Fixing the Planning Process
Over the past 40 years, the process to build things in California has become (without debate) the worst process in the entire country. This is largely due to the fact that process and not outcomes seem to be the major result of our entitlement process.
While well meaning, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has become a paper tiger. It puts projects through incredible hoops to get approved, but rarely is there follow up to ensure that the mitigations put in place are properly monitored. CEQA typically adds a year to the development process--and that is if no one litigates the process once it is completed--and the CEQA process provides plenty of opportunities to generate litigation over a project.
While many would argue that CEQA ensures that an open and public process is in place to disclose all potential impacts, it primarily becomes a venue for the proponent and the adjacent property owners to squabble endlessly.
In Australia, they've found a better way to reduce the squabbling. Andres Duany spoke about this recently at a conference in Sacramento discussing the development process. Urbanist Paul Shigley was at the presentation and reported about this recently in his blog:
Much of Duany's basic pitch is 20 years old: Replace Euclidian zoning with form-based codes. Build communities that are connected, compact, complete, complex and convivial. Plan for people, not cars. Avoid the monoculture of massive housing subdivisions at all cost. Some of these ideas have been around so long they have become conventional wisdom, if not conventional practice. What struck me Thursday, though, was a newer subject for Duany, and that’s process. He said the public review process is "old and sick," and must change.
“The public process is completely out of control. The public is completely berserk,” he opined.
Only a few weeks ago, I had a e-mail exchange with one of California’s leading land use lawyers in which both of us lamented Californians’ fixation with process. We don’t seem to give a damn about the final outcome as long as the process complies with all the rules. Of course, a key component of the process is public input. However, the vast majority of that input comes from vested interests – essentially, the developer and the people who live next to the proposed development site. Shouts of protest and sloganeering bombard the decision makers. No one speaks for the community as a whole.
How could things work better yet still be democratic? Duany described a process employed in Perth, Australia. When a development project is proposed, the city rounds up about 150 citizens, much like a jury pool. The city then asks this group for volunteers to participate in a review process. Maybe 50 people agree to volunteer and 30 stick out the whole process, which involves some education about land use planning and the project, a few charettes and a handful of public meetings. When it comes time for a decision on the project, a representative of the opponents gets to speak, as does a representative of the developer. But the “jury” called by the city testifies as to what it sees as best for the community as a whole. This is how Perth got a large community center located on the beach – ruining the view of wealthy coastal homeowners who naturally opposed such a project.
Would such a system be acceptable in California, the state where the term NIMBY was invented? It’s certainly worth a try. And here’s why: Most of what we need to do for the next generation – and maybe for much longer – will amount to retrofitting suburbia. That means tearing down and building lots of new stuff in people’s backyards, which means that virtually every project comes with a built in group of opponents. They can shout loud enough to block the new housing, additional job sites, transit stations, town squares, community centers and even the big box stores that could both benefit the community and help California meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. I’m not suggesting that every infill and redevelopment project is a good one. But could Perth’s process possibly result in a worse project than we would get now?
Click here for the entire post.
It is always refreshing to hear new ideas, particularly in planning, which has been trapped in quicksand in this state for over three decades.
While well meaning, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has become a paper tiger. It puts projects through incredible hoops to get approved, but rarely is there follow up to ensure that the mitigations put in place are properly monitored. CEQA typically adds a year to the development process--and that is if no one litigates the process once it is completed--and the CEQA process provides plenty of opportunities to generate litigation over a project.
While many would argue that CEQA ensures that an open and public process is in place to disclose all potential impacts, it primarily becomes a venue for the proponent and the adjacent property owners to squabble endlessly.
In Australia, they've found a better way to reduce the squabbling. Andres Duany spoke about this recently at a conference in Sacramento discussing the development process. Urbanist Paul Shigley was at the presentation and reported about this recently in his blog:
Much of Duany's basic pitch is 20 years old: Replace Euclidian zoning with form-based codes. Build communities that are connected, compact, complete, complex and convivial. Plan for people, not cars. Avoid the monoculture of massive housing subdivisions at all cost. Some of these ideas have been around so long they have become conventional wisdom, if not conventional practice. What struck me Thursday, though, was a newer subject for Duany, and that’s process. He said the public review process is "old and sick," and must change.
“The public process is completely out of control. The public is completely berserk,” he opined.
Only a few weeks ago, I had a e-mail exchange with one of California’s leading land use lawyers in which both of us lamented Californians’ fixation with process. We don’t seem to give a damn about the final outcome as long as the process complies with all the rules. Of course, a key component of the process is public input. However, the vast majority of that input comes from vested interests – essentially, the developer and the people who live next to the proposed development site. Shouts of protest and sloganeering bombard the decision makers. No one speaks for the community as a whole.
How could things work better yet still be democratic? Duany described a process employed in Perth, Australia. When a development project is proposed, the city rounds up about 150 citizens, much like a jury pool. The city then asks this group for volunteers to participate in a review process. Maybe 50 people agree to volunteer and 30 stick out the whole process, which involves some education about land use planning and the project, a few charettes and a handful of public meetings. When it comes time for a decision on the project, a representative of the opponents gets to speak, as does a representative of the developer. But the “jury” called by the city testifies as to what it sees as best for the community as a whole. This is how Perth got a large community center located on the beach – ruining the view of wealthy coastal homeowners who naturally opposed such a project.
Would such a system be acceptable in California, the state where the term NIMBY was invented? It’s certainly worth a try. And here’s why: Most of what we need to do for the next generation – and maybe for much longer – will amount to retrofitting suburbia. That means tearing down and building lots of new stuff in people’s backyards, which means that virtually every project comes with a built in group of opponents. They can shout loud enough to block the new housing, additional job sites, transit stations, town squares, community centers and even the big box stores that could both benefit the community and help California meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. I’m not suggesting that every infill and redevelopment project is a good one. But could Perth’s process possibly result in a worse project than we would get now?
Click here for the entire post.
It is always refreshing to hear new ideas, particularly in planning, which has been trapped in quicksand in this state for over three decades.
Labels: Urban Planning
posted by City Manager @ 4:26 AM
1 Comments:
At November 10, 2009 6:13 PM ,
noisemaker said...
{snip} ...process and not outcomes... {/snip}
"Due Process" in the courts has become unduly focused on process, according to my lawyer.
In order to "play it safe," every process becomes the resort of the tired, the lazy or the criminal, unless vigilantly guarded against. That vigilant and independent boldness often irritates the naysayers, including complacent councilmen, "Teflon" bureaucrats, and jaundiced city attorneys.
Post a Comment
<< Home