By James Lawlor

California: Model zoning ordinance. Gov. Gray Davis's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is pushing a bill, S.B. 1521, that would have OPR prepare by January 2004 a model zoning ordinance for use by cities and towns that would promote smart growth principles. The California APA chapter strongly supports the measure; predictably, the state's homebuilders and Realtors are strongly opposed. Also opposed the bill are the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities.

The bill directs OPR to consult with persons and organizations knowledgeable about planning, environmental protection and local government, and draft a model ordinance that will emphasize land-use policies that are "economically, socially and environmentally sustainable." The bill goes on to say the model ordinance should promote mixed uses, public transit, walkable neighborhoods, infill development, protection of open space and agricultural land, and transit oriented development. The ordinance also should offer a range of housing options, compact and efficient development, greater certainty in the permitting process, energy efficiency, community emergency preparedness, and adequate health and social services.

Local governments would be offered a substantial carrot to adopt the model ordinance or ones substantially similar to it, in the form of priority eligibility for competitive state planning grants, including infrastructure, commercial or industrial development, or other economic development grants. Although the governor's office insists adoption of the model ordinance is intended to be strictly voluntary, opponents of the legislation point out that with the competition among local governments for state aid so intense, cities and towns would have virtually no choice but to toe the line.

Pushing Smart Growth

Last year, the chapter proposed two measures, A.B. 657 and S.B. 741, that would require state and local governments to incorporate smart growth principles in their planning. Each bill passed its originating house, but was substantially amended in the other. A conference committee has been meeting since January in an effort to reconcile the differences. As originally drafted, A.B. 857 directed OPR to develop a state comprehensive plan by June 30, 2003, setting out a 20-year vision for the state based on specified goals. Every state agency and department would be required to cooperate in preparing and maintaining the plan. In addition, the plan would serve as policy guidance to regional agencies and local governments.

As amended in the senate, the bill declares it is the legislature's intent that OPR prepare a state comprehensive plan, with the goals of minimizing infrastructure costs and protecting open space and agricultural lands. The plan is to encourage compact development, promote infill development, promote adequate housing supply, help to attract and retain jobs, and reduce traffic congestion by minimizing demands on roads. The language relating to policy guidance for local and regional governments has been deleted.

S.B. 741 started out life as a bill relating to the budget for the Department of Corrections. The substitute language mandates a five-year state plan for funding infrastructure. The plan is to identify the state's needs and set out priorities and criteria for funding. The bill also would require an evaluation of the impact of new debt on the state's existing debt position and inclusion of recommended specific projects for funding.

Florida: Planning reform passes. In contrast to the 2001 session, when deep disagreements among interest groups resulted in no planning reform legislation passing, this year, the competing interest groups managed to bury the hatchet long enough to get compromise legislation enacted. S.B. 1906, passed March 22, is awaiting Gov. Jeb Bush's signature.

The 156-page bill represents a joint effort by the APA Florida Chapter, 1000 Friends of Florida, the Florida League of Cities, the Florida Association of Counties, and the Florida Homebuilders Association to craft a streamlined planning review process and encourage better cooperation among government units, as well as integrating school construction with the general planning process. While a detailed review of the bill's provisions would be impractical in this space, here are some of the high points:

• Plans must include a potable water element, including a 10-year work plan for building necessary water supply facilities. They must take into account appropriate regional water supply plans as well.
• Local governments intending to adopt a public educational facilities element in their plans must first execute an interlocal agreement with the school board. The provisions the agreement must contain are spelled out in some detail. They include sharing information regarding existing and planned school facilities; local government plans for development and redevelopment; joint participation in school closures, renovation of existing schools and selection of sites for new schools; consistent projections of population growth and student enrollment figures, and school board participation in plan amendments, rezoning and development approvals.
• The bill enacts a new judicial review and optional special master process for challenges to the consistency of a development order with the local comprehensive plan. This became a hot issue last year when the Florida Court of Appeal, in Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, ruled neighbors of a multifamily apartment project had legal standing to attack the project's plan approval on the ground it was inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan. The new process is prospective in application, however. The bill states clearly it is not intended to apply to Pinecrest Lakes. The procedure laid out in section 10 of S.B. 1906 would be the exclusive means of reviewing consistency challenges.
• Section 11 of the bill establishes a new local government comprehensive planning certification program, whereby governments that have an established record of effectively implementing and enforcing their comprehensive plans, a commitment to high-quality planning and a high level of technical expertise, would be allowed to plan with less state and regional oversight. They would be able to identify geographic areas for certification where they would commit to direct growth. The purpose of the certification area, the bill states, is to designate areas that are contiguous, compact and appropriate for urban growth and development within a 10-year time frame. Some of the objectives of the certification program are encouraging infill development and redevelopment; housing for low-income and elderly persons; effective intergovernmental coordination; preservation of open space; development of public transit and pedestrian accommodations, and mixed-use development.

Colorado: Election year inertia. As a session distinguished more by what was not done than what was accomplished winds down, it looked like no significant planning related laws will issue from the legislature. Three days after the senate enacted S.B. 102, which would have allowed school districts to impose impact fees on new development to build needed classrooms, a house committee tabled the bill indefinitely. A bill offered by Senate President Stan Matsunaka (D- Loveland), S.B. 110, would have authorized local governments to offer builders financial incentives, density bonuses and a streamlined permitting process in return for commitments to build more affordable housing or set aside more land for open space. But after passing the senate on a 22-12 vote late in February, it was killed in a house committee.

In late April, Sen. Ed Perlmutter (D-Jefferson County), sponsor of the school impact fee bill, introduced S.B. 223, an omnibus bill incorporating a number of smart growth concepts. The bill is similar to legislation Perlmutter advocated in the last legislative session, without success. Although the bill was reported out of committee favorably, the senate voted to delay a third reading. Considering how late in the session the bill was introduced and the evident hostility of the Republican-dominated house to planning legislation, its prospects seem dim. Republican Gov. Bill Owens's position on new planning legislation is that the laws enacted in the last session should be given some time to work before the legislature enacts new ones. Perlmutter's reaction was, "You've got to keep knocking on the door. Growth is still a huge issue on the minds of the people in the state of Colorado."