A few weeks ago, I wrote about how it would be best to implement a Regional Planning Model. In this article, I will sketch out a general pattern of how this could be implemented. Luckily, in many jurisdictions, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) also functions as the Council of Governments (COG). This means there is an existing structure that can be built upon already touches many local jurisdictions.
I’ll start with an example from California. This is because California already has regional planning structures statewide (for this example, we are setting aside the concern of the strength of these current agencies). I’ll give two examples, an urban setting and rural setting.
Urban Example: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
ABAG is a fairly large COG, consisting of over 100 jurisdictions which represent more than 7 million individuals. Because it covers a number of major cities (San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, etc.), it will require a complex internal reorganization to handle its new powers (land use and permitting). To that end, it will require satellite offices, spread throughout the jurisdiction. However, instead of having 100 different planning offices, many can be combined to have more inspectors/technicians per office and provide greater customer service. For example, an office located in Pittsburg or Antioch could service both cities as well as Brentwood, Oakley, and other jurisdictions. Similarly, an office in San Mateo could administer the upper peninsula. Moving day to day permits online would be critical to making the permitting process more customer friendly as well.
One consideration in planning/building permitting is that these offices should have one zoning administrator who is either a lawyer with land use experience or credentialed planner. Codes should also remove the planning commission in favor of zoning administrator hearings. This does two things. First, it moves the onus of planning back into a set the rules than administer them. Instead of pushing variances and use permits to make projects “ad hoc” decisions, the structure is set up to accomplish the normative goal of making sure rules are clear and making the permitting process an administrative task rather than a political task. Second, it speeds up the process by providing capacity to handle variances and other applications. Instead of spending time trying to wrangle a commission that may meet biweekly or bimonthly, there is a slate of administrators handling a general code which allows for applications to move faster. Appeals could be handled by a rotating board of COG member elected officials, but the board should meet no more than monthly and should be directing staff to bring forward changes if they receive lots of variance appeals. The point should be to create an internal framework which moves current planning to an administrative task.
Under this framework, long range planning would take a larger role. Long Range planning should strive to build consistency between the high level long range vision plans and the governing community/area plans and zoning code. Similar to the census, the long-range planning groups should strive to develop plans for identified “communities of interest” and monitoring and update these plans with frequency. This will result in a high number of area/community plans, which means a large staff to monitor and cycle through updates. However, the key would be to ensure that consistent zoning and land use designations are use to create a recognizable framework. This would also make it easy to deal with turnover in staff positions as there are more staff who will be familiar with the zoning and land use plans. This means that institutional knowledge is more likely to pass on, avoid planners trying to work against/rework plans as they come on board.
Rural Example: Shasta County
Rural and exurban communities are usually have fewer incorporated communities and have most of their land use and permitting done at a County level. Depending on the size of the County, they can function as their own COG and simply take back permitting and land use authority. These rural areas would have fewer offices (most likely one or two) and would likely be less changed by these reforms. In some cases, especially tourist areas that cross multiple County lines, it might be beneficial to examine whether a new COG should be established in order to address specific better align the planning authority with employment and economic activity.
Questions About Implementation
What about areas without a COG?
There are some areas with a small population that cannot support these activities. In these cases, there are a couple of options. One option is to have the state’s office of planning or equivalent to provide COG services. This could however be an issue that then creates an under served agency located in the capitol with no connection to the community. An alternative is to try to group these communities together and sponsor a new agency. A final option would be to accept that these communities will function differently and maintain the status quo. Neither of these options are ideal but all address the issue in some way
What about Multi-State Jurisdictions?
In some cases, COGs cross state lines as a result of the location of the metropolitan area. There is some precedence for multi-state agencies, either created at the federal level or through state agreements. Ideally, these jurisdictions should be created through acts of both state legislatures, with strong articles of incorporation (perhaps building on a COG’s existing charter). Funding and differences between states and their priorities will always be a tricky issue – for examples, look at Washington, DC’s transit system or the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency – but setting a strong foundation for the agency to look at the region as opposed to state boundaries can alleviate these concerns.
Additional Considerations
There are additional considerations that regionalization should push for as part of building better functioning service delivery and the best community use of space. This includes pushing for the consolidation of utility districts and service providers such as sewer, water and power providers. Differences between impact fees and standards related to development work against creating regional standards to enable development.
Another consideration is transparency in rules, requirements, and fees. Currently, the development process is convoluted, project specific, and fees are the remit of the respective agencies. The point of regionalization would be to have staff tasked with wrangling this process into a clear process with certainty. This would require both staff and IT solutions to provide public facing documents and tools that answer likely questions.
Funding is another consideration. While property taxes could be a source of funding for these agencies, some funding should come from permitting (keeping in mind that permits should be priced as to not price out development). Financing will be COG-specific but considerations of diverse funding streams should be important as to avoid having to make large staffing changes due to slow downs in development or the wider economy.
Finally, a large portion of this set up would be to avoid the current issues that plague the development process. Chief among these is the unequal method that current planning processes involve the community. Since generally only local property owners are notified of property applications, the mostly likely to be aware and participate in local hearings are homeowners. This leads to jurisdictions planning for no development through planning, regardless of what the general plan states. While states have cracked down on this behavior, moving planning to a regional level still addresses local needs while removing the temptation of local jurisdictions to not plan and share the housing burden.
While this change can alleviate process issues, it does not change the need for strong outreach when planning. Considering all residents, making sure to reach those who might not be available at typical meeting hours, and being aware of the variety of needs has to be part of the organization’s approach to planning. Allowing organizational “capture” by groups interested in selective outcomes would simply repeat the issues currently in place. Although a geographically diverse organization should be more resilient to pressure from special interest groups, it still requires an organizational culture that is based on meeting the future needs of all residents.
Regional planning could have a bright future in the United States. Our existing MPOs/COGs could be leveraged – especially in Urban Areas – to provide services and better utilize our land. As with everything, the devil is in the details, but there are opportunities for states to empower more regional thinking about the key issues of today (transit, housing, climate change) through the assignment of land use and permitting authority.
