevelopment or clean-up.

Provide loan guarantees, letters of credit, and fee or tax waivers to developers of mixed-use and infill projects.

Create private-public partnerships in community revitalization efforts to improve the quality of life for new and existing residents and businesses in disadvantaged/existing communities.

Remove barriers to adaptive reuse, such as building codes that inhibit the redevelopment of older buildings.

Make the development process more efficient by providing certainty as to where new development will or will not occur.

Conduct front-end environmental clearance and minimize project-by-project reviews in areas designated for reuse.