The American Planning Association held the 2007 National Planning Conference in Philadelphia from April 14 - April 18. Summaries of selected sessions attended by County Planning staff are available below.

This session gave in-depth, technical advice for updating an ordinance or creating a new ordinance: where to start, how to organize, identifying content, and what to include. Detailed how-to’s on “code diagnostics,” issue identification, defining problems, goal-setting, organizing, time management, staffing, contents, research, writing, word choice, interpretation, design standards, and using graphics. Tips on making the code readable, comprehensible, enforceable through clear standards written in “plain English.” Know your audience, understand what problem you’re trying to solve, be clear about what you’re trying to do, and remember that not all problems have regulatory solutions, and not all regulatory solutions are worth the effort. Also reviewed the types of codes – Euclidean, performance zoning, form based, new urbanist, etc., and which codes to use to fit various needs. Further discussion on legal challenges – vagueness/overbreadth, interpretation, constitutionality, consistency with adopted plans and statutory requirements – and public involvement.

Explained the format, content, and topic areas of the AICP examination, and provided resources and tips to help prepare for the exam.

Speakers discussed the backlash from the Kelo case and the impacts of Measure 37 in Oregon. Reviewed Measure 37 and its impacts – millions of dollars in claims, no funding to pay them, regulations forced to be waived. Regulatory takings campaigns similar to Measure 37 are appearing in other states; measures were on the ballot in several states in 2006. Some elements of these campaigns include: voter confusion, very weak party correlation, no strong issue identification (i.e. environmentalists didn’t come out one way or the other), driven by out-of-state interests. Reviewed effective strategies and messages for dealing with these campaigns. Messages that worked included: the measure is deceptive, extreme, and flawed; is costly to taxpayers; allows irresponsible development; is driven by out-of-state interests; will result in many unintended consequences. Strategies: accept voter confusion, focus on key messages, frame the issue – as fairness and taxpayer issue, build a broad coalition (organized labor, farmers, etc.), use the Oregon example, do aggressive outreach, acknowledge eminent domain concerns and support good reform. Don’t rely on support for existing regulations. American Planning Association is working on reform legislation to address property rights concerns without resorting to these measures.

Discussion on how planning can deal with sustainability issues through innovative development codes. Development codes/ordinances can address issues such as climate change, energy, food supply, public health, water conservation, safety, and habitat protection through the removal of obstacles (i.e., eliminating bans on windmills and solar panels), creating incentives (i.e., density bonuses for green roofs), and regulations (mandatory water conservation landscaping). Speakers from Boulder, CO and Aspen, CO explained how their ordinances addressed energy conservation, food production, affordable housing, water conservation, and greenhouse gases. Measures included designing sites to maximize opportunities for solar energy; permitting compact wind turbines in residential districts; preservation of areas with high wind energy potential; permitting solar collectors as a by-right accessory use; requiring commercial developments/employers to provide housing for additional employees; restricting tree removal; requiring green roofs; and creating incentives for sustainable development, i.e. over-the-counter permitting and fee waivers for certain features.

Impact fees require developers to pay for some of the costs of their development, such as road improvements, additional services, sewer, etc, but are only allowed in some states. When impact fees are not allowed, some jurisdictions have similar revenue options, such as voluntary mitigation payments, annexation agreements, and developer exactions. Voluntary mitigation payments – primarily used in North Carolina – are one way to partially recover the costs of growth. These are consent agreements that add capacity to existing facilities to cover a new development’s “fair share” of infrastructure cost. Speakers discussed the reasons for using voluntary mitigation and its advantages and disadvantages. Reviewed the methodologies that can be used, including various formulas to estimate infrastructure demands, number of students generated, level of service impacts, etc. in relation to costs to service providers and revenue generated from the development.

International events and domestic pressures have forced Cuba to make sustainable planning and agricultural choices. After the Cuban revolution, the country became dependent on the Soviet Union/Eastern Europe for energy, food, etc. and switched to government-run industrial agriculture to produce its main export, sugar, while neglecting domestic food production. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba was faced with food, energy, transportation, and housing shortages, as well as infrastructure issues, and was forced to shift to a more sustainable, self-reliant model. This has forced dependence on bicycles, creative forms of collecting and treating water, building reuse, and sustainable, worker-focused, organic agriculture. Also, in an attempt to remedy the neglect of urban areas that occurred after the revolution shifted resources to the countryside, the state began decentralized planning efforts to address issues in urban neighborhoods. “Neighborhood transformation groups” – including architects and planners - were sent into neighborhoods to do inventory and deliver services to neighborhoods at the appropriate scale. These transformation groups focused on citizen participation and empowerment, making efforts to support the identity of the neighborhoods that were already there, strengthening ties between neighbors, and minimizing displacement, while making it clear that the government would not solve all the problems.  

Discussed the property rights debate over Napa County’s successful agricultural preservation efforts, its unsuccessful efforts to implement stream setbacks, and current watershed modeling efforts in support of conservation strategies for the general plan update. Napa County, CA is renowned for its vineyards. To preserve their economic viability, Napa County instituted the first agricultural preserve measures in the US in 1968, beginning with a 20-acre minimum lot size; the minimum later increased to 40 acres and the amount of land included in the preserve increased as well. Also adopted a slow growth initiative which locked population growth to 1%, and a 2020 Vision which prevents change in intensity, zoning, or parcel size in the agricultural district without a vote of the people. These measures were all challenged by property rights groups and were all reaffirmed by the courts or voters. Efforts to adopt watershed protection measures were unsuccessful after opposition by property rights groups – afterwards, instead of the regulatory measures, Napa County created the successful Watershed Information Center and Conservancy with a large board representing a cross-section of the community, to guide research and restoration projects. Property rights debate also resulted in a local Measure 37-type ballot measure that failed after extensive, objective analysis by the County. “Rigorous analysis” is credited with defending the County’s conservation efforts as a whole: show the need for and effectiveness of the programs to gain public support in the face of organized opposition.