SACRAMENTO : Legislature Seeks a Role in Local Development

California’s burgeoning population, an uptick in the number of local growth control measures, increased auto congestion and spiraling housing costs are forcing state lawmakers to re-examine what role the state should play in second-guessing local decisions about growth.

Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) is the most recent entrant in the growth fracas with a proposal for a radical restructuring of how development is regulated in California. Assembly Bill 4242 would weaken local control over development and set up a regional mechanism for approving controversial projects.

The boldness of Brown’s legislative scheme shows that lawmakers are beginning to recognize that the uneven pace of growth from one community to the next creates problems for the entire state.

While some municipalities are begging for more development, communities next door are enacting moratoriums on construction. This hodgepodge approach to land-use decisions contributes to longer commutes and poor air quality, and it causes open space and farmland to be gobbled up in the process.

For years, talk about the need for tougher growth management rules has spewed out of the Legislature. But plans for regulating growth were often buried in state research reports.

For example, a recent study by the Assembly Office of Research stated that, “local government’s failure to adjust to the reality of growth results in the unplanned chaos of our communities.”

Dubbed “Getting Ahead of the Growth Curve,” the study recommends a statewide policy on growth with an elaborate system for better managing future development.

Until now, however, such proposals never found their way into serious legislative measures. This changed with the introduction of Brown’s growth management proposal. Other bills have had the same goals but none have been so far-reaching.

The San Francisco Democrat’s blueprint for statewide growth management calls for a reorganization of local and regional government agencies that currently make decisions about the location and quality of development.

The measure would create seven regional “development and infrastructure” agencies. With elected and appointed members, these super-government bodies would have the final authority over large-scale development decisions.

The bill is a sign that policy makers are beginning to worry that development is being channeled into areas that don’t have the roads, water or sewer capacity to handle the growth.

Lawmakers are also concerned that necessary but unpopular land uses are being turned back by local officials. Under the Brown proposal, the regional agencies could force communities to accept undesirable projects such as landfills, prisons and low-income housing.

Although Brown insists otherwise, his bill isn’t expected to receive approval this year. The California League of Cities quickly lined up to criticize the bill, and no single constituency group has come forward to rally for its passage.

But “the climate for change is building,” said Steve Sanders, senior consultant to the Senate Office of Research. Legislative leaders are beginning to realize that they may be judged on how they grapple with the growth issue, he said.

The last major legislative initiative that was aimed at controlling growth came almost 20 years ago with the adoption of the California Coastal Act. This measure limited development along the coast and is credited with opening up public access to the beaches.

Today’s debate isn’t confined to the coast, but the desire to do something about growth is just as strong as it was in the early 1970s.

In the last several years, most California communities have been embroiled in a fight over development. Wrangling about increased traffic, lost open space and the lack of affordable housing is common in urban, suburban and rural communities throughout the state.

The debate isn’t confined to a few developers and environmentalists bickering over where to build another condominium project. Indeed, the growth issue has become a mainstream political issue, and the friction is forcing the California Legislature to grapple with the quandary.

Several state lawmakers are looking north to Oregon as a model. Unlike California where growth decisions are largely made at the county or municipal level, Oregon has one of the most comprehensive statewide systems for managing growth.

In 1971, the Oregon state legislature created an urban growth management plan for the metropolitan Portland area, where more than 80% of the state’s population lives. Under this plan, an urban growth boundary was created, which covers three counties, 24 cites and more than 60 special service districts. Development is not permitted outside the urban limit line.

With an elected board but no taxing authority, the Portland Metropolitan Service District manages the growth plan and has the legal muscle to approve and veto local building plans.

“They have the power to shut off state funds and cut off building permits--so, yes, it does have real power,” said Robert Liberty of 1000 Friends of Oregon, the citizen group that serves as a watchdog for the state planning program.

Although it was hotly debated in the 1970s, the plan has widespread support today.

“Home builders are some of our strongest supporters,” said Henry Richmond of 1000 Friends of Oregon. He points to an attempt to repeal the plan a few years ago in which “developers were the biggest financial backers in the campaign to preserve growth management.”

For real estate developers, the Oregon plan offers certainty. “They know where they can build and where they can’t,” Liberty said.

Moreover, within the urban limit line, builders are encouraged to construct high-density housing projects, and local moratoriums that temporarily halt development are illegal.

In California, high densities are frowned upon and communities frequently put a stop to development altogether.

A sweeping growth management bill isn’t likely to sail through the California Legislature this year, but interest in the growth issue in Sacramento is mounting. Most experts expect a major package of bills to be approved in the next session of the Legislature.

Leadership from the new governor should help. While Gov. Deukmejian virtually ignored the growth quandary, both Feinstein and Wilson have pledged to address the issue, and they each have experience grappling with the problem when they served as mayors.