54.3 F
San Diego
Thursday, Mar 28, 2024
-Advertisement-

Commentary Ideas for making ‘smart growth’ planning smarter

If God had given the Israelites a committee instead of Moses, they’d still be in Egypt.

, President Ronald Reagan

At the 1998 Partners in Smart Growth Conference in Austin, Texas, the keynote speaker was Christine Todd Whitman who spoke about the success of her “Smart Growth” program initiated in New Jersey.

Whitman , a Republican recently named by President George W. Bush to be the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency , went on to elaborate on their approach which was an “incentive-based/voluntary” program crafted with the input of business leaders, environmentalists and developers.

Fast forward to Jan. 10, 2001 when the San Diego County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to send their general plan update “back to the drawing boards,” three years and one month to the day from when the plan update was authorized.

Many felt the original county plan needed updating due to such issues as traffic, employment sources, facilities adequacy, affordable housing and other “smart growth issues.” Amazingly, the maps presented to the board on Jan. 10 had significantly downzoned the area adjacent to the recently approved $370 million Oceanside-to-Escondido Railway, significantly downzoned several sewered areas along Interstate 15 and changed the vacant “high-tech” industrial property along I-15 north of Highway 76 to 40-acre luxury estate lots.


Not So Smart

Speaker after speaker from the environmental community and the development community alike testified that they were excluded from the decision-making process. As a result, both sides agreed that the proposed maps were not “smart” since they did not achieve the initial goals of encouraging development near existing urban areas and transportation corridors. The Building Industry Association labeled the maps “dumb growth” and an “exclusionary exercise by unqualified, unrepresentative interests.” Eric Bowlby, chairman of the Sierra Club, labeled the maps “ranchette sprawl.”

On Dec. 10, 1997, the Board authorized $3 million and three years to complete this program. Today, after an estimated $2.9 million in expenditures, it is clear that the plan lacks the proper direction. What the Board of Supervisors needs to do immediately is issue a “mission statement” to all participants in the plan update that clearly and succinctly describes the “common vision” of the plan, which is that it be “smart growth.” To do that, they need to thoroughly examine what is working in other areas of the country.

If they do their homework, the board will find an overwhelming majority of voters want a “smart growth” approach in their communities. A study commissioned by Smart Growth America estimates more than 80 percent of Americans favor a “smart growth” approach. An article on urban growth in Better Homes and Gardens this month stated the way we grow is a major concern of the voting public, second only to crime.


A Common Concern

This is no longer a concern of idealists, but a bi-partisan concern of such groups as the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, conservative Christine Todd Whitman and the National Association of Homebuilders. Mayor Kirk Watson of Austin, Texas, says the success in his city was due to the fact they defined a “common vision” which got environmentalists and developers working together toward a common goal.

There are dozens of good “smart growth” examples throughout the country, but my recommendation to the board would be to craft their “mission statement” into categories as follows:

SMART VISION , Which will clearly define the proposal, should be “smart” and “fair” and provide for all San Diego stakeholders including those who cannot find affordable housing or rentals. The plan should also define the areas where we want development to occur and create incentives for that to happen.

SMART COMMITTEE , The board should change the Interest Group Committee name to the Smart Committee. This will remind members that they need to focus on solutions rather than restrictions and pursue the Board vision rather than just their special interests.

SMART GROUPS , This will direct staff to prepare a resource base of organizations such as Smart Growth America, Partners in Smart Growth, the Local Government Commission, and the American Planning Association for information and tips on how to implement a “smart growth” program.

SMART EXAMPLES , This will direct staff to research the smart growth plans being implemented in 11 different states. They should specifically focus on the successful programs in New Jersey, Washington, Maryland, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Tennessee that were all identified by the American Planning Association as examples of successful “smart growth” programs.

SMART TRANSPORTATION , Will direct staff to work with Alan Hoffman and the regional transportation agencies to place housing in areas which will support the recently approved $7 billion mass-transportation program.

SMART JOBS , Will require staff to also work with Mr. Hoffman and San Diego businesses to determine the best locations to site industrial and commercial properties to help discourage long traffic commutes and help the proposed transportation plan work.

SMART DESIGN , Will direct staff to analyze what design criteria are successfully being used throughout the country to make neighborhoods more “livable.” Some examples are narrow “tree-lined” streets, walkable community layouts, open space and congregation areas.

SMART CODES , Taken from a concept successfully implemented in Maryland, we should examine changes to county ordinances that are excessive and contribute to “zoning sprawl” (the excessive consumption of land due to outdated government regulations). Some examples of these types of changes are Carlsbad’s program of “alternative urban road standards” which reduce urban runoff and city maintenance costs; San Francisco’s proposal to reduce parking regulations for “transit oriented developments”; and Maryland’s plan of streamlined approvals for “environmentally sensitive” projects.

SMART HOUSING , This will direct staff to investigate incentive programs for creating affordable housing and rental housing, and also density incentives for “transit oriented developments.”

SMART CONSERVATION , This directs staff to create incentives for developers to file conservation subdivisions as is being successfully implemented in such areas as Amherst, Mass. This type of development reserves 40 percent or more of the project area for natural open space or agricultural open space to be granted to private conservancies for stewardship.

SMART FARMING , Which will provide financial assistance and “farmland protection programs” which gives incentives to farmers to maintain their operations.

SMART FUNDING , Will direct our staff to investigate successful volunteer “transferred development rights” like the program in Maryland which permanently preserved 49,000 acres of sensitive land and farms in a two-year period. This was done by selling “development credits” to urban developers who in turn will be given increased density if they are “transit oriented” and meet criteria for “livability.”

This simple, easy to understand approach will constantly drive in the fact that our “common vision” for San Diego County is to “grow smart.” In the future, any general plan proposal that comes before the Board should include with it a statement of whether the recommendation is “smart” and whether it is “fair”.

With this approach, I believe the board can successfully lead the county into the 21st century and encourage “smart growth” in other incorporated urban areas by their example.

Piro is a former county planning commissioner and the owner of his own civil engineering and land planning business in San Marcos.

-Advertisement-

Featured Articles

-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-

Related Articles

-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-