27. Gang aft agley*
I was talking to Karl the planner the other day. He was paging through the text of SB 375 and AB 32 (two state laws you probably never heard of) and marking passages with a yellow highlighter. He also was absently pulling at his thinning hair."Geez," he says, "We're going to be busy around here."
"So, that's good," I reply with my ready optimism. "Planners don't do much in small towns that were built out a long time ago. In the 30 years I've been here, only two tracts of houses were built, and the last one was just 27 units."
"Good? Depends," Karl says with his usual pessimism. "This city was entirely built out, except for a few dozen empty acres, by 1954. No one knows just exactly what SB 375 will do in a built-out city like this one, except that SB 375 creates planning milestones that must be met in 2010 and then on into the future. The planning angle in SB 375 is tied to goals in AB 32 for reducing greenhouse gases."
"So, that's good," I say. "We're all green now."
"Depends," Karl says. "As a planning tool, SB 375 sharply redefines local land use authority. It exempts developers from having to pass some kinds of higher-density residential projects through the existing environmental review process. And, it exempts those projects from much of the local oversight that used to mean angry crowds at packed city council chambers. Basically, it takes much of the development approval process out of the hands of local government for specific kinds of development and tries to shield developers from NIMBYist neighborhood activists who never like most development anyway."
"So, that's good," I say. "We're all smart growth now."
"Depends," Karl says. "SB 375 streamlines the path for developers who want to build what is called higher-density, "?infill' housing within a half-mile of a route defined as a transit corridor. Planners at the regional level will do the defining. Of course, my idea of a transit corridor is a major highway that actually has usable transit running along it. I'm not so sure SB 375 is as scrupulous as I am. Also, SB 375 gives developers and housing advocates standing to sue if the city fails to allow an exempt project, placing the burden of proof on the city rather than the developer or the housing advocates. I'd call that a shift from the planning model that was initiated in the 1970s, when California adopted some of the toughest environmental regulations in the world."
"So, that's not good," I say, a little confused. "We're bettering the environment by letting some developers do an end run around some environmental review steps?"
"Depends," Karl says. "AB 375 gives the appointed members of the California Air Resources Board ultimate authority to impose greenhouse gas reduction goals for each of 18 regional planning organizations. The board is focused on meeting the targets mandated by SB 32. To meet reduction goals, each of the regional planning organizations must come up with a Sustainable Communities Strategy within the definitions of the Regional Transportation Plan. That's where higher-density development, public transit, and greenhouse gas reduction goals get linked. Goals for cities will be set through a Regional Targets Advisory Committee. The committee membership will be a mixed bag. There'll be a representative of the League of California Cities (to which most "? but not all "? cities belong). There'll be a representative from the California State Association of Counties and the metropolitan planning agencies. This committee also will have representatives from the state's big developers and from the major environmental advocacy organizations."
"So, appointed committees, not voters or city councils, will make these land use decisions," I say.
"That's the point," Karl says. "The development industry has a problem with its source of raw material "? dirt. There just isn't anywhere left to build in the Los Angeles metropolitan region. But development is the defining industry of Los Angeles and has been since the late 19th century. Developers develop, just like planners plan. And what's left to develop? What's left to plan? When there are no more green fields, what's left are your neighborhood and mine."
"Oh," I say. "But using public transit is good. I've been writing about that for years. And getting people out of their cars and on to the sidewalks of more urban, walkable neighborhoods is pretty much the only future that Los Angeles has. So why not give developers freedom to build and create greater residential density in existing neighborhoods?"
"Depends," Karl says, picking up his yellow highlighter.
The image on this page was taken by Flickr user Ronn ashore. It was used under a Creative Commons license.
*Often go awry. For context, see To a mouse by Robert Burns.
