San Diego Dialogue's Smart Growth Report Helps Define the Issues

The following appeared in the January, 1999 issue of Metro Investment Report, the insiders' guide to public investment in the region. For subscriptions, back issues or reprints, go to www.ablinc.net/mir , or call (213) 629-9019.

Buzzwords like "Smart Growth" are often brandied about in planning and political circles where their definitions might sometimes be a little unclear. Thankfully San Diego Dialogue, a public-private organization advocating regional solutions to economic development issues in the San Diego area, included the following discussion of what Smart Growth really means in "Towards Smart Growth for San Diego County," a briefing paper prepared for a recent plenary session. The Planning Report is pleased to present the following excerpt from that report, which provides an excellent conceptual basis for future discussions of Smart Growth.

This [report] outlines many of the most frequently identified components of smart growth in theory and practice. These elements range from general design principles to specific policy alternatives. In each case, however, the components have been identified as having the potential to contribute to more compact and efficient urban development. ?

Transportation Policies

? Efforts to reform the way in which transportation spending affected the pattern of urban development began as early as the 1970's. However reform intensified in 1991, when the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) expanded the range of investments eligible for federal transportation funding to include transit and pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented projects. The legislation also included language to require urban areas receiving federal transportation funding to initiate planning processes that considered alternative transportation investments.

Proponents of smart growth suggest that the next step in this process should be a more concerted effort to fund transportation projects that maintain and reinvest in existing infrastructure, rather than focusing dollars on the expansion of new highways and supporting arterial systems. ?

Key to this process is responding to the preferences of persons commuting to and from work. The development of smart transportation systems must recognize what is known about commuting behavior and the "mix" and "mesh" of services necessary to encourage carpooling or reliance on public transit. For example, just increasing employment density does not necessarily increase the chance that individual employees will seek collective strategies to get to work. Rather, commuters must have easy access to complementary land-uses (e.g. retailing, banks, restaurants) near their place of employment, as well as a strong network of pedestrian circulation facilities that encourage walking between these points.

? An important related issue in this discussion is parking. Lack of parking is one of the most frequently cited reasons why consumers are reluctant to relocate to higher density communities. And parking (or lack thereof) plays a major role in contributing to traffic congestion. ?

? Intelligent transportation alternatives can only be understood when they are integrated with strategies to encourage more compact, walkable residential and mixed-use developments. When transportation planning is conducted in coordination with land-use decisions regarding housing, employment, shopping and other services, policy makers can better understand the tradeoffs between investing in new highways and supporting arterial roads and spending the same dollars on improving existing transportation infrastructure.

Housing

Higher density housing is widely recognized as being the key to smart growth. But it may also be the most difficult component to realize. Smart growth analysts stress that in order to encourage higher density housing, regions must recognize the difference in consumers' minds between the quality of the neighborhood and the size of the home. ? Higher density housing may be achieved if communities can replicate the factors that have made many low density subdivisions, particularly in master planned communities, so successful. A recent study by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University suggests that typical single family-house lots could be reduced in size by 20 to 25% before owners objected, provided the other qualities associated with their neighborhood were maintained.

To achieve higher density housing, smart growth theorists suggest that regions must initiate two simultaneous actions. First, regions should seek to encourage town-centered, pedestrian-friendly new development at the edge. This can be assisted through the creation of more extensive mixed-use components in new developments. ?

At the same time ? regions also need to create incentives to encourage significant residential infill development and redevelopment in existing urban areas. The key challenge on this front is to remove barriers to capturing a significant percentage of new development as infill. This challenge includes encouraging the revitalization of both central city communities and reversing the decline of inner suburbs. ?

A major challenge in encouraging infill development is reducing the cost of higher density housing in these areas, which typically reflects the time required to overcome community resistance. In many cases this cost justifies the decision by municipalities to extend infrastructure, rather than trying to make infill/development projects work. Much of these costs result from the fact that the merits of higher density projects are not well understood by the public.

An additional barrier ? is a lack of financing. Lenders are often unwilling to accept what they perceive to be a high level of risk for higher density and mixed-use projects. This is exacerbated by the lack of market research that demonstrates the feasibility of higher-density, smart growth development. One recent alternative designed to overcome this barrier is the location efficient mortgage, or LEM. A LEM enables borrowers to qualify for a larger mortgage if they commit to rely primarily or exclusively on public transit. ?

Efforts to increase housing density have been most successful when they have been directly linked to positive regional or statewide outcomes. For example, transparent processes to revise general and community plans can be assisted when increasing densities is directly tied to the preservation of open space. ?

Another approach that has shown significant promise is to reallocate land currently zoned for commercial purposes to residential use at specific levels of higher density. ?

Strengthening Central Cities

? Increasing housing densities at the regional level, and particularly increasing the percentage of development captured as infill or redevelopment, will be dependent on the strength and attractiveness of the central city. An important aspect of strengthening central cities is the need to deploy funding to support the development or revitalization of infrastructure. Many central city communities suffer from decades of neglect, and, as a result, they are often challenged to provide basic services at the same level as newer communities.

? A strong central city ? has the potential to reduce pressures for growth in greenfield areas, provided the central city is perceived by regional residents to be an attractive place to live. Unfortunately, however, many central cities suffer from capital flight, high crime and concentrations of poverty. The legacy of thirty years of urban revitalization efforts to redress these problems is decidedly mixed. Urban redevelopment has been extremely costly and the efforts have often provided little results. This is particularly true in inner city neighborhoods that are proximate to, but outside of, downtown areas. ?

[However,] central city communities have a series of assets that make them logical partners in smart growth. Fixed costs associated with the deployment of infrastructure have already been realized in these neighborhoods. Moreover, the characteristics of central city communities, which include frequent transit stops, pedestrian-friendly street design, compact and mixed land-uses, and a variety of urban amenities, make them strong candidates to capture new, higher density development. In some cases, such as the presence of telecommunications infrastructure, central city communities may actually possess competitive advantages in comparison with their suburban counterparts. ?

However, to effectively capture development in the central city, these communities must become healthy, desirable places to live in the minds of a broad cross-section of regional residents. This means certain quality of life measures must equal or exceed those in suburbs. These indicators include, but are not limited to, good public schools, high levels of public safety, quality housing with "suburban-style" amenities and a strong sense of place. ?

Efforts to mobilize additional resources to strengthen central city communities can take a variety of forms. One can begin by simply leveling the playing field, by requiring new development to provide for the full cost of extending infrastructure at the periphery of a metropolitan region. ?

Smart growth advocates suggest that these efforts should be complemented by reforms that make development in the central city easier. Permitting and approvals should be streamlined, and individual discretion in project approval must be minimized. Equally important, after a project is underway, developers need to be protected from frivolous environmental and construction defect litigation. In addition to these policy options, measures that are designed to build social capital and restore a sense of community should be part of the smart growth agenda.

?There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that regions that successfully invest in the central city tend to outperform regions that abandon the urban core. The author of one such study, Dr. Manuel Pastor of the University of California, Santa Cruz, has written, "The fates of the region and its low-income communities are inexplicably intertwined, which means that attempts to address poverty and neighborhood decline help all residents of the region. We are, after all, in the same boat-and if one end spring a leak, the whole vessel will eventually go down."

Regional Decision Making

Analysts have noted that there are limitations to what smart growth can achieve unless it is planned at a regional level. Without regional coordination in land-use planning and altering incentives to sprawl, development will leapfrog to competing jurisdictions. This only serves to exacerbate the problems, such as traffic congestion, that smart growth strategies attempt to address. ?

There are typically limited opportunities for local governments to think or act regionally. Local planning entities are often brought individual projects and are asked to vote up or down on the proposal. What is frequently missing is a regional perspective that allows leaders to say "not here, but there." Regional decision-making enables the examination of tradeoffs in land-use planning and allows political leaders to present these choices to their constituents. ?

? It is worth noting ? that to date most examples of regional cooperation focus on persuasion and consensus building ?. [But] only in regions with a strong existing tradition of regional government has regional coordination of development strategies been achieved through the reallocation of power.

Among the most notable examples of regional cooperation around land-use decisions are the following:

• Maryland has enacted a statewide smart growth plan that simultaneously encourages the location of development in existing urban areas and the preservation of open space. State capital investments are targeted to designated growth areas, while the state budget provides support for the acquisition of development rights for rural land. The targeted urban growth areas are designated in local plans throughout the state. ...
  
  
• Tennessee has recently enacted legislation that requires counties to define growth boundaries for all of their municipalities, in order to guide future annexations and incorporations. The state mandates that localities demonstrate how they will encourage compact and efficient development within their planned growth areas. ?
  
  
• New Jersey established a State Planning Commission that has created a statewide development and redevelopment plan. As part of the planning process, the Commission has generated a statewide map that designates development, redevelopment and conservation areas. Through a process of "cross-acceptance" the Commission then undertook an effort to ensure that the state-level plan matched the plans of local entities. This process has prompted new dialogue between state and local planning authorities and local officials. It has also forced counties to ensure that their plans align with those of the municipalities within their borders.
  
  
• Minneapolis/St. Paul has established a Metropolitan Council to plan infrastructure development at a regional level. This entity replaced the existing Council of Governments. A key act of the Council was to establish a metropolitan urban services area, which limited the point to which infrastructure could be extended in the metropolitan region. ? The work of the Council is supported by a tax-base sharing agreement that operates between the municipalities in the Twin Cities metropolitan region.
  
  
• Portland has one of the nation's oldest and best-known policy environments to encourage smart growth on a regional level. Supported by a state-level requirement that mandates comprehensive planning by all local governments, Portland established an urban growth boundary in 1979 that was designed to absorb all anticipated development for the subsequent 20 years. Within-the-boundary-development is supported by a Metropolitan Service District (METRO), which creates comprehensive policies for development densities and transportation standards for the region's three counties and 24 cities. Notably, it is the Metro that certifies whether the plans of local municipalities in the region are in compliance with its policies.
  
  
• Chicago has embraced smart growth through the work of an independent nonprofit agency, the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC). The MPC's Campaign for Sustainable Development has sought to promote regional cooperation on planning decisions and is pursuing an incentive-based strategy to encourage compact development. As a next step, a region-wide visioning process has recommended the creation of a Regional Coordinating Council, which would have the authority to finance compact development and redevelopment in existing communities.