MTI REPORT 02-01
May 2003
Kenneth Schreiber, Principal Investigator
Gary Binger
Dennis Church
a publication of the
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business—BT550
San José State University
San Jose, CA 95192-0219
Created by Congress in 1991
Smart Growth Characteristics 9
Research Findings: Local Policies and Implementation
Measures 10
Land Use Element: Policies and Implementation Measures 10
Circulation Element: Policies and Implementation Measures 12
Housing Element: Policies and Implementation Measures 13
Social Equity and Workforce Development: Policies and Implementation Measures 14
Conservation/Open Space Element: Policies and Implementation Measures 15
Planning Strategies for the Survey of Planning Directors 16
Develop Efficient and Compact Communities 16
Promote Transportation and Housing Choices 16
Enhance Public/Private Processes and Interjurisdictional Cooperation 17
State Office of Planning and Research Survey 17
Public Policy Institute of California Opinion Research 18
Importance of Regional Differences 19
Survey of Planning Directors 23
Smart Growth Strategies Included in the Planning Director Survey 23
Planning Director Interviews 33
Questions Posed and Summarized Responses 33
APPENDIX A: Survey Methodology and Sources Notes 49
Identification of Planning Directors 49
Administration of the Survey 49
Sources of Data For Respondent Analysis 50
APPENDIX B: Local Smart Growth Activities in California 51
CITY AND COUNTY PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES 51
SMART GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS 53
RECENT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STUDY RESULTS 53
League of California Cities 53
The Association of Bay Area Governments 55
State Office of Planning and Research Survey 57
RESEARCH FINDINGS: LOCAL POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION
MEASURES 60
RECOMMENDED LOCAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK 66
APPENDIX C: Planning Director Survey Questionnaire With Tabulated Results 69
APPENDIX D: Respondent Analysis Spreadsheets 75
APPENDIX E: Summary of Interviews with Local Planning Officials
California Counties Compared 20
Types of Local Controversy for Smart Growth Strategies 26
Comparison of All Jurisdictions and Jurisdictions Responding to Planning Director
Survey by Five Data Categories 29
Comparison of Question 6 -- Average Ratings for California Jurisdictions Ranked by
Five Data Categories 30
Comparison of All Jurisdictions and Jurisdictions Responding to Planning Director
Survey by Five Data Categories 76
Comparison of Question 6 Average Rating for California Jurisdictions Ranked by
Five Data Categories 77
Analysis of California's Counties Ranked by Projected Percentage of Growth from
2000 to 2020 and Response to Planning Director Survey Question 6. 78
Analysis of California's Counties Ranked by Per Capita Income (1998) and Response to Planning Director Survey Question 6 81
Analysis of California's Counties Ranked by Percentage of Multiple-Family Housing and Response to Planning Director Survey Question 6. 84
Analysis of California's Counties Ranked by Agricultural Sales (1997) and Response to Planning Director Survey Question 6. 86
Analysis of California's Counties Ranked by Percentage of Vote for Bush in November
2000 Election and Response to Planning Director Survey Question 6. 89
Survey of Planning Directors 23
Planning Director Interviews 33
Pre-Publication Peer Review 167
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.